Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Fewer People Mean Less Government Cost: Planned Parenthood President
LifeSiteNews ^ | 10/26/10 | Kathleen Gilbert

Posted on 10/26/2010 4:13:32 PM PDT by wagglebee

WASHINGTON, D.C., October 26, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The president of Planned Parenthood has argued that the new federal health care reform ought to consider funding all contraception with taxpayer dollars because preventing new children leads to less government expense.

In an appearance on the Bill Press radio show, PP president Cecile Richards said that, although the costs of the federal health care bill already promise to skyrocket out of control, federal officials ought to consider covering birth control a priority because of the "cost savings" benefit of fewer children being born.

"I think it's important, Bill, to understand that unlike some other issues of cost, birth control is one of those issues that actually saves the government money," said Richards. "So an investment in covering birth control actually in the long run is a huge cost savings because women don't have children that they weren't planning on having and all the sort of attendant cost for unplanned pregnancy.

"So we actually feel that covering birth control is not only it's the right thing to do for women, it's good for women it's good for their health care, but it's frankly good public policy."

The remarks reflect sentiments aired by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi when prompted to justify the contraceptive funding in last year's massive stimulus bill. The speaker explained that preventing births "will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government."

Richards also touted artificial birth control as "the most normative medical care that exists in America," calling the push for its universal availability a "no-brainer."

Planned Parenthood and the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recently launched a massive campaign, called "Birth Control Matters," to pressure the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to ensure that all prescription contraception is completely covered by health insurers under "preventive care."

Rita Diller, the national director of Stop Planned Parenthood International, indicated that the true reason for the abortion giant's campaign was not expanded contraceptive availability, but an expanded profit margin.

"In reality, birth control is already widely available to women and even young girls, on a sliding scale basis, so that those who cannot afford the dangerous steroidal pills can receive them at little or no cost," Diller told LifeSiteNews.com. Therefore, she said, covering all birth control as preventive care "will not increase its availability, but will dramatically increase Planned Parenthood’s profit margin, by not only requiring new private health plans to cover 100% of the cost, but also requiring state Medicaid programs to pay 100% of the cost for all Medicaid recipients."

Diller noted that, according to the testimony of former Planned Parenthood chief financial officer P. Victor Gonzalez, the organization purchases contraceptives "at rock bottom prices and resells it at up to 12 times its acquisition cost."

"If Medicaid is required to pay 100 percent of the price Planned Parenthood charges for prescription birth control, it will be laughing all the way to the bank, at our expense," she said.

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has challenged Planned Parenthood's campaign, arguing that contraception and sterilization "prevent not a disease condition, but the healthy condition known as fertility." In addition, the bishops pointed out the possibly severe repercussions such a mandate would pose for conscientious health care providers, especially in the case of abortifacient "contraceptive" drugs such as ella and other emergency contraception.


See related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:

Planned Parenthood Pushes for Universal Birth Control as Coalition Fights Abortifacient Ella 'Contraceptive'
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/oct/10101206.html

USCCB Officials Urge HHS Not to Require Coverage of Contraception, Sterilization
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/sep/10092004.html



TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: abortion; eugenics; moralabsolutes; prolife
In an appearance on the Bill Press radio show, PP president Cecile Richards said that, although the costs of the federal health care bill already promise to skyrocket out of control, federal officials ought to consider covering birth control a priority because of the "cost savings" benefit of fewer children being born.

How long before she openly advocates just killing the "worthless eaters"?

1 posted on 10/26/2010 4:13:36 PM PDT by wagglebee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: cgk; Coleus; cpforlife.org; narses; Salvation; 8mmMauser
Pro-Life Ping
2 posted on 10/26/2010 4:14:21 PM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 185JHP; 230FMJ; Albion Wilde; Aleighanne; Alexander Rubin; Amos the Prophet; ...
Moral Absolutes Ping!

Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.

FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]


3 posted on 10/26/2010 4:15:08 PM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

This is incredibly disturbing.


4 posted on 10/26/2010 4:18:55 PM PDT by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
Cecile Richards tells us that fewer people is a better condition for the rest of us.

I strongly encourage her to show us the way by jumping from a tall building or something.

We can judge if our lives have improved through her death (and I'd almost bet they will ~ in this one special case).

5 posted on 10/26/2010 4:20:08 PM PDT by muawiyah ("GIT OUT THE WAY" The Republicans are coming)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
Lets just take this to the extreme. If society benefits from fewer people, wouldn't it benefit even more if there were 0 people... oh wait, that won't work . Obviously society benefits from productive citizens. Being productive is the key... not killing off the unwanted.
6 posted on 10/26/2010 4:20:18 PM PDT by flipper999 (tag you are it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

FEWER PEOPLE IN THE GOV'T MEANS LESS GOV'T COST!!!


7 posted on 10/26/2010 4:24:33 PM PDT by CommieCutter (A Centrist Democrat is now defined as: between Socialism and Communism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

OMG!


8 posted on 10/26/2010 4:28:06 PM PDT by tiki
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

I’m sure she wants to deport all the Illegals????


9 posted on 10/26/2010 4:28:11 PM PDT by jacob allen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
I would argue the opposite. More people in a 1st world, modern environment means more productivity, more consumers of goods, more wage earners, more tax revenues and a benefit to us all. With new technologies we pollute less, can have a smaller environmental footprint and “be fruitful and multiply” as the Good Lord instructed us.

For years the God/People hating elitists have said we have to have less people (always US, never THEM) and man is a scourge on the planet.

God made the Earth for us and us for the Earth. He gave us a very intelligent mind to be creative and not wasteful. If only our souls were as good!

10 posted on 10/26/2010 4:29:26 PM PDT by Alas Babylon! (Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must-like men-undergo the fatigue of supporting it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Human extinction would also lower government costs.

These population control freaks are insane.


11 posted on 10/26/2010 4:33:37 PM PDT by A message
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Ms. Richards is espousing the ANTI-HUMAN world view shared by most liberals. People, human beings, are an ugly, defective race who always take more than they give, create nothing of beauty or value, and need to be eliminated.

This is the mindset that justifies the murders of tens of millions, hundreds of millions, in the name of the common good and the making of a better mankind.

Keep it in mind whenever you hear them speak, tell yourselves over and over, ANTI-HUMAN, ANTI-HUMAN, ANTI-HUMAN...


12 posted on 10/26/2010 4:35:45 PM PDT by BigBobber
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Bump!


13 posted on 10/26/2010 4:40:50 PM PDT by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

But that means less wealth created and less tax revenue.

But if she insists on less people, she can start with herself.


14 posted on 10/26/2010 4:49:57 PM PDT by rbosque (11 year Freeper! Combat Economist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

It’s obvious from looking at her. She is one of them, an alien. Not the kind from Mexico, either. Her fellow kind have infested the gov’t just like the stink bugs in the eastern US. I’ll bet under that perfectly symmetrical exterior she is filled with bug like creatures. Time to call the Men in Black.
And not Obama, since he is only half black.


15 posted on 10/26/2010 4:50:02 PM PDT by free from tyranny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CommieCutter

Exactly. You can shout that again. When I first read the headline, I thought that was what she meant. I thought, “that’s a mighty strange comment coming from someone at Planned Parenthood.” Then as I scrolled down the other headlines, I had to go back up to read the article once it dawned on me what it really meant.


16 posted on 10/26/2010 4:52:34 PM PDT by beaversmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: beaversmom

Euthanasia for Liberals will also reduce government expense.


17 posted on 10/26/2010 5:03:44 PM PDT by EQAndyBuzz (Remember March 23, 1775. Remember March 23, 2010)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: EQAndyBuzz

...and don’t forget, it would help the Earth too.


18 posted on 10/26/2010 5:17:03 PM PDT by beaversmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Given where and how PP operates, Richards really meant that fewer black people mean less government cost. Racist scumbags.


19 posted on 10/26/2010 5:19:54 PM PDT by Mr. Silverback (Anyone who says we need illegals to do the jobs Americans won't do has never watched "Dirty Jobs.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Silverback
Given where and how PP operates, Richards really meant that fewer black people mean less government cost. Racist scumbags.

You nailed it!

20 posted on 10/26/2010 5:22:15 PM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: EQAndyBuzz
Euthanasia for Liberals will also reduce government expense.

Exactly. Life, liberty and the pursuit and destruction of anti-life totalitarians.

21 posted on 10/26/2010 5:23:07 PM PDT by PGalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Silverback
Given where and how PP operates, Richards really meant that fewer black people mean less government cost. Racist scumbags.

GRRRRRRREAT point! BTTT!

22 posted on 10/26/2010 5:24:25 PM PDT by PGalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: flipper999
Lets just take this to the extreme. If society benefits from fewer people, wouldn't it benefit even more if there were 0 people... oh wait, that won't work .

Yes, you're right, you do have to be careful about taking arguments to the extreme. Too few people or too many people should be avoided. Your soup shouldn't be too hot or too cold. You should try not to be too fat or too skinny.

Some of us don't have any objection to contraception, used moderately of course. :)

23 posted on 10/26/2010 5:31:33 PM PDT by Walts Ice Pick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

I have no problem with contraception. Sometimes it takes total sense. I personally went the route of making sure that my wife and I would have no children, not even a possibility of any. Shortly before getting married I had a vasectomy. And some 39 years later, there have been none.

It worked.


24 posted on 10/26/2010 6:01:34 PM PDT by OldPossum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Silverback

Planned Parenthood: “Better Dead than Poor.”


25 posted on 10/26/2010 6:02:13 PM PDT by mvpel (Michael Pelletier)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

If they eliminated welfare, a lot fewer children would be born into poverty. They could eliminate scores of govt welfare workers. If they also eliminated planned parenthood funding, perhaps people would be encouraged to learn to live more responsibly.


26 posted on 10/26/2010 6:05:25 PM PDT by Waryone (RINOs, Elites, and Socialists - on the endangered list, soon to become extinct.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
As the economy worsens, the call for the killing of the feeble and costly, young and old, will become louder and louder.

Lord have mercy.

27 posted on 10/26/2010 6:20:10 PM PDT by redgolum ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: redgolum

Not only will the cry become louder and louder,under obama care, the killing of the feeble and afflicted will begin. The two groups most affected,the young and old, were heavy obama and Democrat voters in 2008. Perhaps this is the change they voted for.


28 posted on 10/26/2010 6:30:22 PM PDT by sport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Next stop on this train to hell is Soylent Green.


29 posted on 10/26/2010 6:52:30 PM PDT by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point.CSLewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: redgolum

Leftists always believe that there are too many [other] people.

And, btw, where does this B.O.D. get her money from? Doesn’t PP get tons of money from the - government, hmmm?


30 posted on 10/26/2010 7:23:51 PM PDT by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point.CSLewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
Only if you assume that all additional people will be non-productive. Otherwise, additional productive people will pay more taxes.
31 posted on 10/26/2010 7:31:16 PM PDT by reg45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

To “H” with PP less, or elimination of Liberals/Leftists in government will reduce costs of government extraordinarily.


32 posted on 10/26/2010 7:49:15 PM PDT by rockinqsranch (Dems, Libs, Socialists, call 'em what you will, they ALL have fairies livin' in their trees.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
The president of Planned Parenthood has argued that the new federal health care reform ought to consider funding all contraception with taxpayer dollars because preventing new children leads to less government expense.

She has it exactly backwards. The people are not a cost to the government; the government is a cost to the people.

And we need to drastically cut that cost, before it drowns us in a tsunami of debt and oppression (and I pray that is still possible).

33 posted on 10/26/2010 10:05:45 PM PDT by Maceman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

See that? People are just an expense for government.


34 posted on 10/27/2010 10:17:28 AM PDT by Antoninus (It's long past time for conservatives to stop voting for Republican liberals. Enough!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
Pinged from Terri Dailies


35 posted on 10/31/2010 10:47:20 AM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
If Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards were really concerned about government costs, she would be advocating something to prevent the "births" of new government agencies, programs, and positions, and to "abort" many or most of the existing ones.
36 posted on 10/31/2010 10:57:16 AM PDT by meadsjn (Sarah 2012, or soon)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldPossum

Yes, and now someone else’s children will have to support you in your old age.


37 posted on 11/09/2010 9:13:47 AM PST by MBA4Life ("The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." -- Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Thanks to Planned Parenthood, we’ve eliminated an estimated 120 million people under age 40. That’s the demographic reason behind the current long term economic crisis. If all those kids had been born, there would be a housing shortage, not a surplus, and the tax burden would be more widely shared. And the economy would be 30-40% larger. This is nothing but valuable human resources going down the drain. If we put the money government gives PPF every year into education, we’d all be far better off.


38 posted on 11/09/2010 9:13:57 AM PST by MBA4Life ("The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." -- Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MBA4Life

Well, not having children enabled us to save and invest our earnings (both of us worked all our lives), so you could put those investments that benefited society into the equation.

But I suppose one could stretch the matter to arrive at the conclusion that other people’s children are supporting us in our old age.

We’re enjoying our financial—and personal, I would add—no personal interactions between and among adult children to negotiate and no pesky grandchildren to lavish costly gifts upon—lives at this point. Which must irk the hell out of you. :)


39 posted on 11/09/2010 3:08:24 PM PST by OldPossum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson