Posted on 03/04/2012 1:41:08 PM PST by NYer
At a hearing of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Secretary of HHS Kathleen Sebelius confirmed the fears of many pro-life advocates who worry that the recent HHS mandate requiring all insurance plans to cover contraception and sterilization, regardless of an employer’s moral objection, is just the beginning.
The same statutory authority of the Administration to mandate contraception could just as easily mandate abortion on demand. The Administration believes in essence that employers are not really paying for contraceptives or abortion since they would be cheaper than providing for prenatal care, childbirth or child care.
In an exchange with pro-life Congressman Tim Murphy (R-PA), Sebelius claimed, “The reduction in a number of pregnancies compensates for the cost of contraception.” To which Murphy responded, “So you’re saying by not having babies born, we’re going to save money on healthcare?” The exchange becomes just another example of the Obama Administration’s willingness to trample on basic rights of conscience in order to pay for the massive 2010 federal healthcare law and expand abortion.
As a means of cutting costs under Obamacare, the Secretary of HHS has the authority to mandate coverage of anything he or she adds to a “preventive services” list. The recent HHS edict was the result of contraception being added to that list. Because the list is fluid and left solely to the whim of the Administration, there is no statute preventing an abortion mandate.
Certainly abortion coverage is the next logical step. Even in its initial passage in 2010, Obamacare contained new streams of federal funding for abortion. The Obama Administration fought against pro-life amendments like the Stupak-Pitts Amendment to gut abortion funding from the bill. It has continued to fight against efforts to limit federal funds for abortion. The Obama Administration was willing to allow a government shutdown unless full federal funding for Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider, was in place. It’s clear; the Administration would have no qualms about mandating coverage for abortion.
The Blunt Amendment, which sadly failed on a 51-48 vote today in the Senate, would have allowed employers to opt out of the mandated contraception coverage if it went against their convictions. However, it also would have protected pro-life employers from having to cover abortion on demand. Eyes are now on the House where a similar bill (H.R. 1179) sponsored by pro-life Congressman Jeff Fortenberry (R-NE) is advancing to continue the fight for conscience rights. The bill already has 220 co-sponsors (more than half of the House), including members of both parties.
Pro-life advocates should contact their members of Congress and urge support for H.R. 1179 and conscience protections. Visit http://www.capwiz.com/nrlc/issues/bills/?bill=60964701.
Ping!
Death Panels, too.
Are the people tuning in to this crap. Do they understand how stupid and absurd the national conversations have become?
And how soon will the China ‘one child per family’ policy come from these pigs?
By that line of thinking, we could completely eliminate all health care costs by eliminating all live births.
Remember, those not born can only owe, they CAN'T pay!
The 0bama cabinet....
Fewer Government workers that believe this will save untold millions.
As quickly as possible. Once implemented, within three generations, all ANY person "in compliance" would have is their mother and father as relatives. Once mom and dad are gone, there is no one directly related to that person; all they have are friends and government.
Think on that for a while...Another freeper posted that thought about three months ago and it's stuck with me ever since. We WILL see China have some big time problems. And our libs will be sure to follow down the same path.
There will also be fewer people born to pay taxes to support all the government programs
Too bad this kind of thinking wasn’t around when this wretched woman was conceived.
“Sebelius: Fewer Babies Born Will Save Health Care Costs”
Hey, Kathy, too bad your mother was not on the pill after.
There. Fixed it.
I don't think you're appreciating the policy in its fullness. It's to apply economic and social pressures which make it "one child for Whitey, because he can't afford any more, or 'cause it's his right to choose" and plenty of children for the oppressed. Do the math. Some have--for example, it's been said that the greatest weapon against Israel is the Palestinian womb, that Muslim infiltration of Europe and the US is the way towards conquest, and don't get me started on Azatlan.
And eliminating the old will save health care cost.
And eliminating the disabled will save health care cost.
And eliminating the mentally impaired will save health care cost.
And eliminating the genetically flawed will save health care cost.
And eliminating the poor will save health care cost.
And eliminating all the “Useless Eaters” will save health care cost.
Quick - time to make more babies!!
Kill tham all and in 75 or a hundred years we won’t have to pay anything.
By the way this woman is a nut. A nut who has the power of life and death through Obamacare.
That should frighten you.
How about more babies and fewer old folks? Would also save on Sosha Security payments.
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.