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.
What an idiot! Aside from the fact that responsibly having children is a blessing for parents and none of the government’s business, if she got her wish for significantly reduced birth rates, Social Security will be totally hopelessly doomed in 20 years.
In addition to a borderline evil statement, she is just plain WRONG. It might save a little money in the short term, but our ponzi-scheme based Social Security system only works if the population is growing. And anyone with a brain knows that the vast majority of health care costs are incurred in the last 10 years of life.
Fewer babies born means fewer people paying into Socialist Insecurity.
Birth-control use among singles means wider spread STD outbreaks. Which leads to HIGHER health care costs.
Then there are the infertility problems from years of taking birth control (starting in puberty) which we can then pick up the costs of.
What is it about homosexuals that makes them anti-breeder?
With four children, I did my part!
Modern day Eugenics.
This was Jocelyn Elder's stated position ("Those old people are just gonna die anyway!") and I suspect the real reason she was fired.
“And how soon will the China ‘one child per family’ policy come from these pigs?”
This would not harm them too much...conservatives and Christians tend to have much larger families then liberals. Our problem is that we also tend to send our children to public schools to learn from the liberals...I just don’t understand why...
Now that home schooling is growing they (the liberals) need to reduce the family size...
...and more imported labor - much of which will have a backwards uncivilized religion to which it adheres fanatically.
If her plan works out there will be no one to grow food,manufacture anything, etc.etc... Never could understand why they would want to live in their CREATION.
If they are willing to kill the unborn how do you think the elderly fair in this
I would suggest viewing the documentary “Demographic Winter” for a better understanding as to why the liberals would think this way...
The LESS babies, the LESS tax base in the future; unless of course the liberals are working overtime on eugenics and the management thereof (*cough* sanger *cough*)
No they’re counting on the illegals to keep them in office where they can then tax the crap out of all the workers.
It’s a trick question of course, and one loaded with assumptions. If a system like Obamacare is assumed, you would want more relatively healthy workers to prop it up for the elderly and ailing (at least if you covet the latter’s votes). That makes it a bigger item in the budget, but that’s not necessarily a measure of how well it fulfills its ostensible purpose. However of course the whole Obamacare system is an abomination and should be abolished yesterday.
Thanks.
Where do we go to now?
I applied a rule that led to extinction.
Boy, she’s a regular Margaret Sanger, ain’t she?
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.