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.
AHHHHHH! What an evil rule has befallen us.
“I will go to the altar of God.
To God who gives joy to my youth.
Judge me, O God,
and take up my cause against the nation that is not holy.
Free me from the unjust and deceitful man.
For You, O God, are my strength,
why have You cast me off?
And why do I walk in sorrow,
while the enemy troubles me?”
Please God help us.
Tripe in so many ways!
Did Kathy not think that low or no cost contraception has been available through Planned Parenthood for decades? The majority of unwanted pregnancies could be simply and cheaply prevented if the parties involved choose to use contraception. Just because it’s covered by insurance doesn’t mean it will be used.
There seems to be a much more sinister agenda being pushed here that has nothing to do with insurance coverage.
Two thousand years ago our traditions were borne from theirs, and two hundred years ago there was no pro-choice, but OK - we’ll use “Christian tradition”.
According to her wikipedia page she has two sons, born in the early/mid 80s
My mother, who is now 95 years old had a heart attack at age 89. Total cost was $125,000; her copay was about $5,000; her annual premium was about $2,700. She says the last five years have been the best years of her life. She thinks the costs were well worth every penny, and so do I.Completely irrelevant to my point, and also not surprising at all. Most people have a strong urge to keep living, otherwise as a species we would die off rather quickly. Glad to hear your mother is doing well.
And the drop in taxpayers in the next generation means no one to pay for healthcare.
It’s working in Europe the same way.
Round up & remove all the ILLEGALS in the USA & see the cost of all our medical care drop.
We are paying billions of dollars for care given to deadbeats-—most of which are illegals.
Maybe not relevant to your point, but supportive of your reference to end-of-life medical costs. Thanks for the good wishes for my Mom. BTW, how one values certain phases of one's life really has nothing to do with survival instinct.
No child policy would save them the most money.
If you are in Wisconsin, you might be interested.
FEATURED NEWS:
AGENDA 21: The Wrenching Transformation of America
Have you heard the terms sustainable development or smart growth? Social engineering and behavior modification are some of the true objectives being implemented under the guise of environmental and climate protection. This is accomplished by exploiting people’s desire to maintain a healthy and lasting environment in the name of “sustainability.
Mr. DeWeese states, “American people, and their every action, are being ruled, regulated, restricted, licensed, registered, directed, checked, inspected, measured, numbered, counted, rated, stamped, censured, authorized, admonished, refused, prevented, drilled, indoctrinated, monopolized, extorted, robbed, hoaxed, fined, harassed, disarmed, dishonored, fleeced, exploited, assessed, and taxed to the point of suffocation and desperation.
ICLEI’s (International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives, which is a program by the United Nations) methods include infiltrating local government. Organization representatives seek to be hired into local planning departments or they provide “toolkits” (such as Smart Growth packages) to staff. Too many elected officials allow ICLEI to influence policy changes through the use of funding incentives and rewards. While some of these policies sound good on the surface, they result in consequences such as:
•High-density housing scams
•Traffic congestion
•Open space where access is not allowed
•Government “partnering” with favored private businesses and non-profit agencies, using your tax money
•Undermining Constitutional administration of government
•Managed control over your life
•Mismanagement of public utilities
•Prohibitions on natural resource management leading to increased fire hazards, lack of water, and private property restrictions,
•Increased taxes, fees, regulations and restrictions
•Every aspect of farming, food production and natural resources will be controlled
•There will be no property rights
Is ICLEI running your town or coming to a town near you? Are your elected officials being lured into enacting ridiculous rules and regulations in exchange for funding? Do your elected officials know that there are long term consequences to their actions?
Currently there are more than 550 communities in North America (including numerous communities in Wisconsin) paying membership dues to ICLEI. Upon becoming a member of ICLEI, members become governed by ICLEI Charter. If your community is one of these, you are paying for the loss of your unalienable rights.
Learn detailed information about ICLEI and the international NGOs (Non-Governmental Organization) on:
DATE: Thursday, March 8 at
LOCATION: Theisen Middle School
525 East Pioneer Road
Fond Du Lac, WI 54935
TIME: Doors open at 6:00 p.m. and presentation at 7:00 p.m.
Join us for this MUST SEE FREE seminar!
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.