The Liberal Quest for Population Control

Slowly but surely, the Obama administration is introducing the general public to the idea that fewer people born translates into health care cost savings. Liberals are so committed to the idea of fewer live births that by issuing conscience-disturbing mandates, Barack Obama, honorary doctor of obstetrics and gynecology, has even found a way to restrain the growth of prolific, pharmaceutical birth control-shunning Catholic families.

In addition to promoting contraception, the United States Preventative Services Task Force has also indicated that annual preventive breast cancer  screening should be considered a luxury. Thus, without yearly mammograms, if breast cancer isn't detected until it's too late, women on birth control pills may also contribute to the left's initiative to foster fewer human beings.

From the looks of things, it certainly appears as if the Obamacare concept of prevention seems obsessed with curtailing the population. And while birth control is not exactly a 'death-panel' per se, it could be described as a life-preventative.  The death panel idea may be reserved for those who manage to make it out of the womb and who, after being tethered to a tax burden for 65 years, tap the health care system for expensive geriatric care. 

With that in mind, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius' recent appearance before a House panel takes on new meaning.   Ms. Sebelius testified that reducing the number of human beings born in the United States will "compensate employers and insurers for the cost of complying with the new HHS mandate that will require all health-care plans to cover sterilizations and all FDA-approved contraceptives, including those that cause abortions."

Speaking before the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health on behalf of Barack Obama's 2013 budget proposal, Secretary Sebelius argued that the hope is that in tandem with a predicted drop in American babies being born, the "estimated cost" for insurances payouts will go "down not up."

Therefore, based on Ms. Sebelius's formula for fiscal solvency, it's clear to see what's up ahead on the road to universal/socialized health care.  Fewer human beings keep costs "down not up," which is why the fewer the better -- from deterring live births to the potential for cost saving implementation of early death.

During the hearing, Ms. Sebelius touched upon the subject of religious liberty and how the First Amendment "free exercise of religion" is impacted by the government imposition of 'sterilization, contraception or abortion' regulations on Christians who, together with Catholic bishops, agree that they "cannot...[and]...will not -- comply with this unjust law."  

Verbalizing the Obama administration's peculiar interpretation of the Constitution, Catholic Kathleen Sebelius insisted that a mandate that forces Christians to violate their conscience "upholds religious liberty," which is sort of like the liberal "right to privacy" belief that abortion really isn't 'killing.'

During the hearing, Sebelius revealed to Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) a minor detail that shed light on how liberals also disregard the canon of the Catholic Church.  Ms. Sebelius admitted that "Despite the controversy over whether the mandate is constitutional, the administration never sought a legal opinion about the regulation from the Department of Justice."

Having it all figured out, Sebelius explained to the subcommittee that "The rule which we intend to promulgate in the near future around implementation will require insurance companies, not a religious employer, but the insurance company to provide coverage for contraceptives."

Apparently, the premise is that if an insurance company pays for a Catholic's tubal ligation, it's as good as receiving papal dispensation.

During the subcommittee hearing, Tim Murphy (R-PA) made the point that "contraception provided by insurance companies to people employed by religious organizations under the future form of the rule Sebelius described would not be free." Murphy asked, "Who pays for it? There's no such thing as a free service."

Well that's for sure; especially when what's being offered has such a high cancer risk.  If cultivating less people is the real plan, why not just advance population control by handing out free cigarettes?

Either way, Sebelius responded that whether birth control is free or not is not the point with insurance. "The reduction in the number of pregnancies compensates for cost of contraception," Sebelius said. In other words, by doling out "free" morning-after pills, insurance companies save money in the long run by avoiding the cost of having to pay for little Susie's tonsillectomy.

Murphy expressed surprise at Sebelius's "addition by subtraction" answer, saying, "So you are saying, by not having babies born, we are going to save money on health care?" By probing a tiny bit further Mr. Murphy could have verified the obvious by asking whether the long-term plan also included saving money by applying similar logic to dying people.

Using cost-benefit language, Sebelius replied, "Providing contraception is a critical preventive health benefit for women and for their children."  But a yearly mammography is not?

Murphy again sought clarification: "Not having babies born is a critical benefit. This is absolutely amazing to me. I yield back."

Sebelius responded that according to big pusher of contraception and promoter of population control, the Institute of Medicine, "Family planning is a critical health benefit in this country." Yeah, but what about the health risk related to birth control and abortion and their alleged causal relationship to breast cancer?

After the hearing, Brett Guthrie (R-KY), a member of the subcommittee, injected additional logic into Sebelius's line of reasoning.  The Kentucky congressman said that if "mandating contraception saves money there shouldn't be a need for a mandate." Guthrie argued further, "If the health insurance companies were really acting in their own best interest, they would be giving these pills out for free, if it really saved money."  

And so, the bottom line is this, don't think about it -- just accept it.  Because whether America wants Yaz® or not, ObamaCare free contraception, sterilization and abortion will be provided to women who, in addition to not having children, will also have the opportunity to decrease the population when the government deprives them of preventative mammography's to head off breast cancer that's been induced by federally-funded Depo-Provera.

Author's content: www.jeannie-ology.com

Thomas Lifson adds:

I think it means they have concluded people are a health risk. In a way, they are correct. No people and the problems go away. It also means that people are a disease.  The profoundly anti-human predisposition of the left is amazing. They really do despise people.

Slowly but surely, the Obama administration is introducing the general public to the idea that fewer people born translates into health care cost savings. Liberals are so committed to the idea of fewer live births that by issuing conscience-disturbing mandates, Barack Obama, honorary doctor of obstetrics and gynecology, has even found a way to restrain the growth of prolific, pharmaceutical birth control-shunning Catholic families.

In addition to promoting contraception, the United States Preventative Services Task Force has also indicated that annual preventive breast cancer  screening should be considered a luxury. Thus, without yearly mammograms, if breast cancer isn't detected until it's too late, women on birth control pills may also contribute to the left's initiative to foster fewer human beings.

From the looks of things, it certainly appears as if the Obamacare concept of prevention seems obsessed with curtailing the population. And while birth control is not exactly a 'death-panel' per se, it could be described as a life-preventative.  The death panel idea may be reserved for those who manage to make it out of the womb and who, after being tethered to a tax burden for 65 years, tap the health care system for expensive geriatric care. 

With that in mind, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius' recent appearance before a House panel takes on new meaning.   Ms. Sebelius testified that reducing the number of human beings born in the United States will "compensate employers and insurers for the cost of complying with the new HHS mandate that will require all health-care plans to cover sterilizations and all FDA-approved contraceptives, including those that cause abortions."

Speaking before the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health on behalf of Barack Obama's 2013 budget proposal, Secretary Sebelius argued that the hope is that in tandem with a predicted drop in American babies being born, the "estimated cost" for insurances payouts will go "down not up."

Therefore, based on Ms. Sebelius's formula for fiscal solvency, it's clear to see what's up ahead on the road to universal/socialized health care.  Fewer human beings keep costs "down not up," which is why the fewer the better -- from deterring live births to the potential for cost saving implementation of early death.

During the hearing, Ms. Sebelius touched upon the subject of religious liberty and how the First Amendment "free exercise of religion" is impacted by the government imposition of 'sterilization, contraception or abortion' regulations on Christians who, together with Catholic bishops, agree that they "cannot...[and]...will not -- comply with this unjust law."  

Verbalizing the Obama administration's peculiar interpretation of the Constitution, Catholic Kathleen Sebelius insisted that a mandate that forces Christians to violate their conscience "upholds religious liberty," which is sort of like the liberal "right to privacy" belief that abortion really isn't 'killing.'

During the hearing, Sebelius revealed to Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) a minor detail that shed light on how liberals also disregard the canon of the Catholic Church.  Ms. Sebelius admitted that "Despite the controversy over whether the mandate is constitutional, the administration never sought a legal opinion about the regulation from the Department of Justice."

Having it all figured out, Sebelius explained to the subcommittee that "The rule which we intend to promulgate in the near future around implementation will require insurance companies, not a religious employer, but the insurance company to provide coverage for contraceptives."

Apparently, the premise is that if an insurance company pays for a Catholic's tubal ligation, it's as good as receiving papal dispensation.

During the subcommittee hearing, Tim Murphy (R-PA) made the point that "contraception provided by insurance companies to people employed by religious organizations under the future form of the rule Sebelius described would not be free." Murphy asked, "Who pays for it? There's no such thing as a free service."

Well that's for sure; especially when what's being offered has such a high cancer risk.  If cultivating less people is the real plan, why not just advance population control by handing out free cigarettes?

Either way, Sebelius responded that whether birth control is free or not is not the point with insurance. "The reduction in the number of pregnancies compensates for cost of contraception," Sebelius said. In other words, by doling out "free" morning-after pills, insurance companies save money in the long run by avoiding the cost of having to pay for little Susie's tonsillectomy.

Murphy expressed surprise at Sebelius's "addition by subtraction" answer, saying, "So you are saying, by not having babies born, we are going to save money on health care?" By probing a tiny bit further Mr. Murphy could have verified the obvious by asking whether the long-term plan also included saving money by applying similar logic to dying people.

Using cost-benefit language, Sebelius replied, "Providing contraception is a critical preventive health benefit for women and for their children."  But a yearly mammography is not?

Murphy again sought clarification: "Not having babies born is a critical benefit. This is absolutely amazing to me. I yield back."

Sebelius responded that according to big pusher of contraception and promoter of population control, the Institute of Medicine, "Family planning is a critical health benefit in this country." Yeah, but what about the health risk related to birth control and abortion and their alleged causal relationship to breast cancer?

After the hearing, Brett Guthrie (R-KY), a member of the subcommittee, injected additional logic into Sebelius's line of reasoning.  The Kentucky congressman said that if "mandating contraception saves money there shouldn't be a need for a mandate." Guthrie argued further, "If the health insurance companies were really acting in their own best interest, they would be giving these pills out for free, if it really saved money."  

And so, the bottom line is this, don't think about it -- just accept it.  Because whether America wants Yaz® or not, ObamaCare free contraception, sterilization and abortion will be provided to women who, in addition to not having children, will also have the opportunity to decrease the population when the government deprives them of preventative mammography's to head off breast cancer that's been induced by federally-funded Depo-Provera.

Author's content: www.jeannie-ology.com

Thomas Lifson adds:

I think it means they have concluded people are a health risk. In a way, they are correct. No people and the problems go away. It also means that people are a disease.  The profoundly anti-human predisposition of the left is amazing. They really do despise people.

RECENT VIDEOS