The Thinking 

Sebelius Says Government Should Control Births

March 3, 2012



Thank you for another thought-provoking thread about contraception and politics. While you may have seen it already, I thought I should bring to your attention that a genuine expert on the subject has weighed in, in the Congress, no less. Testifying before the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health, HHS Secretary and “Catholic” Kathleen Sebelius assured the assembled Representatives that they really have nothing to worry about with respect to the costs of HHS’s mandate of free coverage of contraception and abortifacients arising from Obamacare.

You see, silly Congressmen, it is really all quite simple if only you will look at the matter from the social-engineering perspective of Ms. Sebelius:

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius told a House panel Thursday that a reduction in 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.

“The reduction in the number of pregnancies compensates for the cost of contraception,” Sebelius said. She went on to say the estimated cost is “down not up.”

Never lacking chutzpah, this Catholic paragon went on to tell her audience that HHS is in the business of defending religious liberty!:

Sebelius, [despite Catholic bishops’ objections to the mandates], insisted that the mandate “upholds religious liberty.”

“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,” Sebelius told the subcommittee.

At least one Representative wasn’t gulled by this blatant bait-and-switch, and pursued Sebelius on the point:

During the subcommittee hearing, Rep. Tim Murphy (R-Pa.) said that contraception provided by insurance companies to people employed by religious organizations under the future form of the rule Sebelius described would not be was not free.

“Who pays for it? There’s no such thing as a free service,” Murphy asked.

Sebelius responded that that is not the case with insurance.

“The reduction in the number of pregnancies compensates for cost of contraception,” Sebelius answered.

Murphy expressed surprise by the answer.

“So you are saying, by not having babies born, we are going to save money on health care?” Murphy asked.

Sebelius replied, “Providing contraception is a critical preventive health benefit for women and for their children.”

Murphy again sought clarification.

“Not having babies born is a critical benefit. This is absolutely amazing to me. I yield back,” he said.

Sebelius responded, “Family planning is a critical health benefit in this country, according to the Institute of Medicine.”

And so a Catholic woman in a prominent position advances the cause of lethal secularism, raising women’s “convenience” above any duty to family, any awareness of faith, and even proclaims that it is better for her society to prevent itself from reproducing. Are we not inviting the Abomination of Desolation? At least it appears that Sebelius does not present herself for Communion, and the Archbishop of Washington seems to agree with Sebelius’s home bishop that she is not fit to receive. If only one could say the same of Nancy Pelosi, whom the Washington archdiocese insists on considering in good standing.

Of course, if Sebelius and her ilk were serious in believing that a smaller population would benefit the United States, they would be securing America’s borders, ending immigration, and removing illegal aliens. And if they were truly concerned about the rise of a theocracy in America, they would be acting to end the influence of Islam in America. Judge them by their actions.

Doing some quick research on Kathleen Sebelius gave me another reminder of the harm family political dynasties have typically done in America, from the Kennedys and Bushes on the grand scale, to the Gores, Cuomos and Rockefellers on the next rung down. Former Kansas Governor Sebelius is herself the daughter of a former Governor of Ohio.

                                                   — Comments —

Catherine H. writes:

Apropos of this post and the post, “The Truth about the Obamacare Mandates” with Kristor’s comments, I wished to provide some information to your readers that may help them avoid supporting morally objectionable “medical services.”

Some years ago, my husband signed our family up with Samaritan Ministries, a health-sharing group which provides the benefits of an insurance company, but is not conventional insurance. The idea is that many people pay a monthly fee with the checks sent directly from one member to another in order to “share” each other’s health care costs. The monthly fee is a set fee within a few dollars either way (for example, our family of five pays about $300 per month and no one pays more than $320 per month), and covers most of what conventional insurance covers, with some restrictions, such as dental. There are more stringent requirements for coverage, which is what helps keep the costs down: to give a few examples, members sign a yearly form testifying that they do not smoke at all, do not abuse alcohol, are not promiscuous, and are practicing Christians in good standing (the form must be co-signed by a priest or minister). As you can see, these restrictions obviate many of the diseases of licentious that plague our society. Most importantly, Samaritan Ministries and other health sharing ministries like it (I believe there is at least one other) are exempt from Obamacare, allowing individuals as well as companies with moral objections to abortion, etc. to avoid subsidizing these evils at the government’s whim.

If any of your readers are interested, they can visit this site to learn more. I do not receive compensation for mentioning this group, nor do I seek it: I simply think it is very important to provide any who wish with another choice in this moral dilemma.

Share:Email this to someoneShare on Facebook0Tweet about this on TwitterPin on Pinterest0Share on Google+0