By the pricking of my thumbs . . . it's Kathleen Sebelius, explaining the apparent cost-effectiveness of societal suicide:
“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.”As Mark Steyn wrote a couple of weeks ago, "This is a very curious priority for a dying republic."
Steve Ertelt argues that they're just getting started (emphasis added):
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.I wish I could believe this was impossible. But we know for sure that the Obama administration isn't hindered by a respect for conscience or religious liberty or a belief in the intrinsic value of infant life (or "however way you want to describe it"). What's added to the "preventive services" category will be determined by political calculations, the factors of which will change drastically for the worse if Obama is re-elected in November.
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.
And in case you've forgotten, the HHS mandate has been finalized. There may or may not be adjustments made down the road. From Hannah C. Smith, Senior Counsel to The Becket Fund:
The legal rule that the Administration finalized on Feb. 10, 2012 was the exact same rule announced in August 2011. There were no changes whatsoever to that initial mandate or its extremely narrow exemption that set off the firestorm of opposition from religious groups. The only additions were two promises. First, the Administration issued a "guidance" document (that can be revoked at any time) that promised not to enforce the rule for one year, and second, a promise from the President to create a new and separate rule--this so-called "insurer mandate" that he described on Feb. 10th. That new rule--the insurer mandate-- has not been issued and will not be issued for some time.Linked by Michelle Malkin -- thanks.
Most recent posts here. Twitter feed here. Amazon store here.