It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Sebelius: Decrease in Human Beings Will Cover Cost of Contraception Mandate

page: 1
5

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 07:31 PM
link   
Talking at a House hearing today, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius
said that the cost of contraception and sterilizations would be offset by the reduction of humans !!!!

Another statement that will surely be viewed by many as radical.

March 1, 2012

(CNSNews.com) – 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.”


Many of the nation's Catholic bishops have published letters saying: "We cannot--we will not--comply with this unjust law."
Sebelius, however, 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.
Decrease in Human Beings Will Cover Cost of Contraception Mandate


The question of constitutionality still remains

And what She doesn't say (and what She may be thinking) scares me the most....

I wonder what the next surprise will be




Despite the controversy over whether the mandate is constitutional, Sebelius told Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) during the hearing that the administration never sought a legal opinion about the regulation from the Department of Justice.
I would assume they actually DID have legal advice, after all, thet ARE the "government" !!


Are they side-stepping the Constitution ??

I say maybe




posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 07:34 PM
link   
I can't believe my eyes. They must decieve me here. I don't even care about the topic being Contraception. I see a Government Official at the Cabinet Level actually thinking of ANYTHING in terms of cost vs. benefit and how human life, or the lack thereof, will balance those books.


Even as a totally unintentional effect, this is wrong to consider in terms like this. What happens if there isn't enough savings?? We just find a way to decrease the population more? Wow... I'm starting to feel the need to carefully read back over the Georgia Guide Stones with talk like this. It seems others are definitely at least THINKING along the same lines. I simply don't see where there is ANY form of 'right' to this level of thinking..and I don't mean political right.



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 07:43 PM
link   
Just one of the many ways they are stealthily enacting agenda 21. Add that to regular and post birth abortions, easy euthanasia, gmo foods etc... They seriously want to cull the herd so they can control those who remain more easily.



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 07:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 

Dear Wrabbit2000,

I think you're absolutely right. This is wrong on so many levels. Even economically. She is saying that fewer people will save money. It will also result in fewer workers, meaning less taxes. Will they also stop immigrants since they will have their contraception covered? We will have fewer workers born to citizens and more workers illegaly in the country.

But that's not the point. She has now put a dollar value on life, and a very low value at that. I wonder when I won't be of sufficient value to the state to justify my continued existence.

This also fits in well with the thread a little while ago about how "post-birth abortions" could be considered ethically acceptable.

Sorry for jumping around, but I'm upset.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 07:49 PM
link   
Death and money are big business. Big governments and globalist ideology is and always will bank off the deaths of millions. It doesn't matter how it's done or conceived.

The lists of ways to die keeps growing exponentially. The list of ways to live dwindle. It just doesn't appear to be getting any prettier.



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by xuenchen

“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.”




Although I disagree with the Obama administrations heavy-handed approach on this issue, I think that Sebelius' comments were misconstrued. She is suggesting that employers will save money by not having to cover the costs of pregnancies (which are expensive for the hospital costs of delivering a child). Thus, the cost of paying for oral contraceptives is tiny compared to the cost of pregnancy and childbirth. So, the employer could pay $25 per month for OCs but get to save $5000 for a pregnancy, childbirth and the subsequent costs of healthcare for the child. This is a harsh viewpoint, but probably correct in the economics.



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 08:20 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


Well clearly she's ignorant isn't she?

The United State's policy for the past several decades has been to increase the population as fast as possible to increase consumer spending.

Hence record legal immigration levels.
Hence our open border policy for illegals..
Hence our insane child subsidies that reward large families..



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 08:33 PM
link   
Well the national socialist eugenics are crawling out from under
theirs rocks into the light. But do the majority of people care?
Nooooo. They still think we are crazy. Remember what Kissenger said:


The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer.
Henry A. Kissinger

Read more: www.brainyquote.com...


(illegally put Obama in office then destroy the constitution...seems to be working)
edit on 1-3-2012 by timetothink because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
5

log in

join