Sebelius: Reduction in pregnancies compensates for the cost of contraception

posted at 5:36 pm on March 2, 2012 by Tina Korbe

Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius yesterday assured a House panel that the contraception mandate will actually pay for itself.

“Who pays for it? There’s no such thing as a free service,” [Pennsylvania Republican Rep. Tim] 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.

As Kentucky Republican Rep. Brad Guthrie pointed out, if Sebelius is correct, it’s curious that more insurance companies don’t already cover contraception. If it makes money for health insurance companies to cover it, why don’t they already do so voluntarily?

More importantly, Sebelius’ comments show an alarming disregard for the value of human life and hints at a desire for population control. Still, Sebelius wants to talk about the population in economic terms? Let’s talk about it. Does she understand that we’re headed toward an entitlement crisis, fueled in part by too many retirees to be supported by too few workers? If the U.S. has any kind of population problem, it’s that our population is not growing fast enough to support our entitlement state. Think that’s a stretch? For what it’s worth, Mark Steyn doesn’t.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

So, logically, this means that mandated contraception for every woman — her conscience, religious preferences, or desires be d@mned — would save even more money.

But correct me if I’m wrong…if a majority of women are already on birth control, how much more could we possibly be saving by mandating birth control coverage?

englishqueen01 on March 2, 2012 at 8:14 PM

Man, I’m 58 yo! I don’t need no stinkin contraception! What about us oldies! Why should I have to pay for it? Spare me the rhetoric moron libs.

sicoit on March 2, 2012 at 8:27 PM

I wish they would tell me which leeches I’m supporting so I could go spay or neuter em meself, saving meself the cost of the pills and support of any potential offspring they have after getting all doped up and forgetting to take em.

Spay or neuter your pets and your leeches!

ConcealedKerry on March 2, 2012 at 9:07 PM

Oh I see! Our benevolent Secretary of Health is pushing he contraception mandate down our throats to save the tax payers money! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ROLF!

MCGIRV on March 2, 2012 at 9:10 PM

Here’s the answer as to why this is suddenly important to Sebelius. Abortions procedures have been going down in the last five years. She wants to be able to take the falling abortion statistics and be able to say that this contraceptives ruling saved tax payers money thus making the left look “moralistic” for championing contraceptives over abortions.

This is how flocked up left thinking really is.

DevilsPrinciple on March 2, 2012 at 10:07 PM

Also, by cutting off expensive care to grandma, just think about how much health care costs will be reduced!

rgeaste on March 2, 2012 at 11:38 PM

We could consider that the HHS Sec wants to provide contraception to control the population much the same as forced sterilizations were used to control it. Will we get to the place where the govt will decide who gets to have children and who doesn’t? Seems that is the road we are going down with this. China already limits the number of children people can have, are we next.

Kissmygrits on March 3, 2012 at 1:58 AM

I beg to disagree! Their objectives are very clear.

If the left wanted to reduce the number of human beings to reduce strain on Social Services, they would require implant Birth Control for anyone on Welfare. But you see, that would not bring down the target population leftists want to bring down. In is important to support the black population and the Islamic population. That is why the underwear bomber flew in on the weekly immigration run from Somalia to Detroit (!), import of non-assimilables is important.

That is why the border is kept open so that millions flood across each year that strain Social Services, but the left encourages it, even to the point of cooperating with Mexico, ignoring drug operations in our national forests and companies that hire illegals.

The human beings the left wants to reduce is the number of Whites. Too many, too smart, too hard to control. Whites make poor slaves.

Bulletchaser on March 3, 2012 at 1:10 PM

Bulletchaser on March 3, 2012 at 1:52 PM

Additional:

It is the irony of Socialism that it requires a religious birth rate to maintain. Though it eventually destroys itself, the ponzi scheme can go a little longer if the growing population fills the payment gap. That is why Socialism has the pattern of “inward to convert and then outward to conquer”. Europe imports Muslims as fast as possible to supposedly fill the population gap by non-reproducing Italians, Germans, French, etc. (See: “America Alone” by Mark Styen.

But the damn American Whites are just not dying off! Look at people like Palin, having children and growing families of undesirables. This is just pressure to hurry it along.

Bulletchaser on March 3, 2012 at 2:06 PM

Comment pages: 1 2