Reducing Health Care Costs by Reducing Pregnancies
|March 2, 2012||Posted by Anthony under abortion, apologetics, Blog, Christianity and Culture, eugenics, evolution, family, General, Holocaust, human rights, Malthusians, morality, Obama, pro-life, scientism, Secular Humanism|
Yesterday I posted a lengthy response to an article recently published in an ‘ethics’ journal arguing that newborn children are not fundamentally different than ‘fetuses,’ and if we agree it is alright to kill ‘fetuses’, we can kill newborn children for the exact same reason. The authors attempted to make their argument in such a way that it would not apply to all people, putting a hedge between the rest of us and the completely defenseless; I make that ‘hedge’ to be about 6 inches tall, and easily leaped.
Today I heard about Sebelius’s explanation for why the Obama administration is working so hard to cram ‘free’ contraception down the throats of every American:
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.
I chose this source to cite for the exchange because I think it shows how the pro-life community tends to miss the point. And I like Steve Ertelt and LifeNews is an important and reliable source of information for me.
The type of thinking driving Sebelius’ comments here really have nothing to do with expanding abortion or paying for the health care law, except insofar as such things fuel into their real agenda. It is difficult to keep this in mind because the proponents of such things rarely tell us the truth; indeed, nothing about what Sebelius said here surprises me, except that she said it at all. [this link has video of the exchange]. The issue is further complicated because the ‘people on the street’ think that the issue is ‘access to abortion,’ or whatever. They are being used to further an entirely different agenda, which I would be willing to wager, they themselves would recoil in horror if fully implemented. After all, the end of Sebelius’ logic is complete governmental control of who has children in this country, and who does not.
Such ideas are included in the Jaffe Memo, which I spilled 10,000 words on recently, in John Holdren’s (Obama’s current science czar) 1970s textbook, Ecoscience, and elsewhere. Heck, my wife just saw someone on Facebook state that it was time to require people to get permits before having children. And that’s mild compared to what the likes of Holdren have pondered.
The real agenda is based on several important philosophical premises. For the purpose of this short post, the premise that the human race must be managed to conserve scarce resources for the betterment and sustaining of society, in a ‘fair’ manner, is of prime importance. Precisely how your random secular humanist progressive atheistic liberal believes this premise is to be acted on will differ, but the ones pulling the strings at the highest levels of government and academia have concluded that the human population must be reduced and scarce dollars allocated only to those who will be the lightest burden on the State’s ‘resources.’
Such thinking was hinted at in the article I reacted to yesterday:
“Nonetheless, to bring up such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care. On these grounds, the fact that a fetus has the potential to become a person who will have an (at least) acceptable life is no reason for prohibiting abortion. Therefore, we argue that, when circumstances occur after birth, such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible.” (italics theirs, bold, mine)
The problem that these elite central planners have is that not quite enough of human experience has been brought under control to give them the ‘tools’ to make the changes they think needs to be made. Any sane person can already see how government agency after agency has been erected to manage and micromanage every aspect of the human experience. The final frontier is, in their eyes, the mother lode: 1/6 of the economy. That’s what they say health care represents in America today. It is in matters of life, health, and death, that the most money is to be ‘saved’ and control most efficiently exerted. All this, by the way, anticipated in GK Chesterton’s Eugenics and other Evils.
It is essentially all an application of Malthusian logic: the fewer people, the fewer human problems. Indeed. If we killed off every human, that would in fact get rid of all human problems, wouldn’t it? Certainly, the logic holds.
So, the elites are busily trying to ensure that the ‘state economically provides for [our] care,’ which they deem is absolutely necessary in order to manage scarce resources. This is the point of Obamacare. Paying for it is the least of their concerns. Promoting abortion on demand at every turn, and ‘free contraception,’ are just means to an end.
This is the culture of death at work, and the culture of death is rarely honest about its beliefs and values. All the more reason for those of us in the pro-life community to keep our eye on the ball. If we got rid of abortion on demand, but erected the apparatus that the elites are trying to build, I assure you, the only thing that will change is the group of people that falls under their scrutiny. Probably the old, most certainly the disabled. But also targeted: those who smoke, who drink, who eat sugar, or trans fat, or engage in ‘unhealthy lifestyles.’ I would say that tyranny is right around the corner, but that last sentence should give us the real truth: it is inside the door, and sitting at our couches… and trying to make itself at home, at our own invitation.