Kathleen Gilbert

Obama’s frightening ‘adjustment’: ‘nobody pays for birth control because fewer births cost less’

Kathleen Gilbert
Image

What Obama just said on Friday afternoon was extremely confusing. But once you get to the truth of it, it’s also extremely frightening.

The president was facing down a conundrum: trying to assuage religious groups appalled at being forced to cover birth control under an impending federal mandate, while making it clear to his base that he wouldn’t back away one bit from the “core principle” (his words) of giving women free birth control pills. The best way to achieve this goal is to find a funny way to reword what you already said.

So the way he rephrased was basically this: don’t worry religious groups, the insurance premium bill you’re footing for your employees won’t really pay for their insured birth control. Why? Insurance companies can really offer it for free because it avoids the cost of childbirth (not to mention the other health costs of a whole new person on the planet for 20-someodd years):

“The overall cost of health care is lower when women have access to contraceptive services,” Obama said, later explaining: “if a woman’s employer is a charity or a hospital that has a religious objection to providing contraceptive services as part of their health plan, the insurance company -– not the hospital, not the charity -– will be required to reach out and offer the woman contraceptive care free of charge, without co-pays and without hassles.”

(In case that sounds like a concession note that Planned Parenthood and NARAL are simply delighted with this, because, they say, Obama hasn’t changed his commitment. Predictably, the Catholic Health Association is also “very pleased” to have gotten its fig leaf back.)

Meanwhile, the National Right to Life Committee immediately saw through Obama’s statement to exactly what it was: a free ticket to a future abortion coverage mandate. After all, if contraception is really an investment because it prevents births (thereby saving costs), abortion certainly is.

“President Obama today promulgated a scam that, if he is re-elected, will allow him to mandate that every health plan in America cover abortion on demand,” said NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson. 

The “twisted logic” found in the Friday “scam,” said Johnson, has few natural bounds.

“By this form of doublespeak, one could say that the federal Medicaid program was not really ‘funding abortion’ when it paid for 300,000 abortions a year (prior to adoption of the Hyde Amendment in 1976), because after all, every abortion that the government paid for also saved the government money,” he said.

So too could legalized physician-assisted suicide become a “free” insurance service because it prevents the “waste” of spending any more money on elongating a life. Johnson also pointed out that there is nothing in the federal health care law stopping an abortion coverage mandate under the Health and Human Services Secretary’s list of “preventive” services - the only abortion ban applies to a different section of the law, regarding a list of federally mandated “essential health benefits.” 

Obama was banking on media headlines distilling the White House’s message as a “compromise.” And because he was the first to extend “compromise,” that means religious people have to start playing nice or else come off as the bad guys.

Don’t buy it. Obama not only just flipped us the bird, but quietly gave the signal for a new and very ugly battle. We don’t have to play nice.

Click “like” if you want to end abortion!


Advertisement

, , ,

Media blackout: Reporter says HHS mandate ‘just a weird idea I don’t think anyone’s talking about’

Kathleen Gilbert
Kathleen Gilbert

A Daily Beast reporter who sat down with a religious conservative at the Republican National Convention last month gave us all a peek at just how effective the media blackout on the HHS mandate has been.

In a live broadcast, the interviewer asked businessman Foster Friess what the deal was with conservatives’ “obsessive dislike” of President Obama. Friess’ top answer, of course, was the fact that the administration has forced virtually all religious employers across the country to cough up coverage for free birth control, sterilizations, and abortifacient drugs under threat of severe fines.

“That’s just a weird idea that I don’t think anyone’s talking about,” was the reporter’s bewildered response.

Apparently the 125,000+ citizens pouring onto the streets of 160 American cities last spring and summer didn’t make an impression: aside from an NPR article, mainstream media coverage of the events was basically nonexistent. A third rally has been set for Oct 20.

Friess tried to explain the seriousness of the problem by likening the mandate to forcing a Jewish deli to carry pork. “It’s an issue of freedom. Should that decision be made between employer and employee, or should it be a government edict?” said the businessman.

Unfortunately, the communication rift between persons of faith and the religiously disinclined can be rather difficult: Friess didn’t appear to make a dent.

One only hopes that the court fight of Christian arts and crafts chain Hobby Lobby, fending off a $1.3 million-per-day fine, will force a chink into mainstream coverage, illuminating the vast discontent plainly visible on countless bulletin boards - not to mention voices and furrowed brows - in parishes and churches across the nation.

But that may be hoping too much.


Advertisement

‘Ugly black babies’ abortionist an avid Democrat donor

Kathleen Gilbert
Kathleen Gilbert
Image

In a development sure to provide a headache for Democrat leaders, it has been revealed that the North Carolina abortionist caught on video explaining how his practice aborting “ugly black babies” is a boon to taxpayers is a regular blue donor.

“I don’t wish to pay for the baby with my money,” Ashutosh Ron Virmani told pro-life activists with Operation Save America in remarks caught on video and published July 30. “Go ahead and pay for them. Let me see you go ahead and adopt one of those ugly black babies.”

The Washington Examiner’s Timothy Carney on Tuesday noted Virmani’s political leanings are well-established.

Records show the Charlotte-based Virmani has given several donations since 2000 to the Democratic National Committee and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, as well as $1,000 to John Kerry in 2004 and $250 to Hillary Clinton in 2008. Barack Obama does not appear on the list.

Historically, Democrats have an embarrassing record on civil rights: the party opposed civil rights for African Americans, including uniform opposition in Congress to the 14th amendment granting blacks civil rights. The party is also the sole founding party of the Ku Klux Klan: the 1915 Klan propaganda film The Birth of a Nation was described by its director as intended “to revolutionize northern sentiment by a presentation of history that would transform every man in my audience into a good Democrat!”

In September of last year, black pastor and civil rights activist Rev. Wayne Perryman filed a lawsuit against President Obama and the DNC in U.S. District Court for its history of racism against blacks, which he notes has never elicited an apology.

“Any organization that has such a racist history and receives 97% of the African American vote (after doing all they could to deny blacks the right to vote), should willingly apologize without being forced do so through a lawsuit,” said Perryman. The activist said he was “convinced that Democrats will only apologize if the media, or the courts (with public pressure) will force them to do so.”

“The man who authored the book: The Audacity of Hope, now has the ‘audacity’ to refuse to apologize for his political party and their racist institutions, that took the lives of millions of his own people,” he said.


Advertisement

Should women taking the pill pay $1,500 more in taxes?

Kathleen Gilbert
Kathleen Gilbert
Image

...Given the severe environmental effects of hormones from the pill ending up in our water supply, one Forbes writer thinks so, based on the costs of upgrading and operating sewage treatment facilities to remove the hormones:

[T]he proposal is that sewage treatment systems should be upgraded to deal with this. ...

Look purely at the running costs of such a system, some 10% of the capital cost. That’s £3 billion a year for England and Wales, and in that country there are some 2.5 million women using the pill. That looks a little low to me so just to make the math easier we’ll say 3 million. Or the running costs alone of such a system will be £1,000 ($1,500) a year for each and every women who uses the pill to regulate her fertility.

As for having the pharmaceutical manufacturer foot the bill, Worstall calls it “near insane” to think Big Pharma would countenance such a financial burden on the pill. After all, “given that the pill is free” in the UK, as will be the case soon in the US, the sewage bill would “just [mean] that the taxpayer is going to pay.”

But we already have a cultural climate that dictates who should pay for such measures: the polluter.

BP has to pay to clean up the waters of the Gulf after Macondo: we all think this is just and righteous. ... Which brings us to: well, it is women taking the contraceptive pill who are causing this pollution. ... This really is pollution and yes, we do have this general assumption that the polluter should pay for having polluted.

We cannot charge BP for killing fishies through pollution if we don’t also charge others who kill fishies through pollution, can we?

Worstall concludes that contraception isn’t bad in itself, but “there are a number of alternative methods, various barriers, creams, sponges, IUDs, which do not carry this environmental cost,” that women should pursue.


Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook