Tag Archives: birth control

Obama’s Inner Circle and the ‘War on Women’

OB8248707540_381d294d01_oOriginally posted at American Thinker blog

The White House releases tons of pictures of Obama family dog Bo; pictures of Michelle Obama gardening and hula-hooping; there are even photos of President Obama teaching the Resolute Desk how to do double duty as an ottoman. What there aren’t a lot of photographs of are America’s top general in the “war on women,” Barack Obama, and his underrepresented high-ranking female advisers.  Why?  Because besides the president’s Senior Advisor and admitted ‘main man’ Valerie Jarrett, there simply aren’t very many women around.

So what does this say about Barack Obama and the left’s contrived “war on women?”  Well, given the fact that high-level women are a scarcity at the White House and Obama pays his female staffers about 18% less than his male staffers, the definition of the “war on women” obviously has nothing to do with political or economic equal rights.  Instead, if Sandra Fluke and her Polycystic Ovary Syndrome sisters are the chosen poster girls for female oppression, then apparently outfitting women for carefree sex is how liberals plan to win the gender conflict.

After all, didn’t Democrats haul Sandra Fluke out in front of the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee on women’s health and contraception to expound upon American women’s need for free birth control? That right there should have insulted liberated ladies who for years have tried to separate sex from significance.  But then again, if Obama consistently pays his female staffers $11K less than the males, it’s understandable that the president might feel that working women could be a little pressed for cash to purchase the necessary protection for after-work dalliances.

Georgetown University Law School graduate Sandra Fluke became a media star when Rush Limbaugh connected the dots for America.  Rush merely pointed out that demanding health insurance provide free birth control in order to facilitate consequence-free sex presents an opportunity for women to employ government entitlements as a means to earn extra cash.

The left was apoplectic that Limbaugh dared to suggest that Sandra Fluke may actually be what she herself had intimated she might be – so much so that the President took the time to call Sandy F. to “express his disappointment that she has been the subject of inappropriate personal attacks.”  As a parent, Obama mentioned that Sandra’s parents, Richard and Betty should be proud of their daughter’s willingness to “exercise her rights as a citizen to speak out on an issue of public policy.”

Let’s remember that when casually discussing birth control, abortion, and his own twisted sense of morality, it was the president who mentioned that Sasha and Malia should not be “punished” with a baby.  That bizarre comment coming from a father of two young girls indicates that career choices and potential income are not the first and foremost opportunities Obama anticipates will face his daughters.

Nevertheless, it was during Obama’s reelection campaign that Ms. Fluke’s dog-and-filly show took to the road.  The “democrat darling” traveled the nation representing victimized womenfolk and portrayed Republicans as Neanderthals trying to deprive the fairer sex of the necessary accoutrements for a healthy sex life. But the accolades didn’t stop there; Sandra also earned a slot as a featured speaker at the Democratic National Convention and TIME Magazine even considered Her Flukeness for Person of the Year.

Meanwhile, as Sandra was busily helping secure Obama’s reelection with the hyper-dependent Julias of the world, female employees working on Obama’s reelection campaign were earning an “average of $6,872…compared with an average of $7,235 for male employees. That is a difference of $363, or 5.3 percent.”

Then, recently, a White House Flicker photo was released of a meeting of Barack Obama’s top advisers.  The picture was void of even one female representative, so either the president’s top-level ladies were busy using those free contraceptives, or women are not welcome in the president’s innermost circle.

Couple the missing female Obama advisers with the president’s female staffers and campaign employees being paid considerably less than males and there’s a clear indication that the liberal “war on women” fiction involves something besides addressing traditional feminist issues.

Therefore, based on the lack of female representation and continued salary inequity in the Obama administration, as well as the emphasis in the “war on women” being on the “right” to a paternalistic birth control entitlement, it appears liberals believe women are reliant on men to protect their right to be ready for sex at a moment’s notice. It also explains why, on behalf of American women, liberal men like Barack Obama will keep fighting the good fight against conservatives who continue to insist that honoring a woman isn’t about equipping her for worry-free sex at taxpayer expense.

The Worldwide ‘War on Women’

Originally posted at American Thinker

American women have now been esteemed to such a level that for taking a stand against religious liberty and becoming the nation’s contraceptive cover girl, Sandra Fluke is actually being considered as TIME magazine’s Person of the Year.

Women who commiserate with Sandra likely view themselves as also suffering the hammers of hell here in the misogynist war zone called America.  After all, American women have withstood the abuse and pain of living thus far without the benefit of free contraceptives.  Now, however, equipped with newfound fame and with the re-election of Barack Obama signifying a battle won, maybe Ms. Fluke can now branch out and become an international spokesperson on how women around the world can stand strong in the face of male-imposed tyranny.

Who better than Sandra to represent injustices such as a 15-year-old girl being beheaded by a male cousin over a rejected marriage proposal?

Here in America, while girls of Mexican-American descent picked out dresses for a festive quinceañera, in the Imam Sahib district of Kunduz province, 15-year-old Gisa was out gathering water by the river when she was ambushed by close male cousin Sadeq, who proceeded to saw off her head with a knife.

Gisa’s father refused to allow his daughter to marry because of her tender age.  So, instead of a wedding dress and a wedding, the girl’s headless body was returned to her family, wrapped in a sheet and dressed for a funeral.

With that in mind, Sandra Fluke did do a bang-up job on Capitol Hill advancing awareness of the war on women by schooling the Catholic hierarchy on polycystic ovary syndrome.  So why not fly Sandra out to Khanabad to give a similar speech to Afghani men about the discriminatory display of hostility exhibited when one separates the head of a young girl from her body?

After she celebrates the rampant practice of female feticide, Sandra can then turn her attention toward injustices like beheading, stoning, genital mutilation, rape, and splashing acid in the faces of Afghani girls.  Then the war-on-women/endometriosis expert can pack her copy of TIME magazine and a fresh supply of free contraceptives and fly off to Michoacán, Mexico.

After all, it was in Michoacán that former mayor of Tiqicheo Maria Santos Gorrostieta’s half-nude, mutilated body was recently found dumped in a rural field.

Maria stood up to drug cartels over marijuana and heroin in the same way Ms. Fluke stood up to the patriarchal Catholic Church over the right to NuvaRings and FemCaps.  One difference, though — Sandra Fluke became a liberal hero, while Maria was kidnapped, tortured, and then executed.

America has Sandra Fluke working on behalf of free contraceptives for all, and Mexico had Maria Santos Gorrostieta, who died defying a drug-driven turf war.  Unlike America’s gutsy Sandra Fluke, Maria didn’t live long enough to have the opportunity to solicit free birth control in front of Democratic members of the U.S. House of Representatives.  Instead, what this lovely young woman did do was spend her short life working selflessly on behalf of the region’s poor.

Before her death, the mayor had already suffered and survived many gunshot wounds at the hands of drug cartels.  Even Maria’s husband, the town’s former mayor José Sánchez Chávez, was killed in one ambush.  In a subsequent attack, gunmen opened fire again on Santos Gorrostieta, leaving her scarred, maimed, and in need of acolostomy bag.

When Gorrostieta left office, her security detail was withdrawn.  Then, like Gisa’s cousins, the former mayor’s vengeful stalkers lay in wait to seek the retribution that had formerly evaded them.

Eight days after Gorrostieta pleaded that the life of her daughter be spared, farm workers found the woman’s battered corpse on the side of the road.  What happened at the hands of the quasi-religious drug cartel La Familia Michoacana during the previous week, no one knows for sure.  Still, it’s reassuring to know that there’s someone like Sandra Fluke out there, who can, having endured gender oppression at the hands of male clergy at Georgetown University Law Center, empathize with Maria’s pain.

Maria Santos once said, “Despite my own safety and that of my family, what occupies my mind is my responsibility toward my people, the children, the women, the elderly and the men who break their souls every day without rest to find a piece of bread for their children.”

Prior to her throat being slit, little Gisa’s last words were probably a cry for help for someone to save her life.  Sandra Fluke, on the other hand, is celebrated for furthering the fabricated, self-absorbed point that “[Paul] Ryan’s abortion position kills women.”

It is a shame that in some circles, women having to pay for their own birth control or abortion elicits a greater outcry than females being victimized by multiple assassination attempts or decapitation by a close relative.

In the end, for her part in the “war on women” Fluke did get a gig at the DNC Convention and will get her beloved contraceptives for free and, unlike young Gisa and Maria Santos Gorrostieta, will also likely achieve fame on the cover of TIME magazine.

Suffice it to say that while women suffer and die all around the world, in America, liberal “ladies” represented by the likes of political prop Sandra Fluke come across like a bunch of whining ingrates who defame the memory of martyrs like Maria Santos Gorrostieta and innocents like Gisa — two victims of the world’s real war on women.

Outsmarting a Chicago Smarty at His Own Game

Originally posted at American Thinker

It’s a week since the 2012 election, and personally, I’m totally disoriented.  I mistook Friday for Wednesday; I live on an island destroyed by hurricane Sandy; and my overall mood borders on despondent.  For me, anyway, it’s depressing that left-wing academes, women in vagina suits, illegal aliens, liberal progressives, 85% of all Muslims living in America, and Hugo Chávez, Vladimir Putin, Fidel Castro, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are all equally ecstatic about the re-election of Barack Obama.

While disconcerting to most, those types of accolades have not been wasted on the president.  He has mistaken a non-mandate for a mandate and is wasting zero time frenetically fast-tracking policies guaranteed to further limit the constitutional freedoms of every American, including those who were twirling around like Deadheads after the November 6 election was called.

And even though the Republicans retained control of the House, in the bleakness and disappointment that remains, there seems to be little hope left for those who thought the election would turn out differently.

The truth is that while the last vestiges of freedom hinge directly on state representatives who attest to conservative principles, hearing Barry’s favorite golf partner John Boehner saying that ObamaCare is now “the law of the land” has made many, including myself, want to throw ourselves off that “fiscal cliff” that’s currently the topic of alarmed discussion.

On the day following the election, Speaker Boehner politely acquiesced to the effect that the people’s choice indicates that indeed this is Barack Obama’s “moment.”  However, Boehner did maintain that while he’s committed to assisting the president in reining in entitlement programs and is anxious to support serious spending cuts, Congress is not open to punishing small business owners — i.e., “the rich” — with tax increases.

Sorry, but John Boehner feigning bravado coupled with Barack Obama’s self-assured swaggering has only added to the pervading depression that has gripped half the country.  What America is currently being subjected to by Barack Obama is the same “I won” attitude he had in 2009 when he proposed and implemented his failed $787-billion stimulus package.

Nonetheless, John Boehner has encouraged the president to take the lead.  Yet for the sake of the future of America, at this juncture, John is the one who should be doing the leading.

Instead of immediately extending an olive branch, what the speaker of the House should recognize is that he’s the one who holds the power when it comes to everything the cocksure Obama believes he now controls.  If Mr. Boehner spent more time paying attention and less time at the tanning salon, he might realize that the key to hamstringing Barack Obama’s goals is to outsmart a Chicago smarty at his own game.

How?  Well, before election week ended, the retired four-star general/civilian CIA director General David Petraeus admitted to an extramarital affair and promptly stepped down.  Petraeus’s shocking resignation took place one week prior to being compelled to testify before Congress about the seven-hour terrorist attack on the Libyan consulate in Benghazi that took the lives of four Americans on the anniversary of September 11.

As a group, most Obama voters have proven to be generally oblivious to the more serious issues facing America’s future.  Perhaps David Petraeus’s suspiciously timed resignation will be the thing that finally captures the attention of those who, thus far, have been more concerned with Big Bird and birth control than an American ambassador being raped, tortured, and killed.

Therefore, instead of allowing the haughty Barack Obama to continue calling the shots, House Republicans could use General Petraeus’s resignation as a catalyst to wrest control from the president and place it back into the hands of the American people.

To do so, it would be necessary for congressional Republicans to muster up the temerity to use the Benghazi cover-up as clout; then, once they’re hit in the paycheck, even those who supported the foolishly reelected Two-Term Terminator will be demanding answers about what went down in Libya.

In lieu of Petraeus’s testimony, the first step would be for Republicans to promptly petition the White House to hand over all correspondence relating to the Benghazi event.  John Boehner could then demand pertinent evidence including e-mails and videos from the Situation Room, from which place the terrorist attack was taped as it unfolded in real time.  If Barack Obama and his minions choose to continue to stonewall, the speaker will be justified in countering the president’s refusal by publicly refusing to comply with budgetary negotiations, including discussions about tax cuts, rates, and revenue.

If Mr. Boehner manages to effectively utilize the incident in Benghazi for political leverage and the nation subsequently careens forward over the “fiscal cliff,” the president can then be held accountable.  Moreover, Boehner will at least have a fighting chance to make the argument that the nation’s economic woes are a result of the White House refusing to come clean.

In other words, if, on behalf of the American people, Republicans in Congress suck it up and grasp the optimal set of circumstances currently before them, then, caught between a “fiscal cliff” and Benghazi, Barack Obama will be the one doing the surrendering, not the other way around.

Figuring out the Fluke Fracas

Almost a week after Sandra Fluke supposedly spoke on behalf of sexually active Catholic schoolgirls everywhere, there has been a lot of discussion over the content of the third-year Georgetown Law School student’s comments.  Also in question is the motive behind her appearance as well as whether the right’s reaction was warranted.

Some conservatives are convinced Sandra Fluke is some kind of smokescreen or straw man, which is a valid argument.  Let’s face it, liberals are savvy enough to realize that if things get politically tense for the President, they can always cobble together a panel and throw out some social issue or other for the right side of the aisle to pounce on.  The result? A diversion where conservatives focus more on titillating testimony than Barack Obama’s failed presidency.

To make the rumpus even more diversionary, it is possible the liberals also planned beforehand to have the President jump into the fray (a la the Tucson civil discourse discussion).  Holding the line for the right moment, the left knew that eventually the pre-marital sex, contraception, and abortion bait would get a bite from a prominent conservative.  This time they got lucky and caught a huge fish.

The left also knew that as the economy circles the drain, Israel teeters on the precipice of war, Iran plans to deliver a nuclear bomb, gasoline heads toward $5 a gallon, and the unemployment numbers remain high, is also the perfect time for Barack Obama to rush in and rescue a damsel in distress

From a liberal viewpoint, what with Rush Limbaugh and all, the effort appears to have been quite successful. While to others, on the surface the Fluke Fracas may only seem like a Pelosi-orchestrated, disingenuous left-wing stunt used to convince America that in the name of women’s health a struggling student has a right to a worry-free sex life. But that’s not it at all.

The truth is that Sandra Fluke is a micro example of a macro liberal problem.  The left is replete with angry, selfish, amoral parasites who want to place the nation in the hands of an elite upper class by pushing social welfare programs that extend, as the old idiom goes, “from the cradle to the grave.”

Know this: all liberals, from Fluke to Obama, want to dictate who and how many end up in that cradle and ultimately when they end up occupying those graves.

There’s a treasure trove to glean from the Fluke debate, because the reality is that Sandra Fluke is just Barack Obama in a woman’s conservative business suit and earrings. Listening to what Sandra had to say is identical to the type of sob story Barack Obama would read off the Teleprompter at a NARAL meeting. Same message, same demands, and same socialist goals, with one difference: one has XY chromosomes, the other two XXs.

Regardless of what appears to be happening on the surface, Sandra and Barry are playing the same game, sit on the same side of the table, and are partners on the same team.  Different outfits, identical message.

When it comes to literal interpretations, liberals are usually extremely lax.  To suit themselves, the left are adherents of the “living, breathing” school of Constitutional studies and the “true for you, but not for me” Bible study group. Void of any gray area, suddenly liberals are interpreting Sandra Fluke’s transparent testimony literally.

The complaint from the left is that conservatives unfairly criticized Sandra Fluke and that despite the uproar she never ‘officially’ referred to her personal sex life.

Sandra did talk about the cost of birth control being $3,000 for three years of law school and regurgitated a litany of horror stories she’s heard, all apparently resulting from women being denied subsidized birth control at a Catholic university.  At the end of her testimony Sandra finished by reading off a series of “we” statements, which officially identified her with those she advocated for.

In most instances a person speaking on a particular subject before a congressional subcommittee appears to embody the message.  You wouldn’t have a man lecture congress on the pain of childbirth, or have an agoraphobic share their experiences with public transportation.

If Sandra wasn’t talking about herself by identifying with the hardships of the women seeking birth control, it’s a shame. Democrats could have gained more traction by recruiting a celibate pro-choice nun to speak in favor of government-funded birth control.

Even if Ms. Fluke didn’t literally say: “In three years of law school, I spent $3,000 for birth control,” the argument that Sandra Fluke is a merely a virtuous woman concerned about the plight of oppressed women doesn’t fly.

In conclusion, Sandra Fluke is the recipient of a “public interest” scholarship and attends law school for free.  Yet, to finance her choice to participate in sexual activity she apparently was hard-pressed to come up with $3,000 in three years, which comes to approximately $19 a week.

Here’s the problem: with a little research it’s easy to find out that Georgetown University has a Starbucks located on campus at the Leavey Center.

The coffee enterprise is likely doing a booming business, especially with students who spend most days and nights mainlining caffeine.  At Starbucks one tall (small) cup of java a day runs about $2.01. But most college students indulge in more than one cup a day and many others prefer lattes, frappes, and macchiatos at sometimes triple the price.

It’s probable that those struggling female students at Georgetown Law spend at least the $19 needed to cover the cost of birth control in a week at Starbucks.  Which means either Sandra Fluke needs to argue on behalf of taxpayer-funded Skinny Mochas for sleepy students, or at least have the intellectual honesty to admit she and her female schoolmates should spend their own money on birth control.

So, as usual, despite indignant arguments in their own defense, transparent liberals are not as clever as they think.  Neither are they consistent or honest. Moreover, even with a $40K-a-year law degree, even the smartest among them seem incapable of figuring out that by students simply avoiding trendy coffee shops they could easily finance extracurricular activities and save the government money at the same time.

Sandra Fluke’s New Telephone Buddy

The truth is finally out – when not apologizing to radical Muslims, Barack Obama spends some of his down time making telephone calls to sexually promiscuous females.

Sandra Fluke, a third-year law student at Jesuit Georgetown University and past president of Georgetown Law Students for Reproductive Justice, due to time constraints was initially denied the opportunity to address Congress regarding her concerns about religious institutions denying women free contraceptives.

Ms. Fluke’s voice was finally heard.  Appearing before a Democratic Steering and Policy Committee event, Fluke expounded on the benefits of forcing Catholic institutions, under duress, to provide coverage to sexually active students who would rather not shell out a summer’s salary to accommodate their reproductive rights.

Sexually active spokesperson Sandra F. is apparently so committed to having her extracurricular activities subsidized by the American taxpayer that she admitted to spending $3,000 on birth control in three years.   After such a bold admission, how could Barack Obama not make it his personal mission to compel this patriotic nation to assist him in his efforts to provide Ms. Fluke with the proper accoutrements for worry-free coitus all year long?

Fluke’s testimony was so revealing that it even inspired conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh to assign Sandra a colorful description with a word so shocking it prompted the President of the United States to drop his golf club and phone up the target of Limbaugh’s attack.

It should warm the cockles of America’s heart to know our President is so concerned about America’s sex life that he took time out of his busy schedule to reach out, touch, “encourage…support and thank” the extraordinary Ms. Fluke for enduring the attack of a puritanical conservative for merely “speaking out about the concerns of American women.”

Time and again, Barack Obama has proven he’s concerned about providing for the educational needs of America’s students.  It could be that in addition to re-habbing Sandra’s Rush-tainted reputation, the President may have called to reassure the outspoken reproductive activist that his administration is doubling down on its efforts to make sure Catholic institutions across America make free contraceptives available so that hardworking students can still afford a Starbucks Grande Caramel Macchiato to keep alert during late-night cram sessions.

After the call, Fluke said that Obama “did express his concern for me and wanted to make sure that I was ok. I am. I’m ok.”

Come on people, you gotta hand it to her – any girl who can participate in $3,000 worth of recreational sex in three years and still graduate law school has earned a personal phone call from the leader of the free world inquiring as to whether or not she’s “okay.”

Liberals from MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell to Barack Obama have lauded the law student’s articulate ability to advocate for government-funded contraception while blowing off the First Amendment with forthright insistence that Catholic doctrine, teaching, and conscience be publicly crushed under the bureaucratic boot heel of Birth-Control Barack, Provider of Prophylactics.

Discussing the historic call from President Obama, Sandra said that “what was really personal…was that [Obama] said to tell my parents that they should be proud. And that meant a lot because Rush Limbaugh questioned whether or not my family would be proud of me. So I just appreciated that very much.”

During their telephone tête-à-tête, Obama attempted to alleviate the wounded feelings of both Sandra and Sandra’s mom and dad, who Rush Limbaugh dared to suggest should be humiliated by their daughter’s public discussion of her busy sex life, and for taking up the fight that the Catholic church should assist in making sure she’s not “punished with a baby” if she should happen to make a “mistake.

Instead of mentioning Sandra’s apparent appetite for habitual fornication, Obama reassured Ms. Fluke that despite Rush Limbaugh’s rude and crude insinuations, any parent would be proud of a daughter having the boldness to confront stodgy papists by boasting before a Congressional panel about the high cost of unbridled debauchery.

In a press briefing following the phone call, immediately after clarifying that Fluke is properly pronounced “Fluck,” White House press secretary Jay Carney said the President “[e]xpressed his disappointment that she has been the subject of inappropriate personal attacks and thanked her for exercising her rights as a citizen to speak out on an issue of public policy… with a great deal of poise.” What Carney conveniently left out is that the public policy in question denies the right of others to exercise freedom of religion.

When testifying, Sandra did Barry proud by rattling off a litany of typical liberal sob stories. Laid at the feet of religious institutions refusing to provide birth control was responsibility for a married student who had to “stop using contraception because she couldn’t afford it any longer” and the distressing plight of “women employed in low wage jobs without contraceptive coverage,” women who can’t afford 75 cents for a condom or $1.50 per day for birth control pills.  What’s a girl to do?

Piling on the guilt, Sandra’s testimony also included references to endometriosis and unreported rape, along with an anecdote about a lesbian friend with polycystic ovarian syndrome whose treatment required birth control pills; without which her friend developed a massive cyst the size of a “tennis ball,” leading to a partial hysterectomy with resulting menopausal symptoms and infertility – implying that all those conditions resulted, in one way or another, thanks to Jesuit priests who refuse to distribute free birth control.

One thing was clear, Fluke the feisty feminist’s testimony didn’t disappoint.  Continuing one, she declared, “As one student put it, ‘this policy communicates to female students that our school doesn’t understand our needs.’ These are not feelings that male fellow students experience. And they’re not burdens that male students must shoulder.”

That’s for damned sure – the male students at Georgetown apparently aren’t burdened in the least, and thanks to the efforts of one Sandra Fluke, are probably all quite relaxed.

If Georgetown University should insist upon applying the Jesuit cura personalis creed Sandra Fluke cited, then with the exception of complimentary birth control and abortion, it appears that her telephone buddy Barack is ready to regulate the Church into submission, and through government mandates assure that her recreational sex needs be given priority over the infallible teachings of the church.

In the end, Rush apologized.  However, Rush Limbaugh’s initial remarks about Sandra Fluke along with the President’s personal phone call may have accidentally furthered world peace.  After all was said and done and thanks to the testimony of Sandra Fluke, at least now Israeli Prime Minister Bebe Netanyahu knows exactly what it takes to get Barack Obama to talk to him again on the phone.

The Liberal Quest for Population Control

Originally posted at American Thinker blog

Slowly but surely, the Obama administration is introducing the general public to the idea that fewer people born translates into health care cost savings. Liberals are so committed to the idea of fewer live births that by issuing conscience-disturbing mandates, Barack Obama, honorary doctor of obstetrics and gynecology, has even found a way to restrain the growth of prolific, pharmaceutical birth control-shunning Catholic families.

In addition to promoting contraception, the United States Preventative Services Task Force has also indicated that annual preventive breast cancer  screening should be considered a luxury. Thus, without yearly mammograms, if breast cancer isn’t detected until it’s too late, women on birth control pills may also contribute to the left’s initiative to foster fewer human beings.

From the looks of things, it certainly appears as if the Obamacare concept of prevention seems obsessed with curtailing the population. And while birth control is not exactly a ‘death-panel’ per se, it could be described as a life-preventative.  The death panel idea may be reserved for those who manage to make it out of the womb and who, after being tethered to a tax burden for 65 years, tap the health care system for expensive geriatric care.

With that in mind, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius’ recent appearance before a House panel takes on new meaning.   Ms. Sebelius testified that reducing 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.”

Speaking before the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health on behalf of Barack Obama’s 2013 budget proposal, Secretary Sebelius argued that the hope is that in tandem with a predicted drop in American babies being born, the “estimated cost” for insurances payouts will go “down not up.”

Therefore, based on Ms. Sebelius’s formula for fiscal solvency, it’s clear to see what’s up ahead on the road to universal/socialized health care.  Fewer human beings keep costs “down not up,” which is why the fewer the better — from deterring live births to the potential for cost saving implementation of early death.

During the hearing, Ms. Sebelius touched upon the subject of religious liberty and how the First Amendment “free exercise of religion” is impacted by the government imposition of ‘sterilization, contraception or abortion’ regulations on Christians who, together with Catholic bishops, agree that they “cannot…[and]…will not — comply with this unjust law.”

Verbalizing the Obama administration’s peculiar interpretation of the Constitution, Catholic Kathleen Sebelius insisted that a mandate that forces Christians to violate their conscience “upholds religious liberty,” which is sort of like the liberal “right to privacy” belief that abortion really isn’t ‘killing.’

During the hearing, Sebelius revealed to Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) a minor detail that shed light on how liberals also disregard the canon of the Catholic Church.  Ms. Sebelius admitted that “Despite the controversy over whether the mandate is constitutional, the administration never sought a legal opinion about the regulation from the Department of Justice.”

Having it all figured out, Sebelius explained to the subcommittee that “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.”

Apparently, the premise is that if an insurance company pays for a Catholic’s tubal ligation, it’s as good as receiving papal dispensation.

During the subcommittee hearing, Tim Murphy (R-PA) made the point that “contraception provided by insurance companies to people employed by religious organizations under the future form of the rule Sebelius described would not be free.” Murphy asked, “Who pays for it? There’s no such thing as a free service.”

Well that’s for sure; especially when what’s being offered has such a high cancer risk.  If cultivating less people is the real plan, why not just advance population control by handing out free cigarettes?

Either way, Sebelius responded that whether birth control is free or not is not the point with insurance. “The reduction in the number of pregnancies compensates for cost of contraception,” Sebelius said. In other words, by doling out “free” morning-after pills, insurance companies save money in the long run by avoiding the cost of having to pay for little Susie’s tonsillectomy.

Murphy expressed surprise at Sebelius’s “addition by subtraction” answer, saying, “So you are saying, by not having babies born, we are going to save money on health care?” By probing a tiny bit further Mr. Murphy could have verified the obvious by asking whether the long-term plan also included saving money by applying similar logic to dying people.

Using cost-benefit language, Sebelius replied, “Providing contraception is a critical preventive health benefit for women and for their children.”  But a yearly mammography is not?

Murphy again sought clarification: “Not having babies born is a critical benefit. This is absolutely amazing to me. I yield back.”

Sebelius responded that according to big pusher of contraception and promoter of population control, the Institute of Medicine, “Family planning is a critical health benefit in this country.” Yeah, but what about the health risk related to birth control and abortion and their alleged causal relationship to breast cancer?

After the hearing, Brett Guthrie (R-KY), a member of the subcommittee, injected additional logic into Sebelius’s line of reasoning.  The Kentucky congressman said that if “mandating contraception saves money there shouldn’t be a need for a mandate.” Guthrie argued further, “If the health insurance companies were really acting in their own best interest, they would be giving these pills out for free, if it really saved money.”

And so, the bottom line is this, don’t think about it — just accept it.  Because whether America wants Yaz® or not, ObamaCare free contraception, sterilization and abortion will be provided to women who, in addition to not having children, will also have the opportunity to decrease the population when the government deprives them of preventative mammography’s to head off breast cancer that’s been induced by federally-funded Depo-Provera.

%d bloggers like this: