Sebellius: Reduce costs by reducing births

Did you know that Pres. Obama’s closest science adviser, John Holdren, was a colleague of Paul Erlich, the chicken-little of resource scarcity due to over-population?   If we don’t force the number of births down, we’ll run out of resources and die.  Babies are, in this deluded school of thought, the enemy.

Enter catholic Kathleen Sebelius, Sec. of the HHS, who under the directions of her master in the Oval Office, testified before a House panel that “The reduction in the number of pregnancies compensates for the cost of contraception.”

The Obama Adminstration is trying to reduce the number of live births, not just pregnancies.

Check out the CNS article on what ensued.

According to CNS:

During the subcommittee hearing, Rep. Tim Murphy (R-Pa.) said that contraception provided by insurance companies to people employed by religious organizations under the future form of the rule Sebelius described would not be was not free.

“Who pays for it? There’s no such thing as a free service,” 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.

Sebelius responded, “Family planning is a critical health benefit in this country, according to the Institute of Medicine.”

When the government gets to redefine these so-called “reproductive services” as a basic “right”, then they will after that tell you how you must use them.

Margaret Sanger would be so proud.

You know what?  The longer old people live the more we have to spend to take care of them, especially with the decreasing number of young workers available to fund the entitlements.  It is my right to have contraception and abortifacients.  But instead we are spending money on old people.  Fewer old people means that my rights are vindicated.  Why can’t people see that we need fewer old people?

Catholics are also standing between me and my rights….

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in 1983 CIC can. 915, Dogs and Fleas, Emanations from Penumbras, Our Catholic Identity, Religious Liberty, The Drill, The future and our choices, The Last Acceptable Prejudice and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.


  1. wmeyer says:

    Under an Obama second term, I have little doubt that Sebelius’ rule-making would include invocation of a one-child policy.

  2. Capt. Morgan says:

    When you take what ms. Sebelius says in light of the medical journal report from this week discussing the ethics of infanticide, and the report today of traveling euthanasia teams in the netherlands, one can see where this modernist/satanist agenda is heading. It is a full frontal assault folks! the father of all lies feels free to spread death, and we need to spend a great deal of knee time against this.
    Saint Michael, Archangel, Pray for Us!

  3. Fiat Mihi says:

    Did she end the hearing by shouting, “Soylent Green is people!”

  4. APX says:

    Oh please. If you have fewer babies, you won’t be able to sustain the country’s population. If that happens, you’ll have to open up the immigration flood gates to compensate, which will actually cost more in the end. Just look at Canada.

  5. Marc says:

    @wmeyer, you took the works right out of my mou…my finger tips.

    No doubt that that one child policy is down the road.

  6. DisturbedMary says:

    How’s one elderly person per household sound to you Kathleen?

  7. NoTambourines says:

    She just spilled the beans: there is a goal within government to limit births. Public policy is proceeding on the assumption that this is a good thing and a worthwhile goal. Hey, HHS Secretary Sibelius! Keep your laws off of my body!

    If you haven’t heard of the Jaffe Memo, it’s disturbing:

  8. Jim Ryon says:

    Margaret Sanger would be so proud.
    And Mao Tse-tung

  9. NoTambourines says:

    Sebelius, I mean. I guess was thinking of the “Finlandia” guy.

  10. acardnal says:

    Let’s see. . . .Empress Sibelius and Emperor Obama and the one child policy. How insightful Fr. Z is with his Sino-Obama imagery!

  11. Texana says:

    The Complete Lives System gives healthcare to those who are most productive–Children above the age of 5 years and adults below the age of 50. Our Dear Leader and his Maoist friends can’t wait till 2014 to implement it disguised as healthcare. Useless eaters will be eliminated. Maybe we should be calling for the repeal of Obamacare including the mandate!

  12. keithp says:

    I think that is the most despicable and frightening comment I have ever seen coming from an American offical. Certainly, this is the exact same justification that the Nazi’s used when disposing of the handicapped, Juden and other untermenchen?

    I am ashamed and enraged. What can be done?

  13. ocalatrad says:

    I am always stunned when I consider the incredible short-sightedness and sheerly demonic vision of these miserable people in office. Just how do the welfare-statists think we’ll be able to fund all of their wonderful entitlements in the coming generation or two with a dwindling youth population. Who will enter the workforce and sustain it? The family has already been eroded to such a point that it can only with great struggle function as the primary social safety net which it has always been. Who is going to pay for healthcare, social security, etc etc.? Right now it takes about two or three workers to pay for one retiree’s social security. The number is going to increase in the coming years because of rising costs. Then what?

    Forgive my despairing tone but this all gets so frustrating. That said, I am placing my faith in God’s blessing my future wife and I with many children and a supportive family and friend network by which we can begin rebuilding Christendom, one baby at a time.

  14. Andrew says:

    Continuing with the same train of thought: ideally we should reduce the population to zero which would reduce the cost of health care to zero also. (It would also reduce our GNP to zero, but let’s not talk about that for now.)

  15. NoTambourines says:

    Andrew: The truth is stranger than fiction. There is a Voluntary Human Extinction movement:

  16. The Cobbler says:

    Am I remembering correctly that “HHS” stands for “Health and Human Services”?

    What’s “Human Services” mean? ‘Cuz even I have watched enough TV to know that “servicing humans” means prostitution, which I doubt “human services” means, but I have to say it’s not at all obvious what “human services” are and how it could not be a weird euphemism for something, I’m just not sure what. Even “human resources”, which is still creepy (and does a pretty good job of encapsulating what Distributists object to, incidentally), says what it means; but what’s “human services” mean and if it isn’t anything objectionable why don’t we call it by whatever its plainer name is? Medicine and medical aid? Healthcare? The support of doctors and hospitals? Any of these things would be legit — and would never be called “human services” in a sane plane of existence. But I guess we’re not living in a sane plane of existence since ridding oneself of a child pre-birth is considered a matter of “health”. Still wanna know what it means, insane though it be — I can’t keep track of all the little madmen (and madwomen, let’s not discriminate against women by denying their ability to go mad — on purpose no less) out there if I can’t break their stupid codes, and if I can’t keep track of the madmen I’ll have to start praying for a world of dwarves whose madness I can understand instead.

  17. Nicole says:

    Well…this is merely what happens in a society of weak men who let their women lead public lives against nature: Kathleen Sebellius…

  18. acardnal says:

    @Nicole : ouch!

  19. wmeyer says:

    NoTambourines: I think that the first chapter was begun by GreenPeace, long before Al Gore invented the Internet.

  20. wmeyer says:

    Amen, Nicole

    The men in question initially were from my generation, and signed on after being cowed by the original, most rabid of the feminists.

  21. Joseph-Mary says:

    At least they are opening saying what we all know: kill the children so that they will never be on the welfare roles. This is why you have abortuaries conveniently located in many poor neighborhoods. It is BS that it is ‘help’ the poor women with their ‘health care’. NO! It is to kill the children of the ‘undesirables’ as Ms. Sanger envisioned. And, yes, the elderly are certainly a drain and so you will have involuntary euthanasia which is to say someone, not God, will decide when your life should end. Oh, you have a Down’s child or another child less than perfect? Well, we can’t have that; they cost too much money and the government gets to decide where all the monies go.

    We will be going from a simple bad dream to a nightmare soon if this continues and the government will be our enemy. It has happened before and history repeats itself. Get active! Do what you can to push back the evil.

  22. trad catholic mom says:

    So the Obama admin is taking one from the playbook of communist China. Why am I not surprised.

  23. heway says:

    Yes sir, Hitler and Mao – here we go! This woman has no business being in HHS -she is a lawyer and by her statements has no medical background. What she is talking about is ‘population control’ ! And this should be apparent to everyone by now. Which parent will my children want to dispose of first?

  24. Jackie L says:

    Sure, birth-control is cheaper then raising a child, I’m sure this will save a little money for a little while…but in 25 years when we have birth-controlled, sterilized and aborted away our tax base what do we do? Fewer old people may be an option these people seriously push.

  25. JMody says:

    Congress should ask her for a forecast of the total money savings she expects based on number of births “avoided” (and even “remedied” by abortion) and provide a 30 year demographic forecast of population growth and resulting impact on the tax base. It IS a “Health?Human” issue of concern to the government, after all, so who better than her.

    When they tear it apart, impeach her for gross incompetence (can’t get the math right) or gross lack of integrity (fudged the math in a report to Congress). It might be like getting Al Capone on tax evasion, but hey, it’ll get her off the street.

    Which psalm was that again Father, asking for our enemies to receive sick dogs and dead crops and stubbed toes and laryngitis and shingles and insomnia and what not?

  26. Marion Ancilla Mariae says:

    It would seem that wherever there are government attempts to implement a nationwide welfare state with cradle-to-grave benefits – Soviet Russia, Communist China, or now Progressive U.S.A. – among the first order of business for said government is to limit births among the population either by preventing pregnancies or killing babies in the womb. Or both.

    Cradle-to-grave benefits cost a great deal of money. Government money. Where does government get that money? From taxes. Here in the U.S., that would be taxes on income, especially on wage income. If lots of women are staying out of the workforce because they have little babies to care for, there’s that many fewer workers, and that much less taxable income to go into government coffers. Less tax revenue, smaller budget. Smaller budget, fewer programs, less pork.

    Fewer programs, less pork, less power for the politicians. Less power for the politicians, unthinkable!

    That is why big-government social programs always seem to go hand-in-hand with a Culture of Death mentality.

  27. jlduskey says:

    Why do we have an economic turn-down? Ask any business. We aren’t selling enough product. Why? Because we don’t have enough customers. And why do we have a decreasing number of customers? Because our population is decreasing.
    The Obama-Sebelius plan is a short term solution to the problem of decreasing health care costs. But it will have devastating effects on the economy. Fewer people means a decreasing number of products being sold, and a lower GNP, lower tax dollars paid to the government, and eventually the whole economy shuts down.
    We had some prosperity in the post-WWII era in the 1950s, at the time of the post-war baby boom. That is the path to a successful economy.

  28. AnnAsher says:

    “preventive health benefit” gnaws at me. Pregnancy- children – are a disease?! Preventive health is for preventing disease. How does one use preventive health to prevent health ? Gnawing. I’m afraid of the days to come. I don’t know if I’ll have the courage of the Maccabean mother.

  29. PA mom says:

    I really believe that having fewer children has sapped men of their naturally attained confidence. I have seen my own husband’s personal growth over this ten years, and after an initial period of chaos following each child, it would happen that he would develop a new process and become quite competent and then confident. The daily tasks of time and people management through leadership, anger control and even fiscal control all act like great ways to firm up the insides of a person.

  30. wmeyer says:

    PA mom: excellent observation.

  31. MikeM says:

    “Providing contraception is a critical preventive health benefit for women and for their children.”

    For their children??

  32. wmeyer says:

    MikeM: Yes, and they seem incapable of recognizing the intrinsic contradiction.

  33. Pingback: Monday Highlights | Pseudo-Polymath

  34. Pingback: Stones Cry Out - If they keep silent… » Things Heard: e211v1

Comments are closed.