The other day, when Bart Stupak revealed that he was told "If you pass the Stupak Amendment, more children will be born and therefore it will cost us millions more", I mentioned that it was no real surprise. Abortion is an agenda to the Left, it's not about life or some perceived 'choice'. I said that it just exposes the face underneath the mask a bit more; Now, it isn’t just about funding abortion, but using it as a cost-saving tool. James Taranto of The Wall Street Journal agrees:
In order to be effective, a policy of using abortion as a cost-cutting measure would have to aim at preventing the birth of babies with such pre-existing conditions. The goal would be not a reduction in the number of babies, but an "improvement" in the "quality" (narrowly defined in economic terms) of the babies who are born. This is known as eugenics.
Eugenics, indeed. See, not only can individual women be “punished by a baby,” but so can the entire World, evidently. This is one of the left's dirty little secrets; factions of the left have been encouraging eugenics for years. The "green" movement, for instance, has population control at its core. An example from Diane Francis, of the Financial Post, who in her article entitled The Real Inconvenient Truth: The Whole World Needs to Adopt China's One Child Policy, echoes the true beliefs of many global warming embracers. You know, like the majority of the Democrats in Congress and our President.
For those who balk at the notion that governments should control family sizes, just wait until the growing human population turns twice as much pastureland into desert as is now the case, or when the Amazon is gone, the elephants disappear for good and wars erupt over water, scarce resources and spatial needs.
For those who balk? As if it is just some weird new idea that we aren’t swift enough to embrace right away. Sadly, it’s not even a new idea. In fact, it is the basis for a lot of the global warming hysteria – the true agenda behind the movement is disturbing. Hints of such things have been coming out of the “Green Movement” and the left for years. They are just being more blatant about it now. President Obama, at the very least, embraces people who espouse such agendas: his very own science czar.
Last year, it was discovered that John Holdren was not pro-choice; but it was totally okay, because it wasn’t THAT kind of choice. It was the opposite, in fact; he argued in favor of MANDATORY abortions as a means of population control. From FrontPage Magazine:
“If some individuals contribute to general social deterioration by overproducing children, and if the need is compelling, they can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility” (pp. 837-838). Moreover, if the United States government refuses to take proper measures, they authorize the United Nations to take compelling force.
The excerpt is from his book, Ecoscience, which he co-authored, and which also espoused a World Government that would have global authority, including population control, and advocated for a global Redistribution of Wealth. It looks like his dream is coming to fruition, in part, via Obamacare and a Redistribution of Health.
Only now, it's not just population control, which is sinister enough. But it's for saving money.
Even most pro-choice people, as opposed to pro-abortion, would be sickened by this. They can perhaps rationalize being 'pro-choice" by choosing to believe that "when does life begin" is an actual question; perhaps one above one's "pay-grade", under the guise of personal freedom or a right to privacy. Those are the weak arguments generally used. Can they continue to use those lame arguments when it means sanctioning the killing of a child as a cost-saving measure?
Getting government into the eugenics business would have disturbing implications for reproductive liberty. What would happen to a woman who received, say, a prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome? She would be free (as she is today) to exercise her right to have an abortion. But would she be free to exercise her right not to have an abortion?
He goes on to wonder what would happen if a woman chose to carry a baby, diagnosed with a medical condition before fetal viability, to term. Would that baby's medical needs be covered? I'd go a step further and wonder what would happen if scientific advances find a "gay gene" or if government-sanctioned studies are done showing that women require more health care than men, due to pesky pregnancies and all.
I also wonder if the pregnancy itself would even be covered. If it's all about cost-saving measures, a complicated pregnancy is far more expensive - monetarily - than an abortion. Government-run health care may choose not to cover such pregnancies and, if Nancy Pelosi gets her way, the only option we will have is government run health care. She's already said that "once we kick in the door, more legislation will follow." This isn't even a slippery slope argument; it's the likely outcome.
As mentioned above, Liberals, for years, have been preaching eugenics under the euphemism population control. While vile, it isn't new. The difference is that they will now have full control over our bodies. Reproductive freedom? How, when the government owns your reproductive care and that government has no qualms about funding abortion and, in fact, encouraging it. Senator Barbara Boxer, Ma’am, proudly declared on the Senate floor that she believes that if health care covers Viagra, then it should cover abortion. Yes, because a treatment for a dysfunctional male naughty bit is exactly the same as a surgical procedure that takes a life. Senator Dianne Feinstein went one step further and admitted that she believes that is “morally correct” for taxpayers to fund abortion.
Nancy Pelosi said funding for "family planning services" (code for abortion) saves money. How does it save money, Speaker Pelosi? By "weeding out" the "undesirables" and, now, the ones that may cost too much money under your socialized medicine scheme? You obviously include Planned Parenthood as one of your family planning services. They seem to believe that abortions are preferable and more "cost-effective" than having babies. The Rosa Acuna Project exposed one such instance, with a video showing a counselor, with corroboration by a Doctor, telling a woman that the baby growing inside her womb isn’t really a baby:
"That is not a baby.” Dr. Polhaska, the abortion doctor, insists, “It’s not a baby at this stage or anything like that.” Polhaska also states that having an abortion will be “much safer than having a baby,” warning, “You know, women die having babies.”
Is that the kind of "family planning services" that you mean, Speaker Pelosi? It will save money and all.
It's not hard to imagine the federal government's establishing counseling protocols designed to encourage abortion in certain situations--for example, informing a woman after a Down syndrome diagnosis of the burdens (but not the joys) of rearing a child with that condition. This seems no less an infringement of reproductive liberty than the Pennsylvania law to which the pro-choice side objects.
No, it's not hard to imagine. Especially when one realizes that not only will "family planning services" be involved with our health care, but that Obamacare also includes funding to draft "socially acceptable" doctors.
Lurking within the recently-released Reconciliation bill is a brand new corps of government workers.
Page 911 of the 2010 Reconciliation PDF. Section 2231.
‘‘Subpart XII-Public Health Workforce
2 ‘‘SEC. 340L. PUBLIC HEALTH WORKFORCE CORPS.
3 ‘‘(a) ESTABLISHMENT.-There is established, within
4 the Service, the Public Health Workforce Corps (in this
5 subpart referred to as the ‘Corps'), for the purpose of en-
6 suring an adequate supply of public health professionals
7 throughout the Nation. The Corps shall consist of-
8 ‘‘(1) such officers of the Regular and Reserve
9 Corps of the Service as the Secretary may designate; ...."
It speaks of regular and reserve Officers, scholarships, loans, obligated service, individual contracts, training centers, the traditional income redistribution scheme of grants and grant proposals, etc. The debt repayment provisions are especially attractive to certain sectors of our population. It appears to be an indentured servitude gig. You sign up, do your part for nationalizing health care and the Corps will get the American taxpayer to foot the bill for your training and educational costs and retire your debts.
The Democrats in Congress have already made it clear they care not one whit about the will of the people; why would they care about people? Do you really wonder what kind of "training" this Health Workforce Corps will receive and what agendas they will be told to push?
I hope we need never find out.