Is The Left Waging A Clandestine War Against Large Families?

[mudwhistle]

Is the left secretly waging a war against large families?

This issue is beginning to boil to the surface with this birth control debate. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said that a decrease in human beings will cover the costs of the contraception mandate. Lisa Miller, a Washington Post journalist says that Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum's families are too large. Romney has 5 children and Santorum has 7. She has a problem with Michelle Bachmann foster parenting dozens of children. Not just giving birth to, but fostering them. Seems liberals are offended by big families. Deeply offended it seems.

Lisa Miller Washington Post- There’s nothing wrong with big families, of course. But the smug fecundity of the Republican field this primary season has me worried. Their family photos, with members of their respective broods spilling out to the margins, seem to convey a subliminal message that goes far beyond a father’s pride in being able to field his own basketball team. What the Republican front-runners seem to be saying is this: We are like the biblical patriarchs. As conservative religious believers, we take seriously the biblical injunction to be fruitful and multiply.

Especially worrisome is the inevitable corollary to that belief: Women should put their natural fertility first — before their brains, before their ability to earn a living, before their independence — because that’s what God wants.
Romney, Santorum and archaic ideas on fertility - The Washington Post

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius told a House panel Thursday that a reduction in 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.

“The reduction in the number of pregnancies compensates for the cost of contraception,” Sebelius said. She went on to say the estimated cost is “down not up.”Sebelius: Decrease in Human Beings Will Cover Cost of Contraception Mandate | CNSNews.com

I figure it this way; If you can afford to have a large family liberals need to butt-out.

WTF???

Is this China or is this America??

Because the Catholic church teaches that sterilization, contraception or abortion are wrong and that Catholics must not be inolved in them, the regulation forces Catholics--and members of other religious denominations that share those views--to act against the teachings of their faith. Numerous lawsuits have already been asserting that the rule violates the First Amendment’s guarantee to the free exercise of religion. Many of the nation's Catholic bishops have published letters saying: "We cannot--we will not--comply with this unjust law."
Sebelius, however, insisted that the mandate “upholds religious liberty."

“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,” Sebelius told the subcommittee.

The Catholic bishops have called for the regulation to be rescinded in its entirety, so that no employer, insurer or individual is forced to act against his or her conscience.

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.”

Rep. Brett Guthrie (R-Ky.), a member of the subcommittee, said after the hearing that if mandating contraception saves money there shouldn’t be a need for a mandate.

“Their argument is this: Health insurance companies will offer it for free because they make money. You reduce the number of people getting pregnant therefore you reduce the cost of pregnancy, or low birth weight pregnancies or other kind of pregnancies,” Guthrie told CNSNews.com.

“If you think about it, why don’t health insurance companies provide it now if the argument is health insurance companies are going to make a lot of money? 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,” Guthrie added.

Despite the controversy over whether the mandate is constitutional, Sebelius told Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) during the hearing that the administration never sought a legal opinion about the regulation from the Department of Justice.
Sebelius: Decrease in Human Beings Will Cover Cost of Contraception Mandate | CNSNews.com

Link

Washington Post’s Lisa Miller: Romney and Santorum Families Hurt Women | RedState

 

[konradv]

...or they're just trying to give people a choice. That's what this is about, NOT eugenics. I think independent women and their husbands will see through this.

 

[LoneLaugher]

To the OP.

No.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Is The Left Waging A Clandestine War Against Large Families?

....As if we need.....

.....more Teabaggers.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icmRCixQrx8]Idiocracy - YouTube[/ame]​

 

[mudwhistle]

...or they're just trying to give people a choice. That's what this is about, NOT eugenics. I think independent women and their husbands will see through this.

They don't have to give them a choice.

They already have it.

 

[konradv]

...or they're just trying to give people a choice. That's what this is about, NOT eugenics. I think independent women and their husbands will see through this.

They don't have to give them a choice.

They already have it.

They're trying to make it harder to get. If Viagra is covered, all women should be allowed to protect themselves, regardless of who they work for.

 

[mudwhistle]

...or they're just trying to give people a choice. That's what this is about, NOT eugenics. I think independent women and their husbands will see through this.

They don't have to give them a choice.

They already have it.

They're trying to make it harder to get. If Viagra is covered, all women should be allowed to protect themselves, regardless of who they work for.

Actually we're trying to give Catholics a choice and Obama wants to take it away. That's what mandate means.

Nothing we're doing now is changing the law or making it harder to get birth control. Obama is just stomping all over the Catholic Church's religious freedoms.

 

[strollingbones]

uh oh who offended the breeders? i am an only child...and have an only child....i opted out of the whole breeding for anyone movement. if someone elects to be a breeder that is up to them..

oddly no one seems to address the morality or ethics of breeding when you know you have genetic flaws...when it comes to santorum

 

[mudwhistle]

uh oh who offended the breeders? i am an only child...and have an only child....i opted out of the whole breeding for anyone movement. if someone elects to be a breeder that is up to them..

oddly no one seems to address the morality or ethics of breeding when you know you have genetic flaws...when it comes to santorum

Santorum has genetic flaws?

Only perfect people have a right to be born???

Hmmmmmmm

Guess we want to play God now, huh?

 

[Skull Pilot]

I don't care if people want to pump out pups by the dozen.

I just don't think they should get tax deductions for kids after all why should I pay more in taxes to subsidize their kids?

 

[mudwhistle]

I don't care if people want to pump out pups by the dozen.

I just don't think they should get tax deductions for kids after all why should I pay more in taxes to subsidize their kids?

Well, it looks like the Obama Administration agrees with you.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I don't care if people want to pump out pups by the dozen.

I just don't think they should get tax deductions for kids after all why should I pay more in taxes to subsidize their kids?

Well, it looks like the Obama Administration agrees with you.

Really?

When did he say he would get rid of the per child tax deductions?

 

[mudwhistle]

I don't care if people want to pump out pups by the dozen.

I just don't think they should get tax deductions for kids after all why should I pay more in taxes to subsidize their kids?

Well, it looks like the Obama Administration agrees with you.

Really?

When did he say he would get rid of the per child tax deductions?

He doesn't want to get rid of the per child tax deductions....just the child.

 

[Full-Auto]

Is the left secretly waging a war against large families?

This issue is beginning to boil to the surface with this birth control debate. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said that a decrease in human beings will cover the costs of the contraception mandate. Lisa Miller, a Washington Post journalist says that Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum's families are too large. Romney has 5 children and Santorum has 7. She has a problem with Michelle Bachmann foster parenting dozens of children. Not just giving birth to, but fostering them. Seems liberals are offended by big families. Deeply offended it seems.

Lisa Miller Washington Post- There’s nothing wrong with big families, of course. But the smug fecundity of the Republican field this primary season has me worried. Their family photos, with members of their respective broods spilling out to the margins, seem to convey a subliminal message that goes far beyond a father’s pride in being able to field his own basketball team. What the Republican front-runners seem to be saying is this: We are like the biblical patriarchs. As conservative religious believers, we take seriously the biblical injunction to be fruitful and multiply.

Especially worrisome is the inevitable corollary to that belief: Women should put their natural fertility first — before their brains, before their ability to earn a living, before their independence — because that’s what God wants.
Romney, Santorum and archaic ideas on fertility - The Washington Post

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius told a House panel Thursday that a reduction in 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.

“The reduction in the number of pregnancies compensates for the cost of contraception,” Sebelius said. She went on to say the estimated cost is “down not up.”Sebelius: Decrease in Human Beings Will Cover Cost of Contraception Mandate | CNSNews.com

I figure it this way; If you can afford to have a large family liberals need to butt-out.

WTF???

Is this China or is this America??

Because the Catholic church teaches that sterilization, contraception or abortion are wrong and that Catholics must not be inolved in them, the regulation forces Catholics--and members of other religious denominations that share those views--to act against the teachings of their faith. Numerous lawsuits have already been asserting that the rule violates the First Amendment’s guarantee to the free exercise of religion. Many of the nation's Catholic bishops have published letters saying: "We cannot--we will not--comply with this unjust law."
Sebelius, however, insisted that the mandate “upholds religious liberty."

“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,” Sebelius told the subcommittee.

The Catholic bishops have called for the regulation to be rescinded in its entirety, so that no employer, insurer or individual is forced to act against his or her conscience.

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.”

Rep. Brett Guthrie (R-Ky.), a member of the subcommittee, said after the hearing that if mandating contraception saves money there shouldn’t be a need for a mandate.

“Their argument is this: Health insurance companies will offer it for free because they make money. You reduce the number of people getting pregnant therefore you reduce the cost of pregnancy, or low birth weight pregnancies or other kind of pregnancies,” Guthrie told CNSNews.com.

“If you think about it, why don’t health insurance companies provide it now if the argument is health insurance companies are going to make a lot of money? 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,” Guthrie added.

Despite the controversy over whether the mandate is constitutional, Sebelius told Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) during the hearing that the administration never sought a legal opinion about the regulation from the Department of Justice.
Sebelius: Decrease in Human Beings Will Cover Cost of Contraception Mandate | CNSNews.com

Link

Washington Post’s Lisa Miller: Romney and Santorum Families Hurt Women | RedState

The left IMO has been waging war against families period.

The marriage penalty is the first thing to come to mind. moving SS to the general fund. But more importantly their insistence single parent families are just fine. Then funding the trend which now stands at 50% of all US households.

 

[konradv]

They don't have to give them a choice.

They already have it.

They're trying to make it harder to get. If Viagra is covered, all women should be allowed to protect themselves, regardless of who they work for.

Actually we're trying to give Catholics a choice and Obama wants to take it away. That's what mandate means.

Nothing we're doing now is changing the law or making it harder to get birth control. Obama is just stomping all over the Catholic Church's religious freedoms.

You're playing with words. The Bill of Rights should protect the rights of individuals, NOT an organization.

 

[mudwhistle]

They're trying to make it harder to get. If Viagra is covered, all women should be allowed to protect themselves, regardless of who they work for.

Actually we're trying to give Catholics a choice and Obama wants to take it away. That's what mandate means.

Nothing we're doing now is changing the law or making it harder to get birth control. Obama is just stomping all over the Catholic Church's religious freedoms.

You're playing with words. The Bill of Rights should protect the rights of individuals, NOT an organization.

I'm just focusing on the reality not the spin.

 

[strollingbones]

and that nice earned income credit you get when you have kids......i have always made too much to get that.....and with only one child.....i didnt get much back....o that pesky husband keeping him really cuts down on your chances for social programs and all....

but what are you going on about mudd.....

Bella has Trisomy 18, a genetic disorder that gives her an extra copy of the 18th chromosome. According to the Trisomy 18 Foundation, the extra chromosome can cause life-threatening abnormalities in the heart, brain, stomach and other internal organs.

you do realize that this is a genetic condition?

Trisomy 18: Rick Santorum's Daughter Bella Has Genetic Disorder

i am always amazed when people with huntington's reproduce....

 

[strollingbones]

what reality....has someone begin stopping people from reproducing in the us?

link please

 

[California Girl]

...or they're just trying to give people a choice. That's what this is about, NOT eugenics. I think independent women and their husbands will see through this.

They don't have to give them a choice.

They already have it.

They're trying to make it harder to get. If Viagra is covered, all women should be allowed to protect themselves, regardless of who they work for.

No one is trying to stop women from 'protecting themselves', we are just not going to pay for it. It's about 'choice'... which I thought liberals valued.

 

[konradv]

They don't have to give them a choice.

They already have it.

They're trying to make it harder to get. If Viagra is covered, all women should be allowed to protect themselves, regardless of who they work for.

No one is trying to stop women from 'protecting themselves', we are just not going to pay for it. It's about 'choice'... which I thought liberals valued.

It's just insurance. No one is expecting anyone to do anything against their religion, but the employer shouldn't be able to insert themselves in a private matter.