Sebelius: “Less Human Lives” Is Key to Paying for Obamacare

Is "decreasing the surplus population" part of Obamacare too?


Yesterday Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius told a House panel 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 Obamacare mandates that require all health-care plans to cover sterilizations and abortifacients.

“The reduction in the number of pregnancies compensates for the cost of contraception,” Sebelius said. (Read the CNSNews story here).

It is unfortunate, but again the Obama Administration reveals anything but a mindset that is in tune with the mainstream political, economic, and moral values that made America great.

Just what political, economic and moral philosophy answers the question, “How do we cut costs?” with “less human lives.” As soon as I heard it, I couldn’t help but think of that icy cold, calculating and callous response of Scrooge to an appeal to the needs of the poor: “If they’d rather die they better do it now and decrease the surplus population.” I also thought of how many millions have perished under Communist regimes in the last century based on that same insane rational, “less human mouths to feed, can save our economy.”

Now that’s good economic advice and policy, heh? Well, if your feeding slaves, perhaps. But free men feed themselves.

And besides, wouldn’t more living “human beings” provides an increase to the tax base? And an increase to the insurance base too (so that costs can be more widely shared among a greater number of individuals and thus held down for all)? And an increase to the productive and creative idea base in society too? And doesn’t that mean there would be a greater likelihood of the continued development of more efficient uses of our resources, rather than that less efficient use of resources that always occurs as governments become more and more dictatorial?

This Administration should know that, since as it as increased the number of government interventions in our lives, the economy has gotten worse, and worse, and worse.

But what more, Madame Secretary, what about the joy factor, the love factor, the moral responsibility factor that bringing children int the world to love and serve, rather than “terminating” them, brings about in the hearts of those who do so, and brings about in the society that does the same?

And yet again, there are other economic benefits. It is but common sense that “married with children” – and the more the merrier – challenges breadwinners to get ahead, to stretch themselves, to make themselves better qualified in their chosen career fields and more apt to care about becoming a more valuable employer or business owner, so that they might provide for the needs of their growing family. That is the natural tendency, is it not? While it is quite the natural tendency in the opposite direction toward selfishness, that is as a group (individual exceptions noted) the less burdened with responsibility, the less motivated to lovingly serve the needs of a growing family, are less likely to stretch themselves to their limits (and beyond), and more likely to engage in waste and extravagance (even when self-motivated to stretch). That is the tendency, and we all know it … and society-wide tendencies add up.

I remember, not long ago, before the state began to interfere in hiring practices, that a family man was considered by employers (statistically as a group) as less of a potential risk, and more of a potential asset, both in the short and long term (all other things being equal) than an unmarried applicant. It is still logically the case, regardless of “the rules” of Leviathan. Proof? Auto insurance still understand this rule, giving lower rates to young marrieds over singles … because the former as a group are more responsible, safer drivers.


Rome fell, in part, we are told by noted historian Will Durant, because the Romans stopped having children, or in other words because they had become morally and physically soft, or a people who obsessed with self-indulgence, with entertainment, with drugs, with sex as an end in itself rather than as a integral part of a happy marriage, of a marriage balanced and stretched by the responsibility and joy of having a quiver full of children – just like we are becoming. Will we fall inspired by the promptings of unfamily friendly, pro-morally and physically soft policies of this Administration, which would have the state provide our every need, encourage us not to have children, and in the mean time, crush that religious liberty that would inform us otherwise?

Here’s the truth the socialists don’t want you and me to know: bigger families, not smaller families (or no families at all), would raise the bar of society, of job performance, of prosperity, and of the kind of responsible citizenship that exercises its liberties in that manly manner that preserves and enlarges rather than pulls down and shrinks what God gave us through the Founding Fathers.

And while not every couple that wants to have children can have children, and our hearts go out to them, yet as a group couples without children tend to vote more liberal than those who do. And you know, perhaps that’s part of the Obamacare plan too. Think about it: reducing self-reliance, reducing our religious liberties, and reducing the number of faithful Christians born into this world, means upping the number of liberals in the process – I can’t say for sure, but if I were to judge by appearances … it all fits.

The Moral Liberal, Publisher and Editor In Chief, Steve Farrell is one of the original pundits at Silver Eddy Award Winner, (1999-2008),  and the author of the highly praised inspirational novel Dark Rose.

Copyright © 2012 Steve Farrell.