Search






Jeff's Amazon.com Wish List

Archive Calendar

November 2024
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930  

Archives

“Free Sterilizations Must be Offered to All College Women, Says HHS”

And by “free,” they mean they’ll take the credit for mandating others pay for it. BECAUSE OF THE WAR ON WOMEN! CNS:

ll student health care plans covering female college students in the United States must include coverage for free voluntary sterilization surgery, the Department of Health and Human Services announced late Friday afternoon.

Women of college age who do not attend school will also get free sterilization coverage whether they are insured through an employer, their parents, or some form of government-subsidized plan.

All student health plans, HHS said Friday as it finalized a new regulation under the Affordable Care Act (otherwise known as Obamacare) must cover the full set of cost-free women’s “preventive services” that HHS ordered last month must be covered by all U.S. health care plans.

These free “preventive services” include surgical sterilization procedures and all Food and Drug Administration-approved contraceptives, including those that cause abortions.

[…] Also, just as the regulation requiring free coverage for sterilizations, contraceptives and abortifacients makes no accommodation at all for private-sector employers who object on religious or moral grounds, the rule requiring this coverage for students makes no accommodation for non-religious private schools that object on religious and moral grounds or for state colleges in states where local voters, taxpayers, legislators and governors may object to providing free sterilizations, contraceptives and abortifacients to college students.

[…]

Appearing before the House Energy and Commerce Committee earlier this month, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius argued that forcing the insurers covering employees of religious institutions that object to the mandate to provide sterilizations and contraceptives for free would save money because the number of human beings born would decrease.

“The reduction in the number of pregnancies compensates for the cost of contraception,” she said.

Providers don’t get to decide what services they provide. Individuals don’t get to decide where their purchasing dollars go. Everything must now flow from the federal government, the centralized authority now in control of what you purchase with your health care dollars, and what businesses provide with theirs. Your money is theirs to direct and spend as they determine. And your ability to opt out for whatever your reasons is gone. The federal government owns you.

Just like the Constitution says!

Welcome to Ameritopia. Enjoy the free rubbers!

And coming soon? Soma!

44 Replies to ““Free Sterilizations Must be Offered to All College Women, Says HHS””

  1. Ernst Schreiber says:

    Am I crazy for thinking that if HHS requires sterilization be covered, it’s only a matter of time before sterilization be required?

    Probably only for those attending 2nd tier state schools though. And maybe certain religiously affiliated colleges.

  2. Dale Price says:

    And the self-insureds don’t get out from under it, either. Their “plan administrators” will be on the hook for providing the service.

    Which will lead to plan administration firms treating the self-insureds like a scorching case of herpes, of course. Basically, this will force the self-insureds to fold up shop and sign up for the government-approved group plans.

    That’s the idea: you will submit, or you will submit.

  3. sdferr says:

    Sebelius’ willingness to make the linkage — if not to equate simply — fewer births with lower costs does have a certain startling effect in that direction Ernst. Like, at some future date: “Ach! We find our payout costs unexpectedly rising! Therefore, we must have fewer births, since births are redolent of higher costs.”

  4. Dale Price says:

    Am I crazy for thinking that if HHS requires sterilization be covered, it’s only a matter of time before sterilization be required?

    It’ll take a little more of the drip-drip-drip of cultural corrosion, but, yeah, that’s the golden dream. A lot easier to snip fallopians than cover the cost of the little crotch-droppings.

    As Obamacare point man Robert Creamer points out, population control is nothing less than a “moral imperative”:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-creamer/protecting-access-to-birt_b_1262530.html

    You can bet your ass they’ll be doing a lot of imposing from now on.

  5. Ernst Schreiber says:

    Except for the Ivies. Liberals don’t have enough babies. And probably the working class. The Eloi will have their Morlocks, after all.

    Which of course means that the Morlocks will have their Eloi

    raw and wiggly

  6. Dale Price says:

    Except for the Ivies. Liberals don’t have enough babies.

    Maybe. Only when it’s hip, that whole “three-is-the-new-two” thing that crops up once in a while.

    But never more than three, and then not for very long. Tends to interfere with navel-gazing, halo-burnishing, and forcing others to behave according to your dictates.

    I’ll dissent on the working class–the Left tends not to like the people they wave around as a totem. They’ll have to learn their place, too.

  7. JHoward says:

    Providers don’t get to decide what services they provide. Individuals don’t get to decide where their purchasing dollars go. Everything must now flow from the federal government

    Says you.

    I’ll wait for the lawyrs to comment. Gabriel Malor is one.

  8. DarthLevin says:

    So I guess “Get Your Laws Off My Body!” is passé now?

  9. JHoward says:

    So is slut-talk, Darth.

    Free Sterilizations Must be Offered to All College Women,

    Open your wallet and shut your mouth.

  10. Abe Froman says:

    Not really seeing the downside to young Gaiabots getting sterilized. Where do I send the check?

  11. Joan Of Argghh says:

    So, has the word, insurance, absolutely lost all meaning? Does it now just mean “entitlement” or “welfare”?

    I try to tell people that insurance is all about math and pooled risk, and their eyes roll as if to say, “math is hard and this is boring me.”

  12. DarthLevin says:

    So, has the word, insurance, absolutely lost all meaning? Does it now just mean “entitlement” or “welfare”?

    Joan, it seems to have lost its meaning for the correct people. Mrs. Darth sees patients every day who claim Medicaid or Molina as their “insurance”. These folks get put out when she corrects them, saying “No, insurance is something you buy. What you have is government assistance, not insurance.”

    The usual response is something along the lines of, “Shut up, bitch, and gimme my Z-pak so’s to make my cold go away.”

  13. Joan Of Argghh says:

    Mrs. Darth is an American Hero. Or my hero, at the least!

  14. mc4ever59 says:

    Gabe Malor just called to suggest – in only a slightly pissy and condescending way- that Goldstein should calm down, get a grip, and stop trying to foment anarchy.

  15. “The reduction in the number of pregnancies compensates for the cost of contraception,” she said.

    So it’s a zero sum game? Interesting application of forming a more perfect union.

  16. mc4ever59 says:

    I find it more than a little disturbing that some of the things people like Creamer and Sebilius say sounds like things graduates of The Joseph Mengele School of the Humanities would say.
    Even more disturbing that not many people seem to have much of a problem with it.

  17. Blake says:

    Abe,

    Now now, you know voluntary contributions are wrong.

    The only good and true method of payment is one that is sanctified by the holy church of government.

  18. Squid says:

    If I’m paying for the procedures, then I’m damn well going to decide who gets ’em. Whether they want ’em or not.

  19. Blake says:

    mc4ever59, two reasons explain the problem, and one necessarily flows from the other:

    1. History is no longer taught in a meaningful fashion any more.
    2. Since people no longer understand history, they believe “this time will be different.”

  20. George Orwell says:

    But but but last week, Ed Morrissey of the polite, play-nice pundocrats predicted that Obama and his courtiers would back away from their stance squashing religious liberty with these mandates.

    Eddie hasn’t responded at the time of this comment, but Tina Korbe has.

    I predict Ed will not call Sebelius and Obama sluts for whoring out the First Amendment to the feminist lobby.

  21. mc4ever59 says:

    Blake; agreed. Your reasons are a big part of the problem.
    I sometimes think that historians a couple of centuries or so from now, will look back on us and all the events of our time and not be able to come up with a better explanation for any of it than,”Well, basically they , as a people and a nation, went completely insane”.

  22. motionview says:

    How many children are your fair share? I’m looking at you, Catholics.

  23. I’m looking forward to the Jimmy Fallon commercials, “Who doesn’t want free sterilizations?”

  24. sdferr says:

    “History is no longer taught in a meaningful fashion any more.”

    Which, zowie, how strange is that when Nature and Nature’s God has been replaced by history! Pretty fucking goofy, ain’t it?

  25. LBascom says:

    What do you mean “Nature’s God“?

    A few days ago, the Drudge Report brought me to a link that I thought for a time simply had to be an early April Fool’s Day joke, but is instead dead serious: How Engineering the Human Body Could Combat Climate Change. In this article, Atlantic correspondent Ross Andersen ably interviews S. Matthew Liao, a professor of philosophy and bioethics at New York University. Liao and his philosopher co-authors have a forthcoming paper in the journal Ethics, Policy & Environment that proposes genetic engineering and other “biomedical modifications” of body function for the purpose of reducing greenhouse gas emissions

  26. LBascom says:

    Companion piece.

    Conservatives are put into awkward positions of critiquing liberal ideas on grounds that they are impractical, unworkable, or counterproductive. Yet rarely, at least outside the religious sphere, do they identify the progressive as often immoral. And the unfortunate result is that they have often ceded moral claims to supposedly dreamy, utopian, and well-meaning progressives, when in fact the latter increasingly have little moral ground to stand upon.

  27. Ernst Schreiber says:

    “History is no longer taught in a meaningful fashion any more.”
    Which, zowie, how strange is that when Nature and Nature’s God has been replaced by history! Pretty fucking goofy, ain’t it?

    That’s an insightful observation, but you forgot to capitalize History. Allan Bloom’s essential argument is that most of our intellectual decay is the result of kicking Locke to the curb in favor of Hegel (by way of Kant, by way of Nietzsche, by way of Weber and Freud).

    I think the problem of forgetting is a human problem rather than a specific failure to adequately avail ourselves of the humane disciple of history. Lee Harris argued that civilization requires us to forget how to be savages, but if we forget too much we become impotent when confronted by savagery.

    But now I’m just rambling and name dropping like Howard Johnson in Blazing Saddles.

  28. Ernst Schreiber says:

    I sometimes think that historians a couple of centuries or so from now, will look back on us and all the events of our time and not be able to come up with a better explanation for any of it than,”Well, basically they , as a people and a nation, went completely insane”.

    Stay away from Toynbee. It’ll only depress you mc4ever59.

  29. I don’t recall that he phrased it quite that way but reading Herodotus, it seemed pretty clear that any number of Greek city-states periodically lost their minds.

  30. Matt says:

    Every time I see things like this, I think, however irrationally, that liberals see pregnancy as a disease. I know that can’t possibly be right but …

  31. Squid says:

    Liao and his philosopher co-authors have a forthcoming paper that proposes genetic engineering and other “biomedical modifications” of body function for the purpose of reducing greenhouse gas emissions

    I recognize the compulsion to “improve” human behavior by any means necessary, but isn’t this going to extremes? Wouldn’t it be cheaper and easier to just, you know, cope with climate change?

    And speaking of Nietzsche: “In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule.”

  32. sdferr says:

    We should toss in Vico while we’re at it, just to give an indication the trend goes back a ways. [wink]

  33. cranky-d says:

    I seem to remember a lesson from the movie “Serenity” about improving people’s behavior.

    There are always side effects. You cannot only do one thing.

  34. Ernst Schreiber says:

    Every time I see things like this, I think, however irrationally, that liberals see pregnancy as a disease. I know that can’t possibly be right but …

    Yes it can.

  35. Well, if humans are a virus, then perhaps pregnancy is a disease.

  36. Ernst Schreiber says:

    You take a pill (or some other measure) to keep from catching something. You catch it anyways. Ergo, you’re sick.

    To put it crudely.

  37. palaeomerus says:

    We are not viruses.

    I’m pretty sure that humans are mammalian synapsid cordates. I think we’d be relatively unsuccessful and tricking a single cell into replicating us. We’re too big for one thing. And really the whole being animals and complex systems of eukaryotes thing fucks that idea up pretty badly too.

  38. Pablo says:

    We’re vermin, palaeomerus, which is an easy conclusion to reach if you’re a progressive or otherwise self-loathing.

  39. BT says:

    I wonder what procedures or pharmaceuticals are subject to co-pay.

  40. B Moe says:

    For people who can’t stop raving about how much they lurvs them some evolutions they don’t seem to have much of a notion of how it works.

  41. Danger says:

    “The reduction in the number of pregnancies compensates for the cost of contraception,” she said”.

    And the reduction in contraception will compensate for the price of the sterilizations.

    YAHTZEE!!!

  42. Yackums says:

    YAHTZEE!!!

    rhymes with…

    Eugenics!

  43. TRHein says:

    Makes one wonder how long it will take till harvesting other organs gets built into GovMed™ because “The reduction in the number of internal organs susceptible to cancer will compensate for the price of extending the life of your betters,” they think”.

  44. […] Are “children” who need the government to force health insurance companies to cover through their parents to the age of 26 old enough to decide they should be sterilized without their parent’s permission? […]

Comments are closed.