Thursday, July 19, 2012

Is pregnancy a disease?

My disdain for HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius provides grist for scores of posts.

Here's one, part of the lead-up to the to the recent regulations requiring that Catholic institutions pay for health insurance that covers contraception:

Panel Recommends Coverage for Contraception

Published: July 19, 2011WASHINGTON — A leading medical advisory panel recommended on Tuesday that all insurers be required to cover contraceptives for women free of charge as one of several preventive services under the new health care law.
Fertility is not a disease. Pregnancy is not an illness. Contraception is not 'preventative health care'. Contraception is a technique to facilitate having sex without having a baby. That is not "health". That is a personal choice, generally a lifestyle choice. It is not 'health care'.

Obama administration officials said that they were inclined to accept the panel’s advice and that the new requirements could take effect for many plans at the beginning of 2013. The administration signaled its intentions in January when Kathleen Sebelius, the secretary of health and human services, unveiled a 10-year program to improve the nation’s health. One goal was to “increase the proportion ofhealth insurance plans that cover contraceptive supplies and services.”
Damn right that the Obama administration is 'inclined' to accept the advice. The Obama administration is the most anti-Life administration in American history.
Administration officials, who say they hope to act on the recommendations by Aug. 1, are receptive to the idea of removing cost as a barrier to birth control — a longtime goal of advocates for women’s rights and experts on women’s health.

But the recommendations immediately reignited debate over the government’s role in reproductive health.

Why is contraception called "reproductive health". Why isn't it called "reproductive suppression"? How is the prevention of reproduction reproductive health? It's the antithesis of reproductive health. It's Orwellian.
Women’s groups and medical professionals applauded the recommendations while the Roman Catholic Church raised strenuous objections.

The recommendations came in a report submitted to Ms. Sebelius by the Institute of Medicine, an arm of the National Academy of Sciences. The new health care law says insurers must cover “preventive health services” and cannot charge for them.
Preventative health services prevent disease. What is the disease prevented by contraception?
Ms. Sebelius will decide on a minimum package of essential health benefits and her decision will not require further action by Congress. 
The panel said insurers should be forbidden to charge co-payments for contraceptives and other preventive services because even small charges could deter their use.

That's right. The provision of contraception to poor women has been a goal of these b*stards for a century. Give it away free, so the undesirables will use it. Justice Ginsburg said as much, and Margaret Sanger proclaimed it unabashedly for years.
The recommendation would not help women without insurance.
Don't worry. A major thrust of 'reproductive freedom' is making sure that the wrong kind of women don't reproduce too freely. Birth control has always been about controlling births among the 'wrong kind' of women. These folks will find a way to make sure that poor women get contraception.
The administration asked the Institute of Medicine, a nonpartisan, nongovernmental arm of the National Academy of Sciences, to help identify the specific services that must be covered for women.

“This report is historic,” Ms. Sebelius said on Tuesday in accepting the recommendations. “Before today, guidelines regarding women’s health and preventive care did not exist. These recommendations are based on science and existing literature.”

Right. Labeling pregnancy as a disease "is based on science and existing literature."

In addition to contraceptive services for women, the panel recommended that the government require health plans to cover screening to detect domestic violence; screening for H.I.V., the virus that causes AIDS;

That is, coverage for maladies caused in large part by government destruction of poor families by subsidizing family breakdown (welfare).
and counseling and equipment to promotebreastfeeding, including the free rental of breast pumps.
They want to make sure that the few babies who pass the gauntlet of contraception and abortion get breast milk. Aww....

Defending its recommendations on contraceptive coverage, the panel said that nearly half of all pregnancies in the United States were unintended, and that about 40 percent of unintended pregnancies ended in abortion. Thus, it said, greater use of contraceptionwould reduce the rates of unintended pregnancy, teen pregnancy and abortion.
But we've been using contraception at astronomically higher  rates since 1960, and abortion rates have gone astronomically down astronomically up. Don't actual facts matter to these people?

The chairwoman of the panel, Dr. Linda Rosenstock, dean of the School of Public Health at the University of California, Los Angeles, said, “We did not consider cost or cost-effectiveness in our deliberations.”
The pill. $10

An abortion. $1000

Eliminating children of undesirables. Priceless.

But the panel’s report says that “contraception is highly cost-effective,” averting unintended pregnancies that would be far more expensive than contraception.
What the hell is "averting unintended pregnancies"? Sterilization? Abortion?  How about chastity? How expensive is that?
To reduce unintended pregnancies, the panel said, insurers should cover the full range of contraceptive methods approved by the Food and Drug Administration, as well as sterilization procedures and “education and counseling for all women with reproductive capacity.”
"Sterilization procedures". It's like they're trying to stop an insect infestation. Wanna bet on the proportion of affluent white women vs poor black women offered these 'education and counseling services for all women with reproductive capacity"?
This recommendation would require coverage of emergency contraceptives including pills like ella and Plan B, panel members said.
We need multiple levels of protection against the unwanted.
Under rules issued last year, many health plans are already required to cover numerous preventive services like blood pressure and cholesterol tests, colonoscopies and othercancer screenings, and routine vaccinations. A provision of the law drafted by Senator Barbara A. Mikulski, Democrat of Maryland, requires coverage of “additional preventive care and screenings” for women.
Nice. They categorize pregnancy with hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, and colon cancer.
Most private insurance provides contraceptive coverage, but co-payments have increased in recent years, the panel said.
Oh no. You don't want people paying for contraception. That would mean that wealthy people would contracept at a higher rate than poor people. How un-eugenic.

The report touched off a fierce debate Tuesday. Obstetricians, gynecologists, public health experts and Democratic women in Congress hailed the recommendations.

“We are one step closer to saying goodbye to an era when simply being a woman is treated as a pre-existing condition,” Senator Mikulski said. “We are saying hello to an era where decisions about preventive care and screenings are made by a woman and her doctor, not by an insurance company.”
A woman needs her doctor to prevent pregnancy?
Representative Lois Capps, Democrat of California, said the recommendations would remove cost as a barrier to birth control — and in hard economic times like these, she said, cost can be a formidable barrier.
'Affluent women can get all the birth control they want now. Poor (non-white) women often have cost constraints.  The government needs to fix this.' Can you figure this one out?

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and some conservative groups, including the Family Research Council, denounced the recommendation on birth control.
“Pregnancy is not a disease, and fertility is not a pathological condition to be suppressed,” said Deirdre A. McQuade, a spokeswoman for the bishops’ Pro-Life Secretariat. “But the Institute of Medicine report treats them as such.”
Ms. McQuade expressed deep concern about requiring coverage of surgical sterilizations and contraceptive drugs and devices.
Jeanne Monahan, the director of the Center for Human Dignity at the Family Research Council, said: “Some people have moral or ethical objections to contraceptives. They should not be forced to violate their conscience by paying premiums to health plans that cover these items and services.”
The Catholic Church is the only large organization standing against this evil. A voice of sanity.

The Catholic viewpoint: love, marriage, sex and procreation are parts of a whole, a seamless fabric. Contraception is to sex as bulimia is to nourishment. Lifelong love gives rise to new life. In many ways, having children is the most beautiful of God's gifts. We are given the astonishing privilege of participating in the creation of new life.

One panel member, Prof. Anthony Lo Sasso, a health economist at the University of Illinois at Chicago, filed a dissent, saying the committee did not have enough time to conduct “a serious and systematic review” of the evidence.
The report, he said, includes “a mix of objective and subjective determinations filtered through a lens of advocacy.”

Prof. Lo Sasso told the truth. Bless him. Hope he has tenure.  


  1. May I humbly suggest the use of page folds? It's a nuisance to scroll past long rants like this one. Put one or two paragraphs on the home page and let the reader decide whether he wants to read more.

  2. "Why is contraception called "reproductive health". Why isn't it called "reproductive suppression"? How is the prevention of reproduction reproductive health? It's the antithesis of reproductive health. It's Orwellian."

    They love to use the word "health." That way, if you argue against them, you're against health. They've framed the issue as pro-health vs. anti-health.

    Abortion specifically is quite hazardous to the health...of its victims.

    Brent Bozell wrote a great column about "health guru" Dan Savage, the anti-bullying bully.

    "We are a long distance away from a 'health' lecture, but that’s exactly the category our media culture awards to the 'sex advice columnist.' Savage publicists tout he has the number one 'health podcast' at iTunes. Savage is not discussing 'health.' He’s selling hedonism.
    At one point in the MTV show, Savage lectures a couple having 'unprotected' sex that 'Pregnancy is the ultimate sexually transmitted infection.' A child is a disease? How sick is that? He tells the female: “You can get birth control that'll knock your eggs out for a year. You should. You must! Oh my God!"

    Bozell's column:

    If Savage wanted to tell these kids about "health" he might start by telling them that sexual behaviors have consequences and that some should be avoided because they're not safe. Like anal sex, for example.

    That would have something to do with health.


  3. Yo TRISH, have you seen the Little Black book?

    It's a "health" guide for male homosexuals. We know it's health-related because it's sponsored by the Massachusetts Department of Public Health, the Boston City Public Health Commission, the Gay City Health project (Seattle), STOP AIDS project (San Francisco), San Francisco City Clinic, and Fenway Community Health Boston.

    So it's all about health! It's really a great read. There's lots of good stuff in there about licking anuses (very healthy) and how not to go overboard with illicit drugs. It suggests condom use, but only finds it imperative if one partner is HIV positive.

    Here's a good way not to get HIV positive: Quit taking it in the pooper. There's my health advice for the day. Now I'm no expert, but neither is Savage and he has a show.

    The Torch

  4. There is no single issue that brings to light the eugenics agenda of the green/globalist set than abortion.
    It, like most selfish thought, is totally simple and animal like.
    It is most effectively described in analogy.
    Thieves dividing their loot. After stealing or defrauding the hard won earnings of other people's efforts, the thieves have to decide how to divide their booty.
    Let's say 1 million bars of gold.
    If there are 10 thieves involved they only get 100,000 bars each. But if they somehow get rid of some of their partners the shares grow larger. Eventually only very few thieves will remain, and only then will the share be acceptable. In order to do so, some of the thieves will create and magnify threats to distract their collaborators and 'eliminate' them from the equation. Even so, their numbers may turn on each other till there is a single thief left. When eventually the crime is uncovered, or perhaps noticed by bystanders - they will attempt to sell themselves as a 'Robin Hood', by throwing down some of the thrice stolen wealth to cover their tracks. Many of these poor simpletons will actually be bought up by such actions; 'suckered in' by their own greed.
    Their is no honour among thieves.
    Only cold, selfish reasoning.
    Their is no honour among those who would kill generations before their birthing in order create a 'sustainable' faux utopia.
    The goals, methods, and ends are identical. Only the lengths of depravity differ by degree.

    1. Cru:

      I don't understand your analogy at all.


    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    3. JQ,
      Sorry to hear that.
      It's simple really.
      Less people=more resources for those allowed to live.
      In the mind of the eugenicist, this means eliminating the elderly, weak, 'undesirable' (usually cultural or racial), and the most defenceless souls of all: The unborn.
      My analogy was to illustrate motives and liken them to theft. The 'hard work' is that of previous generations. The created and magnified 'threats' are things like overpopulation and AGW. The 'gold' is the resources and personal wealth that will supposedly be freed up by the killing of unborn... and so on.
      My point?
      The prime motivation behind abortion is selfishness.
      On the individual level, and on the societal level.
      Less children for more income.
      Lower population for more resources.
      It is, of course, a flawed, evil, selfish logic. But that is how the act is justified in the minds that support it.
      Wasn't it Mr Obama who said he would not want his young daughter's life 'ruined by a baby' in a defence of his 'evolving' position on abortion?
      I think his statement encapsulates that selfish sentiment perfectly. The 'baby' that would 'ruin' his daughter's life would, in fact, be his grandchild. But to him prestige, wealth, reputation etc are worth more...
      Says it all.

  5. You still don't get it. Religious liberty is not the liberty to overrule somebody else's religious liberty. You can hum, you can haw, you can protest, but inserting yourself in between ladyparts and their doctor is every bit as bad as the "letting some bureaucrat get in between you and your doctor" that the people in tricorne hats had on their signs a couple of years ago (which I remember clearly because a bunch of them were old enough to be on Medicare. For the irony, I assume. But I digress).
    Your Free Exercise doesn't supersede anybody else's bodily autonomy. For it to would be Religion, Establishment of in all but name. No padre, no holy book, no you stands between ladyparts (where those ladyparts are not your ladyparts) and their doctor without their consent.
    Feel free to keep your ladyparts uncovered, though, if that's your thing. That's your right. That's Free Exercise. That's Religious Liberty. Anything beyond that damages the terms in to incoherence.

    And for the last damn time, Catholic institutions are not paying for it. The insurance companies are. If that makes you uncomfortable, suck it up. If nobody had to be even peripherally near things they didn't like, we'd all be alone. Except me. I'm awesome. But I digress.

    1. Modus Operandi,

      Is abortion a sacrament in your religion?

      Free exercise of religion would imply that you're exercising your religion while you're having one.

      I think what you mean is that in a free country, no one can force their morals on another. That's patently untrue. It's also childish. That's why we have laws against slavery and segregation, against theft, against going topless, against selling alcohol after a certain hour. We most certainly can legislate morality. We do it all the time.

      >>And for the last damn time, Catholic institutions are not paying for it.<<

      Yes, they are. This is an accounting trick. Insurance companies will pass on the cost to the church. Furthermore, no insurance company should be forced to provide contraception. They want to, that's fine. If they don't, that's fine too. And no one should be forced to do business with an insurance provider they don't want to do business with.

      See how it's really you who's forcing your morals on other people? You're forcing insurance companies to provide coverage they don't want and forcing other people to buy that coverage, and yes, to pay for it, regardless of how the insurance company hides the cost.

      Me, on the other hand, don't want to force anyone to do anything. You want pills, sterilization, or condoms? Fine. Pay for it yourself. Get your nine dollars and go to Wal-Mart, you freeloader. Killing the child, however, is not acceptable.


    2. @Modus:

      [Your Free Exercise doesn't supersede anybody else's bodily autonomy.]

      So "Thou shalt not kill" cannot be enacted into law? We must permit murder, because many Americans believe killing is wrong because God says so?

      What a stupid thing to say. This is a representative democracy, and Free Exercise includes the right to work politically to enforce morals people believe in, whether they have a religious basis or not.

      We are prohibited by the Constitution from establishing a federal church, and we are prohibited from interfering by force with the Free Exercise of Religion of others.

      We may impose our morals on others. It's called "legislation", asshole.

    3. >>So "Thou shalt not kill" cannot be enacted into law? We must permit murder, because many Americans believe killing is wrong because God says so?<<

      Yes, that's right. When they speak of abortion, that's exactly what they mean. They'll kill at will, and the rest of us can just shut up about it. We can't "force our religion" on others.

      Oddly enough, most of them think that forcing our religion on others is perfectly okay the moment the child has left the birth canal. Although even that is slipping. KW doesn't think so. He's defended infanticide on this blog. Post-birth infanticide, not pre-birth infanticide. Pre-birth infanticide is so ho-hum. Every once in a while we read a report of some ethicist somewhere who declares that post-birth infanticide is okay too.


    4. Anonymous "Free exercise of religion would imply that you're exercising your religion while you're having one."
      'Freedom of' includes 'Freedom from'.

      "Yes, they are. This is an accounting trick."
      It is not. Contraception coverage saves them money.

      mregnor "We are prohibited by the Constitution from establishing a federal church, and we are prohibited from interfering by force with the Free Exercise of Religion of others."
      Your Free Exercise doesn't include the freedom to exercise it over others. A Catholic hospital's Episcopalian janitor or Hindu accountant, for example.

      "It's called 'legislation', asshole."

  6. The Catholic Church is the only large organization standing against this evil. A voice of sanity.

    The only reason the pedophile mafia in the Vatican is against contraceptives is that they want their brainwashed serfs to multiply and fill the Vatican coffers even more. A voice of greed.

    1. Still struggling to keep the antisemitism in check, Egnor? The Vatican has recognized Isreal by now.

  7. Anonymous "They don't call them classist, they call them racist."
    Early voting? Restricted. Registering? Restricted. School ID? No way. Concealed firearms permit? Oh, that one's just fine.

    Weird that the groups disproportionately effected always seem to be Democrats, hmmm? Almost as though "preserving the sanctity of the Vote", "New Black Panthers!" and "ACORN!" were merely veneer; modern Atwater dogwhistles covering a very old ugliness.

  8. Ben,

    ~25% of voting age black Americans don’t have a government ID, compared to ~11% of the population overall. Republicans know this, and it’s the motivation for voter ID laws.


  9. "~25% of voting age black Americans don’t have a government ID, compared to ~11% of the population overall."
    Why not? Why don't they have a drivers licence, passport, or some other ID?
    Are you suggesting they are poor, KW?
    In KW mind poor=black.
    Must be a racist!

  10. I am a high blood pressure patient and am battling this silent disease and looking for the best information on high blood pressure. It is important to me to have at my fingertips an updated guide that explains all the latest breakthroughs in detecting, treating and the prevention of high blood pressure.