Judie Brown
The constitutional prescription for debauchery
By Judie Brown
August 10, 2011

Recent steps taken in Washington to further devalue the preborn baby have everyone who understands the true nature of birth control wondering what this administration will think of next. In a country filled with selfishness and devoid of the morals necessary to put God and other people first, it is no wonder that leaders such as Cecile Richards — who are concerned only with a dollar sign — are cheering. Read today's commentary for more about this new mandate.

Much has been written about the Obama administration's imposed Department of Health and Human Services mandate that, as of August 1, 2012, all forms of birth control will be provided with no co-pay as part of an overall "preventive care" program. This is an integral part, or so we are told, of the national health care law that was signed into effect earlier this year.

The administration's decision results from an Institute of Medicine recommendation less than a month ago that argued that the use of birth control would curtail the number of unwanted pregnancies and thus reduce the abortion rate. Though the argument is false, it provided the impetus the Obama administration was seeking to further dissipate any semblance of moral sanity in the nation.

While some argue that the mandate will ultimately save insurance companies money because they will not be paying for unexpected pregnancies or health problems related to pregnancy, the classic statement in support of this foolishness comes from Planned Parenthood itself. According to the Wednesday STOPP Report,

    A jubilant Cecile Richards, Planned Parenthood Federation of America's CEO, trumpeted to supporters on Monday: "Huge, wonderful, important news: Today, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced that it will require all new insurance plans to cover birth control without co-pays under the new health reform law.

    This is one of the biggest victories for women's health in a generation — and you helped make it happen. It took years for us to get to this point."

Anyone who knows of Planned Parenthood's history of strategic moves toward becoming entrenched in the Washington, D.C. establishment understands that the Obama administration has made Planned Parenthood one of its number one allies. Catering to its every whim is a hallmark of Obama's reputation as the nation's most avid proponent of the culture of death's playbook.

One analyst who examined this latest government mandate wrote, "President Obama this week used his health care law to hand a lucrative special favor to two industries that have ardently supported his party: Planned Parenthood and the drug industry."

Not only that, but as soon as this mandate takes effect, every taxpayer in America will be subsidizing the constitutionally-protected recreational drugs commonly referred to as birth control chemicals and devices.

"Of course, insurance companies don't provide anything for 'free.' Any time they cover a new service or eliminate co-pays, they charge higher premiums to make up the lost revenue. So the department is forcing people who do not use birth control to subsidize it, through higher premiums, for people who do."

Early on in this debate, Cardinal Daniel DiNardo, chairman of the Committee on Pro-Life Activities of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, issued a statement in which he said,

    Pregnancy is not a disease, and fertility is not a pathological condition to be suppressed by any means technically possible. The IOM report claims it would have good reason to recommend mandatory coverage for surgical abortions as well, if such a mandate were not prevented by law. But most Americans surely see that abortion is not healthy or therapeutic for unborn children, and has physical and mental health risks for women which can be extremely serious. I can only conclude that there is an ideology at work in these recommendations that goes beyond any objective assessment of the health needs of women and children.

Indeed, His Excellency is correct. There is most definitely an ideology at work. It is based on the notion that a sexually saturated society is in need of a government-imposed prescription that negates the value of the preborn child. It is a set of principles based on the concept that freedom divorced from God is a panacea for all that ails the human being. Sadly, such propositions will ultimately render an end game with no winners — only sadness, moral devastation, and death.

© Judie Brown


The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)

Click to enlarge

Judie Brown

Judie Brown is president and co-founder of American Life League, the nation's largest grassroots pro-life educational organization... (more)


Receive future articles by Judie Brown: Click here

More by this author


Stephen Stone
'The fervent prayer of the righteous'

Siena Hoefling
Protect the Children: Update with VIDEO

Stephen Stone
Outlandish dirty trick: Utah Dems try to scare voters away from Trump and House hopeful Burgess Owens with imaginary thr

Linda Goudsmit
Remembering Martha Mitchell

Cliff Kincaid
Are there enough Christians to save America?

Louie Verrecchio
Good vs evil: Nowhere left for Democrats to hide

Steve A. Stone
Some dark truth about green

Peter Lemiska
How much corruption will Democrat voters stomach just to defeat Trump?

Selwyn Duke
Trump MUST up his game for the next debate

Tom DeWeese
Secure your vote

Curtis Dahlgren
Smarty-pants on fire; an open letter to Gens X,Y,& Z

Laurie Roth
Hunter and Joe Biden corruption, scandal, pedophilia, lies, child torture—x rated and criminal

Mark Shepard
Voting on character

Michael Gaynor
ACORN Whistleblower Anita MonCrief supports Trump and tells why in her whistleblower files
  More columns


Click for full cartoon
More cartoons

RSS feeds



Matt C. Abbott
Chris Adamo
Russ J. Alan
Bonnie Alba
Jamie Freeze Baird
Chuck Baldwin
Kevin J. Banet
J. Matt Barber
. . .
[See more]

Sister sites