Just in time for this week’s latest debate on women and birth control, Michele Bachmann jumps in with her opinion–and it’s a doozy. According to the fine congresswoman, Obama’s contraception mandate requiring religious organizations to cover birth control could lead to our government limiting how many babies are born per family. Communist China, anyone?
The former presidential hopeful appeared on Glenn Beck’s online TV show Real News From The Blaze this week where she was asked about her views on Obamacare and how this affects women. She started out fine, but then gets crazy with her China-like opinion:
Women have a lot to lose under Obamacare, and I’ll give you an example. If you want to go into specifics, what the government can give, the government can take away. It certainly isn’t beyond the pale to think, in light of Kathleen Sebelius, the Health and Human Services Secretary—she said that it’s important that we have contraceptives because that prevents pregnancy, and pregnancy is more expensive to the federal government. Going with that logic, according to our own Health and Human Services Secretary, it isn’t far-fetched to think that the President of the United States could say, we need to save health care expenses—the federal government will only pay for one baby to be born in the hospital per family, or two babies to be born per family. That could happen. We think it couldn’t?
The show’s anchor, Amy Holmes, jumped in to clarify:
Congresswoman, are you suggesting that this administration, or a next administration, would actually advocate a one-child policy like Communist China?
Bachmann stumbled around a bit, but then said that Obama is getting close to becoming a dictator with his mandates on birth control:
What I’m saying is that now that we know the President of the United States unilaterally can tell insurance companies, you must offer the morning-after abortion pill, you must offer sterilizations, you must offer contraceptives free to the recipients of those products, because we tell you to—which means they’re effectively setting the price, as well—that says that whoever the health care dictator, could conceivably make that order, as well. There’s nothing that this president, one person, would be limited from doing. That’s how profound that is.
Wow. Not only is this argument irrational, but it also continues a discussion that has gotten blown way out of proportion. Birth control mandates should never have gotten this far; it’s something the government really shouldn’t be involved in to begin with. Suggesting that Obamacare could lead to a Communist China-type country is extreme.
Just for one week, would it be possible to have politicians talk about, say, the economy, rising gas prices or unemployment? Why do they feel the need to continue butting in on women and birth control?