Obamacare: Bad For Babies – Good For The Environment

Obamacare WhatCouldGoWrong

The Obama administration announced a whole new reason to support the messiah’s takeover of the nation’s healthcare system – it’s will help fight global warming!

According to sources withing the administration, this benefit wasn’t expected, but was certainly welcome:

“Following the just released study on global warming by Oregon State University, which concluded that one less American child per family will reduce global warming, we are pleased to announce that the administration’s healthcare plan will help achieve this vital goal by providing unlimited funding of abortions for all policy holders,” stated the source.

“We didn’t have the benefit of this new study when we first proposed the takeover of the healthcare system, but when you consider Obama’s established track record in support of unlimited abortions and infanticide, it becomes a win-win for both the environment and the abortion industry.”

The OSU study concluded that a child born in the United States did more damage to the environment that children born elsewhere. In addition, they concluded that not having a child is more beneficial to saving the planet than things like driving a high mileage car, recycling, or using energy-efficient appliances and light bulbs.

“In (the global warming) debate, very little attention has been given to the overwhelming importance of reproductive choice,” said Paul Murtaugh, an OSU professor of statistics. “When an individual produces a child – and that child potentially produces more descendants in the future – the effect on the environment can be many times the impact produced by a person during their lifetime.”

Also present at the press conference was Obama’s Science Czar, John Holdren. His writings on the importance of population control as a means to protect the environment are considered key to the chosen one’s healthcare initiatives. In a book published in 1977, which Holdren co-authored with Paul Ehrlich and Anne Ehrlich, he suggests government intervention to do just that:

“It is often argued that the right to have children is so personal that the government should not regulate it. In an ideal society, no doubt the state should leave family size and composition solely to the desires of the parents. In today’s world, however, the number of children in a family is a matter of profound public concern. The law regulates other highly personal matters. For example, no one may lawfully have more than one spouse at a time. Why should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two children?” – from the book Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment

Holdren is also a good fit with Obama’s belief that children who survive abortions should not be permitted to live. It was during his term as an Illinois legislator that he voted against the “Born Alive Infants Protection Act,” which would have provided medical services to a baby who survived an attempted abortion. In 1973, Holdren co-authored the book, Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions, where he suggested that a baby wasn’t a human being until “given the essential early socializing experiences and sufficient nourishing food during the crucial early years after birth.”

“Following the introduction of the ‘Cash for Codgers‘ program – which pays money for trading in the elderly to pay for insurance – providing abortion services, along with the possible rationing of medical services to ‘non-humans,’ we can lower medical costs and save the environment,” concluded our source.

“Only a right-wing, unamerican, radical mob would be against the tremendous benefits of Obamacare.”


What others had to say: