Will Women Recognize True Warmonger – Obamacare

How great to see an article that highlights what I talked about just a few days ago.

Sally Pipes at the New York Post discusses BamCare’s War on Women–Health hazards we can’t ignore.

President Obama leads Mitt Romney among women — for now. That will change if voters focus on what the ObamaCare law does to their health care.

Simply put, the president broke a host of promises about an issue of particular concern to female voters. Unless the law is entirely junked by the Supreme Court, it will drastically limit the choices of millions of Americans, while reducing the quality of our care.

In fact, the ObamaCare law has already set up the architecture for denying coverage for procedures that the government finds to be too expensive — no matter what your doctor (or actual medical science) recommends.

The new Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute specializes in comparing the effectiveness of various treatment methods. Such research has been used for years in Britain to limit which treatments the government will pay for. A new drug or procedure must be deemed to provide sufficient bang for its buck.

This methodology will not be limited to treatments.  Expect greater limitations on potentially life-saving tests. Soon younger women will have less chance of getting a routine pap smear under ObamaCare. (Perhaps punishment for those who refused Gardasil?) Our government will provide loads of free contraception (in addition to forcing all employers to do so through their heath insurance plans), but no pap smears for younger women because, apparently, their chances of contracting cervical cancer is lower. Just like the policy in the United Kingdom that has worked out so well for these women.

But again, you have to ask yourself the question–If statistical probability is being used to decide that younger women don’t deserve a life saving test like a pap smear, then why will every young women in this same age group not only be offered but be ENCOURAGED to have invasive prenatal testing when statistically the chances of their babies having Down syndrome or other chromosomal anomalies is nearly astronomical?

When you realize both policies result in death and money savings, you can see the heartless logic involved. By the way, if you’re wondering how prenatal testing results in death; 9 out of 10 babies (fetuses for those on the left) prenatally diagnosed with Down syndrome are aborted–creating even greater savings!

Comments