The Advisors Behind the Contraception Mandate

According to ABC’s Jake Tapper, the most influential supporters of the controversial Contraception Mandate were HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, former Director of Domestic Policy Melody Barnes (who has resigned from the Obama administration), Presidential Advisor Valerie Jarrett, and President of Planned Parenthood Cecile Richards.

Other than their support for this mandate, they have something else in common: they are all unabashedly pro-abortion.

Why was Cecile Richards, who is not an official White House advisor, included in the discussions so prominently? Why was someone who could directly benefit from this mandate included, yet the very organizations that would be forced to provide this coverage against their beliefs, were excluded from the conversation?

Prior to being chosen by President Obama to be the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius was  the pro-choice governor of Kansas, who vetoed reasonable restrictions on abortions in 2003, 2005, 2006, and 2008. She also accepted campaign donations from notorious later term abortionist George Tiller, even hosting him and another late term abortionist at the Governor’s mansion in 2007.

Melody Barnes, the White House’s Director of Domestic Policy, has worked with several pro-abortion organizations, including Emily’s List, Planned Parenthood, and was a lobbyist for the Center for Reproductive Rights.

Valerie Jarrett  was selected by Obama to lead his White House Council on Women and Girls. While Ms. Jarrett has no record of working directly for a pro-abortion organization, she has spoken at many events in favor of abortion, such as the NARAL Pro-Choice America’s 18th National Power of Choice Luncheon in 2009.

It seems disingenuous that President Obama would surround himself with a group of advisors that only see one side of the issue, and refused to see the mandate from the perspective of those who would be affected. President Obama could have included the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops in the initial discussion on the bill, and avoided the controversy altogether.  Instead, he chose to lean heavily on a group of pro-abortion fanatics, who are fighting to take away Americans’ religious liberties.

  • Oedipa

    “Other than their support for this mandate, they have something else in common: they are all unabashedly pro-abortion.”

    Well, you missed something a little more obvious. They’re all women. It allows for a quite a stark contrast to the sausage-fest that was Rep. Issa’s sham of a hearing on the subject.

    • Deanna Candler

      That hearing was on the religious liberties being affected by this mandate. All of the men that spoke were leaders or representatives of religious institutions. The only person who was not allowed to speak was a college student who was in NO way qualified to speak about how it would affect the religious community, nor did she claim to. If being a woman is the only necessary credential to speak on this subject- I win, I have a uterus. 

      • Ninek

        If women are equal to men, it doesn’t matter which gender the folks are who speak on an issue.  Men, who are fathers, and men, who were all embryos when they were young, have as much right to speak on the subjects of fiscal responsibility, protection of religious liberty, and human reproduction. 

        Using terms like “sausage fest” is discriminatory and wrong.  If a man posted a comment like that to describe a group of women, you’d be outraged.   

        This proves that some people don’t believe women and men are equal, but rather that women are better.  We’re not better at being human beings than men are.  Get over yourselves, ‘perpetually outraged perpetual victims’.

    • Jordan Elizabeth

      It also allows for a stark contrast to the “sausage-fest” that was Roe v. Wade.

    • Minxcomix

      How’s this for a stark contrast Oedipa?Many women do not support the HHS Mandate, recognizing it for what it is, a violation of religious freedoms. We do not wish for other women to speak ‘on our behalf’ in voices contrary to our own! We will speak for ourselves. http://womenspeakforthemselves.com/

  • Gladyswhipple

    Which came first … the chicken or the egg?  If President Obama was advised by four pro-abortion women … and this was deemed acceptable, why is there such a fuss about what was portrayed an “all male” panel discussing the HHS mandate?  Obama’s panel met first.

    The first panel was all male because it was a collection of top representatives from the Faiths who objected … none of them were of the Episcopal Faith.  Logically, there were no women. 

    The second panel did include two women, who were highly educated and qualified to discuss the topic of First Amendment violations. 

    The young lady who didn’t qualify to discuss First Amendment violations did tell a sad story on TV.  Her friend needed birth control medication to prevent ovarian tumors from developing.  All she had to do was have her Doctor (or the Doctor’s nurse) call the insurance company and explain the diagnosis.  Even the Catholic Church has no objection to the use of birth control medications to prevent ovarian tumors.  WAS A PHONE CALL MADE ON HER BEHALF?

    And, if the phone call was made on her behalf, but rejected, was Planned Parenthood consulted for access to the pills?  If not why not?

    The woman knew she would probably develop ovarian tumors … she was responsible to explore all avenues.  The law was not in effect yet, so it was not applicable. 

    There are many ways for a woman to obtain birth control pills, if her insurance doesn’t cover them for any reason.  If not, how could 99% of all Catholic women have used them at one time or another? 

    There are far too many inaccurate statistics being generated by people who cannot do simple math.  Planned Parenthood has stated they serve 3,000,000 patients, and only perform 300,000 abortions yearly.  They state only 3% of of their clients receive abortions. Do the math … 300,000 is 10%! 

    • scragsma

      On the other hand, Planned Parenthood, by its own accounting, obtains nearly 50% of its clinic revenue from abortions. It’s their bread and butter, and numerous former PP employees have confirmed that every PP affiliate has an ever-increasing quota of abortions to meet.

      Plus, no report has ever claimed that 99% of Catholic women have used birth control pills. What they have shown is that 98% of them have used SOME form of contraception at some time in their lives – and that includes those who used abstinence and Natural Family Planning!

    • Sonnys_Mom

      Why such a flap?  It’s known by various names, including “lies”, “half-truths” and “propaganda”. 

      The frightening “progressive” Democrat candidate running against Mass. Senator Scott Brown– “Lizzie” Warren– has also been spreading this biased interpretation and using it to attack Sen. Brown.

  • kristymom

    While I personally have no problem with contraception, I am against this mandate because it infringes on freedom of religion. Forcing a church or religious organization to pay for contraceptives (or to pay more for insurance to pay for it…same thing) is forcing them to violate their religious beliefs. And almost every religion is against abortion, which will undoubtedly be included later in the same style “mandate”.

    It is absolutely ridiculous to claim that women will not have “access” to contraceptives. I currently take a birth control pill because of a hormone problem my doctor is trying to regulate. It costs me $10 a month. As a taxpayer, I would prefer to see people who are responsible enough to have sex be responsible for paying the bill for their own contraceptives, rather than passing that bill on to the taxpayers. If I did not want to have a child, I would find the money in my budget to pay for my own contraceptives.

    • M.M.Joyce

      This,of course makes sense, but most of those involved in any of this DO NOT
      MAKE any sense or care about anyone but themselves.

  • Pingback: The Advisors Behind the Contraception Mandate | Foundation Life

  • Sonnys_Mom

    Kathleen Sebelius – promoted and major fundraiser for late-term abortionist George Tiller; progressive dissenter who brazenly claims membership in the Catholic church
     
    Valerie Jarrett – promoted Van Jones, the former Obama “green jobs” czar and admitted communist party member; has other ties to the CP through her deceased father-in-law, Vernon Jarrett
     
    Cecile Richards – no explanation required