Okay, so that may sound harsh, but how else do you describe Sec. Sebilius’ explanation of the cost-effectiveness of the manadate? She explains that because fewer babies will be born, insurance premiums will actually be either a net-neutral or net-negative. Let me get this straight then; here’s the recipe:

• The woman wants to have as much sex as she can
• They get “free” contraception from the government
• The babies they would normally have had are therefore never born
• The insurance carrier (i.e., Obamacare) is spared from pre/post-natal, ob/gyn, then pediatric care costs
• The woman gets to go on having as much sex as she wants
• Repeat cycle as many times as desired

From the CNS story:

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius told a House panel Thursday that a reduction in the number of human beings born in the United States will compensate employers and insurers for the cost of complying with the new HHS mandate that will require all health-care plans to cover sterilizations and all FDA-approved contraceptives, including those that cause abortions.

“The reduction in the number of pregnancies compensates for the cost of contraception,” Sebelius said. She went on to say the estimated cost is “down not up.”