Jonathan Gruber recently testified on Capitol Hill about his role in Obamacare. He’s a piece of work. This abortion-supporting liberal consultant is in a position to shape law and policy. He’s received millions in government contracts.
You’ll recall Gruber saying that the stupidity of the American people and the lack of government transparency helped push Obamacare on the country.
Various sources describe him as the “architect” of Obamacare and writer of the individual mandate, which makes it against the law not to have health insurance. Once Gruber’s remarks were widely reported, the Obama administration and other liberals tried to distance themselves from him.
Sources have uncovered some of his views on abortion. WND.com reported (via CNSNews) that Gruber wrote a paper in the 1990s that argued children born immediately after Roe v. Wade legalized the killing of unborn babies had improved life outcomes. He also wrote this about the dead children’s hypothetical lives:
Our results suggest that the marginal children who were not born as a result of abortion legalization would have systematically been born into worse circumstances had the pregnancies not been terminated: they would have been 70% more likely to live in a single parent household, 40% more likely to live in poverty, 35% more likely to die during the first year of life, and 50% more likely to be in a household collecting welfare.
It’s true that if a pregnant woman kills her unborn baby, she will save money that would go to raising her child, and if she’s on welfare, the baby’s death saves tax dollars. But how are dead babies a social good, as Gruber implies?
These children, had they had a chance at life, probably would have been at risk for all sorts of social pathology. But what about their right to life? Does being poor mean you’d be better off dead? Regardless of their hypothetical life circumstances, they deserved to live. This social-good theme appeared in Grubers’s subsequent writings.
(Hat tip: LifeNews.com)