Posted by life dynamics on February 26, 2015
Gov. Charlie Baker has removed MIT economist Jonathan Gruber known as the ObamaCare architect who espoused abortion as eugenics from the Massachusetts Health Connector Board, according to the Boston Glob.
Jonathan Gruber, a former consultant and adviser during ObamaCare’s creation, was caught on tape admitting that he and his fellow administration insiders knew they had to lie about ObamaCare in order to get it passed. His argument was that the American people are simply too stupid to know what’s good for them and so the intellectual elites – like him – had a responsibility to step in and protect us from ourselves.
In a December 9, 2014 hearing of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, about enrollment issues with the Affordable Care Act, Gruber, apologized for comments he made in which he called voters stupid and said the controversial law was passed because voters did not know better.
During questioning of the ObamaCare architect, Kentucky Representative Thomas Massie, now dubbed Gruber’s Nemesis, asked him about the paper he penned years prior, “In 1997 you co-authored a paper entitled , “Abortion legalization and child living circumstances who was the marginal child?” On page twenty you conclude that abortion legalization appears to be associated with an improvement in the average living circumstances and birth outcomes among a birth cohort and on page 26 you state that your research indicates that the legalization of abortion saved the government fourteen billion dollars in welfare payments through 1994.”
Gruber’s position in the paper he authored was that legalized abortion has allowed our country to kill off the children of the poor and, thereby, provide a higher quality of life for those who are still living. He described the victims of abortion as “marginal children” and referred to the process of eliminating them as “positive selection.” During his testimony he refused to define exactly what “positive selection” means, but, it is clear that what the elite MIT professor was really implying was eugenics.
The exchange between Massie and Gruber went as follows:
(Partial Transcript Below: )
MASSIE: I have a question for you have you. Have you had any ethics training at MIT or Harvard ?
GRUBER: I as a condition for receiving federal grants we have to take a human subjects
MASSIE: okay so this is a little bit philosophical what I’m gonna ask you now but you’re doctor of philosophy so to speak. Under what circumstances is it ethical to deceive someone for their own benefit?
GRUBER: Uh…I’m not aware circumstances in which I ..
MASSIE: Could you could you imagine maybe an adult could withhold information from children for their own benefit?
GRUBER: I guess
MASSIE: Now so if you understand that then you understand why my constituents are so offended by your proposition that it’s okay to deceive or obfuscate for somebody’s benefit compounding the insulted you delivered to them is the fact that they pay your salary . Do you did you understand fully why it was so insulting? You patronize them you were condescending.
GRUBER: I was.
MASSIE: And my colleagues on the Democrat side of the isle are upset with you simply because you committed candor- you said what you thought- you said what they were all thinking -when they wrote road Obamacare – that they knew what was best for my constituents. I submit to you my constituents are not your children. And they have the right to self-determination. So this gets me to another instance where you commit candor.
In 1997 you co-authored a paper entitled , “Abortion legalization and child living circumstances who was the marginal child?” On page 20 you conclude that abortion legalization appears to be associated with an improvement in the average living circumstances and birth outcomes among a birth cohort and on page 26 you state that your research indicates that the legalization of abortion saved the government fourteen billion dollars in welfare payments through 1994.
Is providing more access to abortion – is that a worthy social outcome to achieve cost savings for the government?
GRUBER: That is uh not what my paper was about. It was a philosophical paper it was about empirical facts…
MASSIE: tell us what you meant by this sentence by 1993 all cohorts under the age 18 were born under legalized abortion and we estimate steady state savings of 1.6 billion dollars per year from positive selection. What did you mean by positive selection? Because in this paper you’re talking about providing more access to abortions to a socio-economic strata of our constituents.
MASSIE: What did you mean by positive selection?
GRUBER: In that paper, we were studying the characteristics of children who were born before and after abortion was legalized. By comparing those characteristics you can infer the characteristics as a ….
MASSIE: So what’s you inferred I find chilling. What you inferred is that if we reduce the number of people of children born life would be better for the rest of us still living. Specifically, you seem to suggest that if we eliminate or reduce the number of poor people that are born this will make life better for all Americans. And this gets me to my final point, which is the Independent Payment Advisory Board, my constituents fear that this is in fact a method by which Obamacare will ration health care for the elderly and therefore implement cost savings for Medicare. So, my question to you is, is your philosophy on abortion, that it can save money and improve outcomes, have any implications in the realm with end of life care? You argue that abortions for poor (?) children raise the average living circumstances in your paper, for the rest of us and save the government money. So, Dr. Gruber, if there are fewer elderly people, particularly poor elderly people, wouldn’t that save a ton of money to? As an economist wouldn’t that would save money too and do you understand the dangerous implications of going down this path?
GRUBER: I have no philosophy of abortion. I have no philosophy of end of life care. My job’s an economist is to deliver the empirical facts ( ??) can make the necessary..
MASSIE: And what would your facts be on the elderly?
GRUBER: I don’t understand the question?
MASSIE: the end of Life Care? Do you advocate that the federal government should ration that?
GRUBER: no I …
MASSIE: as an economist would it save money?
GRUBER: I do not advocate the federal government’s should ration end of life care.
MASSIE: thank you, I yield back.
In 2009, Crutcher and his team produced a powerful film exposing the root of abortion as eugenics and racism. The film, Maafa21, shed light on another powerful American who also advocated abortion for eugenics, as Crutcher explains, “Ironically, within a few months after we released Maafa21, the most radical abortion enthusiast on the U.S. Supreme Court issued a statement to the New York Times that confirmed exactly what we were saying. Ruth Bader Ginsburg stated, “Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”
Crutcher said that both Ginsburg and Gruber have validated what he documented in Maafa21, “Now we have not one, but two, radical, high-profile, godless abortion supporters, confirming what we documented in Maafa 21. First, Ruth Bader Ginsburg admits that eugenics was the driving force behind the legalization of abortion, and then Jonathan Gruber admits that it’s working exactly as it was intended. And make no mistake, everyone at the top of the abortion lobby food chain has also known that this was the agenda since day one.”
“The fact is that the promotion of abortion from people like Gruber, Ginsburg, and the abortion lobby is purely eugenics,” Crutcher stated.
Watch Maafa21 in full here http://www.maafa21.com
In a January 2015 episode of Life Talk TV, Mark Crutcher and his co-hosts discussed Gruber’s paper:
Life Talk TV is a monthly pro-life TV show produced in the studios of Life Dynamics.
View the current Life Talk TV show here.