White House lied about Gruber’s role in ObamaCare
Back in December of 2014, I took a look at the White House visitor logs and noticed that the ObamaCare architect Jonathan Gruber was a busy man.
The MIT economist professor was involved in the construction of ObamaCare visiting the White House on several occasions and has also made several controversial statements linking abortion to eugenics, the reduction of welfare, crime, and black births.
( Details on Subject Titles here)
See Berwick’s email logs here.
Now, 20,0000 new e-mails show that Gruber who espoused abortion as eugenics had a larger role in drafting ObamaCare than previously thought.
This contradicts reports from top officials including Obama who claimed Gruber’s role was minimal after he embarrassed the administration for calling the American people stupid.
Nancy Pelosi, the House Majority leader at the time ObamaCare passed, who told the American people that they would have to pass the bill to find out what was in it, also claimed that she didn’t know who Gruber was even though she had touted his work years earlier.
The Obama administration initially downplayed Gruber’s role in the Affordable Care Act as evidenced in the video below during a 2012 press conference at the G20 Summit in Brisbane, Australia:
Now, thousands of previously unreleased emails provided by the House Oversight Committee to The Wall Street Journal showed that Gruber played a much larger role in drafting ObamaCare and was in touch with key Obama advisers during the ObamaCare process.
A July 2009 email even indicates Gruber was invited to meet with the President, “to talk about cost control.”
A report from the Washington Examiner reveals more:
Shortly after last fall’s election, tapes surfaced of MIT economist Jonathan Gruber smugly describing how deception, “lack of transparency” and “the stupidity of the American voter” had been “critical” in allowing Democrats who controlled Congress to ram Obamacare through in 2010.
This was important because the law Gruber helped write restructured nearly a fifth of the national economy and upended many people’s healthcare arrangements. The Obama administration paid him some $400,000 for his efforts, and he also managed to snag millions more dollars for consulting gigs with various state Obamacare exchanges.
When Gruber’s comments surfaced, no one ran away from him as quickly as President Obama, who dismissed him as “some adviser who never worked on our staff.” The president and his officials pretended that Gruber had been a bit player in the passage of the law.
It turns out, however, that this was as wildly inaccurate as Obama’s promise that his reforms would allow people to keep their health plans if they wanted to.
Now that the e-mails have surfaced disproving the President’s claim that Gruber’s role in ObamaCare was minimal, pundits are accusing the White House of lying.
GRUBER’S EUGENICS IDEAS:
While apologizing for his insulting statements to the American people Gruber was also grilled on controversial eugenics like statements he made on abortion, referring to the poor as “marginal children” and calling for “positive selection.”
In Gruber’s 1998 paper, “Abortion legalization and child living circumstances who was the marginal child,” he concludes that the legalization of abortion saved the government fourteen billion dollars in welfare payments.
In 2006, Gruber authored another paper with Phillip B. Levine, Elizabeth Oltmans Ananat, and Douglas Staiger called, Abortion and Selection, where they again use terms like “marginal child” and “positive selection through abortion.”
“Two earlier papers investigated the implications of such positive selection through abortion for the quality of cohorts born after abortion legalization. Gruber, Levine and Staiger (GLS, 1999) found that the legalization of abortion led to significant improvements in the circumstances of children born into cohorts where abortion was legal. Such cohorts of children lived in households with lower rates of single motherhood, welfare receipt and poverty, and experienced lower infant mortality than nearby cohorts of children. Donohue and Levitt (DL, 2001) focused on a relevant outcome for children at older ages and young adults, crime.1 They found that increased use of abortion in the 1970s resulted in lower crime rates among the cohorts born in that era when those cohorts were in their late teens and early 20s,” the paper reads.
Abortions decrease birth rates in Non-White women:
In a 1999 paper published by the American Journal of Public Health Phillip B. Levine, Douglas Staigei; (both co-authors with Gruber on his paper) along with Thomas J. Kane and David J. Zimnmerman, entitled, Roe v Wade and American Fertility, the group points out that when abortions are made legal, fertility rates drop with a reduction in births of teens and non-White women to be the largest.
“Estimates show that births to non-White women in repeal states (vs states with no law change) fell by 12% just following repeal, more than 3 times the effect on White women’s fertility,” that paper states.
The group also concluded that there was an important connection between the fall of birth rates in states where abortion was accessible vs. states where it was not, “The results indicate that travel between states to obtain abortions was important. Births in repeal states fell by almost 11% relative to births in nonrepeal states more than 750 miles away but only by 4.5% relative to births in states less than 250 miles away and those in states between 250 and 750 miles away,” the authors write.
Interestingly, the paper thanks Jonathan Gruber for providing research assistance, “We thank Jonathan Gruber for comments and Eileen Aguila, David Autor, and Tara Gustafson for outstanding research assistance.”
Abortion decreases welfare
Back to his paper, Abortion and Selection, Gruber repeats the oft heard eugenics reason for abortion, that it reduces welfare.
Gruber and his fellow authors sandwiched their analysis this way, “We found consistent evidence that changes in cohort composition that occurred in the 1970s that can be attributed to greater abortion access led to improved cohort outcomes, particularly in the form of higher rates of college graduation, lower rates of single motherhood, and lower rates of welfare receipt.”
Abortion reduces crime
Gruber and the other authors also conclude among other things that the there is a link between increased abortion access and a reduction of crime.
Levitt went on to co-author the 2005 bestseller Freakonomics, in which he reiterated his thesis that the legalization of abortion is responsible for half of the recent drop in violent crime.
Gruber and the others acknowledged Levitt and Donahue’s findings, “Finally, we reconsidered the analysis of abortion and crime originally conducted by Donohue and Levitt to incorporate our updated methodological framework. The results of this analysis support the association between abortion and crime, but suggest that it is difficult to associate their finding with selection as opposed to the direct effect of cohort size.”
Unwanted children are disadvantaged
Gruber’s group finally concludes that “unwanted children” will grow up “disadvantaged” writing, “Most importantly, taken together with earlier results (Gruber, et al., 1999), our findings suggest that the improved living circumstances experienced by the average child born after the legalization of abortion had a lasting impact on the lifelong prospects of these children. Children who were “born unwanted” prior to the legalization of abortion not only grew up in more disadvantaged households, but they also grew up to be more disadvantaged as adults…Overall, our results provide further evidence that abortion is associated with differential selection and its impact is persistent.”
So, if Gruber and his friends can conclude that the fertility rates among “Non-White” women drop substantially when abortion is legal and then claim that a reduction in crime also follows legalized abortion- what subtle messages are they implying?
Since it’s inception, we know that abortion has been a tool for the eugenics movement and we also know clearly – just who- that movement seeks to target.
I may not be an MIT economist, but, I can do the math here – and so can you.
In fact, so did Justice Department when they discovered that members of the the Ferguson Police Department (FPD) joked about how Black abortions reduce crime:
“Our investigation has revealed that these disparities occur, at least in part, because of unlawful bias against and stereotypes about African Americans. We have found substantial evidence of racial bias among police and court staff in Ferguson. For example, we discovered emails circulated by police supervisors and court staff that stereotype racial minorities as criminals, including one email that joked about an abortion by an African-American woman being a means of crime control,” the report reads.
“A May 2011 email stated: “An African – American woman in New Orleans was admitted into the hospital for a pregnancy termination. Two weeks later she received a check for $5,000. She phoned the hospital to ask who it was from.The hospital said, ‘Crimestoppers,’” the report states.
The idea that Black abortions contribute to a reduction of crime dates all the way back to eugenics of which advocates like, Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood was a part of.
The Ferguson police officer eventually resigned.