Obabycare?

Hey, if the state can require free birth control, can the state require pregnancy if society decides that lack of babies rather than unwanted babies is the bigger problem faced by society?

I wonder if there are any computer models about this? That would settle it, I imagine.

UPDATE: Thanks to Stones Cry Out for the link. I even got a "heh."

UPDATE: Oh good grief. This somewhat whimsical post (the "heh" at Stones Cry Out and my comment on that might have been a clue) prompted angry comments at Stones Cry Out. This is why I have resisted Twitter. The heart of the "post" is all of one sentence long and then veered off into a bank shot against global warming hysteria with a second sentence. So no, this was not a detailed analysis of comparing Obamacare birth control with requiring birth.

But I never would have made the strained comparison if the left hadn't raised Sandra Fluke to the level of saint in the epic war on women against the Republicans.

I wouldn't have made that comparison if the left didn't paint opponents of state-required birth control coverage in insurance policies as somehow being for keeping women barefoot, in the kitchen, and of course pregnant.

So, yeah, there is no direct comparison between the two notions. One is a state requirement on businesses to provide insurance that includes birth control and requires insurance companies to include coverage of birth control in their policies. The other is a state requirement on a woman to give birth (and logically on a man to help pay for that child).

So thanks commenters, for pointing out the obvious difference that I would never have noticed but for your ginormous brain power. And I'm the stupid one ...

But to deny a connection of state power to compel given the context of Sandra Fluke's fifteen minutes of fame in that glorious battle in the war on women is just wrong.

And this is another reason I don't enable comments.