Pregnancy Ban to Save Healthcare Costs?

After reading some of the responses to employers banning employees from smoking even during off-hours, I had to write a follow-up. Of those that seem to think this is fine for an employer to dictate, the majority seem to have the opinion that is the employer is paying a portion of an employee's healthcare costs, they should be allowed to dictate that employee abstain from an activity that is "proven" to raise costs. OK, fine, lets go with that. Let's see, having sex with your lover, mate, spouse, etc., is proven to lead to pregnancy. Pregnancy is know to increase health care costs in both the short term and long term. So, your employer says employees can no longer have sex at any time (it's a given they don't allow it during work hours, at least, we hope). Now, I know people our going to say this is two different things, and bearing children is not only a right, but a duty in the eyes of many religions. However, from an employer view point, it raises the cost of providing health care to all employees, and therefore, it is not good for business, and employees are required to abstain. Let's face it, in the last few years, employers objective is the bottom line, providing better returns to owners and investors, who, by the way, should realize good returns for risking their money on a business. This short sightedness is likely to have undesired results of their own in the future, and requiring employees to abstain from sex and child rearing will cut the available work force in the future. But then, that will be someone else's problem to deal with. What do you think?