to shaft the employees on their benefits because a couple of them had big medical expenses.

In this context, I have to mention that I don't think it serves society's interests to go to such lengths to save a very premature baby which hasn't even started to become a human being. But that does not justify Mr Armstrong's position. There are lots of reasons why employees (or their family members who are already human beings) might need expensive medical care. Also, the point about commercial pressures that lead women to delay having children and thus face greater risks when they do is valid.