Recently Rush Limbaugh has been chastised for calling Georgetown Law student, Sandra Fluke a “slut” and a “prostitute”. Mr. Limbaugh has since apologized for the comments. I both agree and disagree with this apology. (see below)
Ms. Fluke recently testified somewhere (I’m not sure where) in support of forcing insurance companies to provide “free” contraception as part of their coverage. This is something Mr. Obama wants that recently caused a short news cycle concerning the Catholic Church. (more below)
In her testimony, Ms. Fluke said, “Without insurance coverage, contraception can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school. For a lot of students who, like me, are on public interest scholarships, that’s practically an entire summer’s salary. Forty percent of female students at Georgetown Law report struggling financially as a result of this policy.”
OK… there are a lot of issues here so let’s take them one at a time.
Issue 1: Rush’s Statements and Apology.
First, if Rush was apologizing for the harsh language used, then he was indeed guilty of the offence and his conscience has seen fit to seek forgiveness. He could have instead used the words “promiscuous” and/or “lady of the evening”.
Rush Limbaugh & Sandra Fluke
But as for accuracy, Rush only owes one apology. There is no evidence that the young lady is a prostitute. Nothing she said and nothing presented indicates she accepts money as payment for sex. I doubt seriously Ms. Fluke is a prostitute.
As for as Ms. Fluke being a “slut”; that’s a different matter. Mr. Fluke herself has testified that she spends a lot of money on contraception. Why? Why does one do that? Yes, we can debate how many encounters it takes to cross the line into that definition; but there is evidence that might lead a reasonable person to conclude that Ms. Fluke is indeed a slut.
Issue 2: Why Does it Cost $3000
Maybe Ms. Fluke has decided if the guy is paying for dinner and the movie and the booze; she’ll kick in for the contraception. Maybe that’s the rationale. So maybe I can understand the guy not kicking in his half. Plus, it’s obvious the consequences fall more heavily on her.
But why $3000 (over 3 years of law school)? Isn’t it her choice to spend that much money?
Why not use condoms; especially if you’re a strapped for cash student? Forty bucks will buy you a box of one hundred. (I had to look that up) Do the math and we’re only talking a few hundred bucks for all of law school. And if you’re spending more than that, YOU owe Rush Limbaugh an apology.
Want something even cheaper? (No I wouldn’t dream of recommending abstinence.) Wal-Mart… the oral contraceptive Tri-Sprintec… $4 a month… $48 a year… $150 for the three years of law schol.
Issue 3: Why Should I Pay for It?
Sandra look, you want to be a… “promiscuous person” knock yourself out. But why should I support your lifestyle I don’t agree with. You have to admit you are doing “this” for recreation; why the subsidy? Because of the money we (society) save by you not getting pregnant?
We don’t supply bungee jumpers with elastic cords and harnesses. We don’t supply skate boarders with pads and helmets. And we don’t supply rednecks with guns and pickups. Why are you special in that you deserve to have your recreational sex subsidized?
I enjoy playing poker (the card game); I go to little tournaments here and there, play in low stakes game, and sometimes play in free leagues. In your terms I use condoms and the cheaper Wal-Mart drugs that I can afford. But wait, I don’t want to go the cheap route. I want the full experience of playing with the big boys. I want to play in the World Series of Poker. Now the entry fee is 10K and I’ll need another 5K for practice sessions, transportation, food, and lodging. So 15K a year should do it. And since I’m entitled to this, let’s get government, insurance, or whoever (besides me) to pay for it!
Well, I guess I’m beating a dead horse now. So finally I’ll just say “Pay for your own dam sex!” And don’t give me this crap about the insurance companies paying for it, etc… They pass on the costs… I PAY FOR IT!
Issue 4: Government Mandate
When the government decides to “give” you a benefit or entitlement; you can also bet your bottom dollar that they will soon be dictating who, how, when, and where. And if any of that violates your religion or conscience… YOU… ARE… SCREWED.
I always thought that we evangelical Christians would be the first to experience that heavy hand. Imagine my surprise when the Catholics got a dose of it. And I love the “compromise”. You don’t have to pay for it yourselves, you’re insurance companies (to whom you pay the premiums) will pay for it. Classic liberalism; appearance is everything, substance/reality is meaningless.
The issue here isn’t contraception at all. It’s freedom of religion and the lefts attack on the Catholic practice there-of. The First Amendment of the Constitution? It’s a living document; open to interpretation…
The Texas Piney Woods (Blog) 