That Rush Limbaugh called Sandra Fluke a slut is a debate for other fora, but I do want to reflect on the broader ramifications of having the state pay for the prophylactics used in sexual intercourse. The practice is hugely supported by the left because it underwrites another cut to the traditional cultural mores, especially as they are touted in the Judeo-Christian ethic. The purported social purpose for the entitlement is that people like Ms Fluke will climb in bed with or without the proper contraception, and if she and her partner are both carefree then the care of her offspring will not be free for the rest of us. So we should pay for her pills or IUD or whatever.
Reducing this argument to its elements says that society should collectively assume the costs of attempting to prevent behaviors of the irresponsible and indigent, which costs are lower than the subsequent collective costs of dealing with the after effects of such behaviors.
In the minds of many of us, the next question that pops up right away is ‘where does it stop?’ What about the state paying for the statins of people who love to eat fat burgers so that we don’t then have to pay so much for treatment of their subsequent cardio-vascular maladies? And we can go on to the taxpayers having to bear all kinds of preventative burdens that used to be the personal responsibility of the individual or his family or his relatives or his church; you get the idea.
Here we have the case of a woman who admittedly screws so frequently with diverse partners that neither of them can be counted on, in the heat of the moment, to undertake their pleasures with proper preparation. One could counter her congressional testimony with the plea that if her activities were, shall we say, more episodic or less frequent, then the specialness of the occasion would naturally invoke other behaviors in the prelude that would prevent an unwanted pregnancy. But apparently that is not the case with Ms Fluke and her peers.
In order to prevent this new entitlement creep to become a gallop, perhaps we could suggest that she might fund her own 24/7 protection by charging a fee, or asking her partners to chip in a small amount that would total to her ongoing costs of such enterprise. This would place the burden where it should be borne, and nip in the bud another round of ever expanding and never ending public expenditures.
[5mar12 update] A reader gives us a heads up on the sad tale concerning Ms Fluke that, in short, reveals that she's no fluke when it comes to progressive public pyrotechnics. The source is the American Thinker, where we read -
"Ms. Fluke is long-time feminist activist who graduated in 2003 from Cornell's "Feminist, Gender, & Sexuality Studies." In the decade since then Ms. Fluke has become a political professional for a huge range of feminist causes. She has worked for the (Democrat) Manhattan Borough Taskforce on Domestic violence and...."
The rest is here.
[6mar12 update] This morning's leftwing NPR Morning Edition contained a segment on Limbaugh's 'slut apology'. It was classic propaganda to keep this issue alive and focused on the very narrow subject of how Limbaugh characterized Fluke. In the piece the reporter's entire argument anchored on Fluke being "just a civilian". To the uninformed listener, the woman was just a random Georgetown University law student with a pocketbook problem in that her and her friends'/peers' rights were being violated by having to bear the cost of their own contraceptives. Her professional and public political activities were purposely misrepresented, she was anything but "just a civilian". I base the 'purposely' claim on the fact that Ms Fluke's past and professional agenda have now been broadcast over the countryside, and could not have been missed by NPR's equally professional investigative reporter.
So the pot must be kept boiling and the focus kept on 'slut' instead of the proper breadth of national entitlements. I am heartened that here on RR we are discussing the important issues regarding the implementation of Obamacare that have been raised by this incident. I suppose the 'slut gambit'' served its purpose - most certainly here - as an attention getting device.
And here is a fresh perspective from Ms Cathy Ruse, Georgetown law alum and senior fellow for legal studies at the Family Research Council.