"If we're going to have to pay for this -- then we want something in return... And that would be the videos of all this sex posted online so we can see what we're getting for our money... I said if we're paying for this, it makes these women sluts, prostitutes. What else could it be? We are buying it." -- Rush Limbaugh
Georgetown University law student Sandra Fluke testified to congressional Democrats in support of a national health care policy that would compel Georgetown University to offer health plans that cover birth control. It was not enough of a diminution of her testimony that Republican lawmakers had barred her from testifying during the actual hearing. Democrats had to invite her to speak at an unofficial session. Then Conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh called her a "slut" and "prostitute."
Adding insult to injury, after a huge public outcry and withdrawal of advertising commitments key to his talk show revenues, Limbaugh claimed to apologize as he proffered: "My choice of words was not the best, and in the attempt to be humorous, I created a national stir." On his website Limbaugh added: "I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for the insulting word choices."
Philip Elliott reported in the Associated Press that Limbaugh had that the 30-year-old Fluke had bought condoms when she was in junior high. Limbaugh "... scoffed at the Democrats' talk of a conservative "war on women"... [saying]:
"Amazingly, when there is the slightest bit of opposition to this new welfare entitlement being created, then all of a sudden we hate women. We want 'em barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen...And now, at the end of this week, I am the person that the women of America are to fear the most."
I am 60 years old. That's old enough to remember the way it used to be for lots of women in this country -- who had limited access to healthcare relating to reproductive rights. I can recall horror stories about dangerous, illegal and fatal abortions. I remember when family planning was anything but reliable, and how many families -- and women in particular -- did not have choices concerning when they would have children and how many.
Limbaugh is wrong to think that he is feared by women and others of us. What is scary is the flip way in which he and others change the conversation about healthcare and women's access to it into a debate about "new welfare entitlement" or about keeping women "barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen." They actually seem to think in such terms even about their own mothers, sisters and daughters.
Reproductive health care is part of basic health care for women. And if it is not affordable, many women will lack access to care and choices basic to their quality of life. Very simply they will not be able to get the care they need to stay healthy and to make healthy decisions for themselves and their families. The only way that women's reproductive health is improved sustainably is when access to health insurance coverage for maternity care and family planning services is part of state-wide Medicaid coverage.
As Lisa Miller noted in "Romney, Santorum and archaic ideas on fertility" in The Washington Post (March 2), "Between them, Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum have as many children -- 12 -- as there were tribes of Israel." I say that is their choice and respect them as family-oriented dads. But as Miller went on to add, her concern about the discourse coming from the Roman Catholic Church, is that
"... with their crusade against birth control, the Catholic bishops are helping to articulate and elevate that unspoken and archaic value in public. Fertility is a gift from God, they say. To mess with that gift goes against God's plan."
We cannot set the clock back on science and choices we all make in how to use the gifts it brings to us. Of course those gifts -- like any gift -- can be abused. But humans have also used their brains and creative abilities to do great things for God and for all creatures with science. Maybe instead of waging war on women, being faithful to religious beliefs means striving to be better stewards as we make the tough choices about life and death. I think Sandra Fluke is that kind of citizen steward.
Greg Garrett: Appreciating Rowan Williams' Leadership
Kyle Anderson: Despite What Rick Santorum Tells You, Higher Education Still Matters
Stephanie Schriock: Fighting the GOP War on Women From the States
Woman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Women .com - The empowered women's guide to health, beauty ...
Women's Health: Health, Fitness, Weight Loss, Healthy Recipes ...
You have to love and admire the "let's be reasonable" Anglicans though. I'm looking forward to when they admit the whole Bible is "more like guidelines really", and invite all the atheists to come to church "no pressure".
You can start with the total lack of evidence for any entity resembling "God". Then you can observe the mutually incompatible claims constantly made about it y the world's religions while all claiming to have received direct special revelations from it. Then you can notice the hard to pass off as coincidental tendency for every person to think that "God" tends to share their opinion on most things.
And on, and on, and on...
And pointing all this out then reaching the obvious conclusion is nowhere near "fundamentalism".
"
I agree with you about Sandra Flook. But science is no gift from god. It is a gift from the people who work very hard for years getting their training and then pursue a very disciplined and rigorous profession involved in learning the truth about nature.
"And there's no way to prove or disprove it. "
Which is something science calls an unfalsifiable hypothesis, and it dictates we reject it on those grounds. If God gave us science you think it's kind of strange that it tells us to conclude that the idea God exists is worthless conjecture that belongs on the trash heap of ideas?
The Church understands the strains and constraints on families, and supports the use of plainly decipherable signs of the woman’s fertility to help couples either naturally delay the start of their families, or space their children when they have them. The era of the “Rhythm Method" is past. Today's methods are free and not dangerous to a woman’s health or the environment. They work great and, especially, display an openness to God’s will and true, complete, marital commitment. Further, the Church understands some women require medically necessary contraception -- the portrayal of bishops as archaic and removed from the needs of people they serve is both ridiculous and insulting.
In their responses to this mandate, Catholic bishops aren't so much "leading a crusade against birth control" as illustrating how Obama’s notion of contraception, abortifacient drugs, and sterilization as “public goods” is utterly divergent from the Church’s understanding on those matters, and that the Constitution protects religious institutions from federal attempts to re-define their doctrines and morals.
Also, as MH08 mentioned, the Fertility Awareness Method (or NFP) can be used effectively even among impoverished women with irregular cycles (and hey, it's cheaper than the Pill or barrier methods). In fact, USAID (ie federal money and federal government) supports FAM in developing countries and touts it as one of only a few "highly effective [family planning] methods."
Sure, most insurance policies have covered birth control since the 1970s. No one is trying to stop those employers from providing birth control. But the Catholic Church has never subsidized birth control as contraception. Nor should they be required to do so by the federal government. One final note, the Church does permit birth control to treat medical problems (which is over-prescribed frequently and masks underlying issues, but I digress...). The problem with Ms. Fluke's friend wasn't that the birth control wasn't covered by her insurance policy but that the insurer refused to recognize that it was for a medical purpose.
I am married as well and I use contraception because my husband and I are done having children and contraception is not against our religious beliefs. Most women want to have a reasonable number of children and contraception is the most reliable way to plan a family. Fertility is not a disease and procreation is not a treatable symptom. Having children is a wonderful thing but it is also wonderful to enjoy marriage without the worry of creating a baby sister or brother after you have given away all the baby stuff.
These articles explain how contraception saves money for the insurance companies:
http://healthland.time.com/2012/03/09/100-or-1000-what-does-birth-control-cost/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/healthbeat-birth-control-cost-varies-widely-study-suggests-more-women-choose-iud-if-free/2012/03/09/gIQADqMh0R_story.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57377864-503544/poll-most-back-mandating-contraception-coverage/
CBSgnus? Now there is a reliable unbiased poll.
:-)
Ugh.
While I appreciate the general sentiment of the article I can;t stand it when people pull stuff like that.
Science is a gift FROM SCIENTISTS who put in long hours and damn hard work on it. God never has and never will play even the slightest of roles in it and I think credit where credit is due is appropriate. I know telling that to the religiously minded in this country isn't as effective a persuasive tool as telling them it comes from the magic super-being they worship, but that's just the way it is.
These discussions certainly attract a lot of fundie atheists.
You know.. science? That thing you want to claim was handed down to us by a magic father figure and yet it tells us to ignore the proposition that that entity would exist?
Fanned you.
:-)
The only obsession comes from those who want to prevent women exercising their right to do whatever the hell they want to with their own body.
As an aside, sex is fun and feels really really good. Most people like to do it as often as possible. Does that mean they should have a kid every 9 months?
How did it come to this madness?
More precisely, a bunch of old white guys in the 5th century who decided what should be included in the New Testament and what should not.
Or, if you want to go further back, the jealousy and mysoginism of some of Jesus's disciples' attributed stories (Peter stands out).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbND1oD2G0I&fb_source=m
I think that what worries me the most is how far from the truth Rush Limbaugh's entire three day tirade was, and that so many people just took his word for it and won't even look up what Ms. Fluke actually said. It's also telling that so many people in this country don't know--or care to know--just how contraceptives work, and what a wide range of types there are for different situations. The prices vary depending on what is called for in any particular case. All of which is nobody else's business except for the woman involved.
The whole reason that access to contraception is included in the Affordable Care Act is because women have been charged more for health insurance forever due to "pre-existing conditions", which they define as what we call "lady parts." And the same people who keep telling women to "just go and get it at the free clinic" are the same people who are trying to shut down women's health clinics in every "red" state in this country. In my town the only doctors' clinics are all run by the Catholic church and they are most decidedly not free. The nearest major town is 250 miles away by air.
Or is it just that the wrong kinds of people are having the most childfren.
However, universal primary education for girls especially, and access to birth control and abortion are rights that women must have worldwide.