No one, except perhaps Bill O'Reilly, is willing to defend Rush Limbaugh's latest attempt at character assassination. Obviously, Limbaugh went too far in calling a Georgetown student a "slut" and a "prostitute" for asserting that health insurance for women should include coverage of birth control. Okay. But a growing number of conservatives, including Rick Santorum, are not shying away from claiming that contraception, even within marriage, is "dangerous" and some kind of moral turpitude. Contraception has suddenly become the 21st century equivalent of the "scarlet letter."
But why? Why the sudden assault on contraception? It would be nice to think that the attackers were motivated by concerns about the deficit or religious objections to abortion, but reducing support for family planning only increases government spending and boosts the number of pregnancies that are ultimately terminated.
Nor is it necessarily the teachings of the Catholic Church. Catholic orthodoxy may be opposed to modern methods of birth control, but that's nothing new, and large numbers of Catholic women have rejected, and continue to reject, the teachings of the Church on this matter.
Perhaps it's a latter day resurgence of our Puritan heritage. Many of the recent attacks on contraception, including Limbaugh's, are certainly delivered with moralistic zeal. When I read Santorum's musings about Satan and the United States, I feel like I am listening to "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God," the famous 17th century sermon by Jonathan Edwards.
We should not sit in judgment on those who, because of religious conviction, choose not to use a modern method of birth control. It is their right. But in a tolerant and pluralistic society they should not sit in political judgment on those who choose to use modern method of birth control, whether it is to prevent an unintended pregnancy or some other medically valid purpose, including control of menstruation.
What's troubling to me as a man, and I suspect to most women, is that all the vitriol and moralistic zeal in this debate is being focused on women, not men. When the puritanical axe falls, rhetorically or otherwise, it always seems to fall on women. In the English language there is no male equivalent to the word "slut." Gender-specific pejoratives almost always apply to women, not men. If you want to accuse a man of selling sexual favors, you have to say "male prostitute." If you simply call someone a "prostitute," as Limbaugh did, the automatic assumption is that the person in question is a woman.
The ferocity of the public's reaction to Limbaugh's verbal assault on Sandra Fluke will probably temper the political rhetoric and dissuade others from attacking the character of women on this issue. I'm relieved that the rhetorical bashing of women will become less political acceptable, but my concerns go deeper than Limbaugh's rhetoric, as reprehensible as that is.
Far more damaging than the rhetorical assault is the practical effect of what social conservatives are trying to achieve by restricting access to family planning services and information. The chainsaw logic that leads social conservatives to outlaw or limit access to various forms of contraceptives, including emergency contraception, has real world consequences: more unintended pregnancies, more pregnancy-related complications, and, ultimately, more abortions. Similarly, eliminating or slashing government support for family planning clinics will make it more difficult for women to get screened for breast and cervical cancer. Low-income women, in particular, rely upon family planning clinics for basic health services. There's a reason why Democrats are calling the escalating attacks on Title X and contraception a "war on women." That's what it is.
If all we get out of the latest Limbaugh firestorm is that it is not appropriate to call women sluts, prostitutes, or any of the other pejoratives commonly heaped on women, then we are missing the larger point: women suffer when their reproductive health and rights are abridged.
I have said it before, and I will say it again: it's time for men to speak out against this escalating war on women. Real men--and I do not include Rush Limbaugh in that number--care about women and their reproductive health.
Douglas Anthony Cooper: Dems Owe Rush a Thank You Gift. Of Sex.
Spend and spend all you want Koch boys, but you're not going to win.
Even Republican women are upset at this.
Women don't Forget. We'll Remember in November.
I think we can use this as an event to remind people that such name-calling is not ok, while still speaking out about the problems behind those who are pushing to restrict contraception coverage.
It seems that you have the same concerns as Malthus, Ehrlich and other doomsday prophets of population, but you haven't explained yet how human ingenuity has broken down so that it is now incapable of handling the problems ahead of it to the point that we have to talk about population control. Attempts to control the population will have to be centered in places like Africa and South America where birth rates are above the replacement level driving the increase in world population. These areas are less densely populated than first world countries, and I am unwilling to take any steps to try and force their populations down based upon fears that have been consistently proven wrong.
You're complaining that models of population growth in the 1800's weren't correct? That's funny. They were correct in one thing: Population is larger today than it was then.
We've better models today, and they'll probably not be exact either, but the one indisputable fact is this: Limited resources means limited population.
We live in the USA and consume 20% of the world's oil with some 5% of the population. That would mean that if 25% of the planet lived like us, there would not a drop of oil for the 75%.
Managing the population of the earth to match resources is the responsible thing to do. That means not using birth control is irresponsible. That's what the church is promoting.
Before we use any limited resource, it must be processed through human ingenuity. Human ingenuity is limitless, hence complaints made in the past about peak coal are now regarded as ridiculous. Check out Julian Simon's The Ultimate Resource for a more complete explanation it is free online. There is also The Rational Optimist by Matt Ridley.
As societies become more prosperous, we have seen birth rates decline to the point that many developed countries are now below replacement rates so we aren't talking about infinite populations.
Of course one would have to factor in the insurance costs of women who use birth control, and also have children.
It would seem to me this question could be answered through a rigorous statistical evaluation.
4. Why have neither Planned Parenthood, the Pro-Life people, or the insurance industry done such an analysis.
5. I have no mathematical background beyond high school, but if someone will give me $5 million down, and $5 million on delivery of a definitive report, I will get it done. What is $10 million after all, one good "fact finding" for a bunch of Congresspeople?
6. The insurance companies employ many actuaries who can figure out the exact cost of selling you life insurance. Why can't they do this study?
4. Why have neither Planned Parenthood, the Pro-Life people, or the insurance industry done such an analysis?
5. I have no mathematical background beyond high school, but if someone will give me $5 million down, and $5 million on delivery of a definitive report, I will get it done. What is $10 million after all, one good "fact finding" for a bunch of Congress People?
6. The insurance companies employ many actuaries who can figure out the exact cost of selling you life insurance. Why can't they do this study?
7. What if paying for birth control for sexually active women actually saved the insurance company money, therefore, potentially lowering the cost of health insurance for everyone?
Cost of pre and postnatal care : $15,000-$250,000
Take a guess which drives up rates, Catholic baby factories or responsible birth control using couples?
Part II
Your number of $15,000 for pre and postnatal care sounds about right. My internist bills my insurance company $105.00 for doing nothing more than reviewing my lab results, renewing by prescriptions, and sending me along.
It would seem that it is the total hospital bills that makes this "a no brainer". (Sorry about the cliche).
May 7, 2009. Wall Street Jounal
Tallying the Cost to Bring Baby Home -- Wall Street Journal
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124165279035493687.html Wa
"This discounted total was about $17,300, a figure I learned about only after later reviewing Aetna's explanation-of-benefits forms".
The article explains that the author had to pay a bunch of co-pays as well.
Of course if the mother is on any sort of plan that puts the baby on her insurance as soon as the baby is born, there will be additional costs for the insurance company unless, the kid never gets sick until s/he reaches 18.
My conclusion: Every insurance company that provides free contraceptive care to its female insurance holder, comes out ahead. Therefore, there is no issue of anyone policy holder subsidising any other policy holder.
THIS IS NOT "PARTICLE PHYSICS"
That said, any sentient being knows this has nothing to do with the infringement of religious freedom. It has everything to do with cynical, "dog whistle," divisive, dirty politics.
The challenge for the religious types is how to provide leadership over a country where segments of the population are happily and willingly slipping towards Sodom and Gomorrah.
Great.
Too bad, you superstitious clowns!