I’ve been so busy, I was a little late in becoming aware of the whole “Rush Limbaugh calling Sandra Fluke a prostitute because she wants health insurance to cover birth control” thing. My first response was to come up with a bunch of one-liners for my Facebook status:
- If a man I have sex with wears a condom that I purchased, does that make him my bitch?
- Rush Limbaugh does indeed hold the answer to the birth control prescription coverage debate…unless I’m the only woman whose entire reproductive system shrivels up when I hear him speak.
- Proud (birth control) Pill Popping Prostitute!
Then I realized that Rush Limbaugh’s incendiary comments are only a smoke screen for grappling with the real issue at hand. I think it’s just as much a waste of time to rebut his nonsensical remarks as it is for him to make them. So I took on the task of ignoring the whole “slut” thing and the whole “Obama calling Sandra Fluke” thing and tried to suss out Limbaugh’s actual argument…which was hard…and then I found out much to my surprise that it actually is valid. Certainly worthy of a thing called “conversation” and “dialogue.”
I found this article by Tim Worstall in Forbes online, and felt very smart about doing research:
The article cites that “insurance is a form of risk-management” and in the case of contraceptives, one is not taking measures to avoid an uncertain loss. It’s not like a car accident or cancer. You take pills for an indefinite amount of time so you can have sex and not get pregnant; it’s a “minor everyday thing” says Worstall.
But wait a minute…getting pregnant WOULD be kind of like a car accident. It would change my body and my life forever, it would be a severe financial strain, and then it would end up being an even bigger cost for the insurance company to cover my medical expenses. So, ok, I disagree with his assessment. I also think comparing birth control pills to getting a flu shot is absurd. It makes me feel better about my own blog entry, because I can write some pretty dumb things and they still won’t be as dumb as the things the guy who’s published on Forbes.com wrote. (Actually it wasn't that bad, I even agreed with some of the things he said).
Now, at some point in his rambling, Rush Limbaugh brought up condoms, and I’m not exactly sure what he was saying, something about how if Sandra Fluke were to use condoms as her method of birth control, she would have to have sex three times a day to equal the cost of $3,000 that she claims to incur using pills. I think one of his points is that if she wants to save money, she could just use condoms…Condoms are cheaper and they are not covered by insurance so taxpayers don’t have to pay for them…or something like that…Again, it was really hard to piece together coherent arguments from what he was spewing but let’s talk about condoms vs. the pill. Here are some facts:
- Guys wear condoms. Just to be clear.
- Birth control is taken by women. It is a method of contraception that she has complete control over.
- Condoms are great, unless they break, and then the gal needs to get emergency contraceptives anyway if she’s not already on the pill. The guy, on the other hand, need not worry. He will not get pregnant.
- You would never use a condom for anything other than contraception or protection against STDs, except maybe to decorate a car for newlyweds in Vegas.
- You COULD use the birth control pill for purposes other than contraception. For instance, treatment for acne (wait a minute, my insurance covers Retin-A, and we’re arguing about contraception? I would much rather have a pimple than an unplanned pregnancy!), or treatment for abnormal menstrual cycles, endometriosis and ovarian cysts.
- Unless you have an allergy to latex, condoms don’t really have any side effects. Birth control pills can make a gal severely depressed, even suicidal; they can give her skin discoloration, heart palpitations, strokes, blurred vision, hot flashes and mood swings; they can make her tired and bloated. Their intake really should be monitored by a doctor.
A woman’s choice to prevent pregnancy and have an active sex life is every bit as much a medical issue as her choice to have a child. If condoms caused men to cry a lot and cease ejaculating altogether, I’d consider that a medical issue as well. And if men ran the risk of ending up pregnant if they didn’t wear those condoms that made them cry and cease ejaculating, I would expect them to have some insurance coverage for that. And if an 85 year old man wants to take a pill so that he can have sex with fresh young minxes and he demands insurance coverage for that…I just hope he stays away from me.
Regardless, the bigger issue here is why should anything having to do with sex be covered by insurance at all? Having sex purely for enjoyment is a luxury, and in some people’s eyes, a sin. Why should insurance companies foot the bill so that people can indulge themselves in lascivious behaviors? Well, yeah, that’s a toughie. I think my answer to that is, no, in fact, sex is not a luxury. My answer is, let’s all admit that we are sexual beings by nature, and that having a healthy sex life, (which I’m not sure is possible for any American given how backwards our culture is around this issue), is just as important as having a healthy diet, an active lifestyle and annual physical exams. Part of a healthy sex life is being able to relax and enjoy, knowing that you have options and support in how you care for your body, whether it’s insurance coverage in the case of pregnancy or insurance coverage in the case of contraceptives.
Come to think of it, my insurance company gives me $400 a year as a reward for going to the gym at least twice a week. I’m pretty sure that really great sex at least twice a week would make an even bigger impact on my overall health. In fact, Rush, great idea! Why shouldn’t I get paid for having sex if I get paid to go to the gym? I’ll get each of my partners to sign my “Sex Reimbursement Form” each time we “do it” and submit it to my insurance company. They should cover my online dating subscription! In fact, prostitution should be legalized, and covered by health insurance! After a $5,000 deductible of course, to be fair.
Regarding Georgetown being a Jesuit college and religious organizations being exempt from a national mandate that all insurance companies cover birth control, I think it’s an invasion of privacy for religious leaders to control the choices of their congregation. Influence? Absolutely! But control the options? That is coercion, and I’d be pretty pissed off if I was a teacher in a Catholic school and knew my pastor didn’t trust me to make my own choices. Here in the United States, we are United States citizens first, and religious zealots second. Maybe in other social structures, like Al Qaeda, you can be religious zealots first and citizens second, but not here. I am very patriotic on that point.
Well, I said Rush's points were valid, I didn't say they were correct or just. What disgusts me even more than the picture of this porcine, supercilious crud-muffin Rush Limbaugh spitting into is microphone is the picture of the blind followers hearing his words, slapping their knees, laughing, nodding in approval. I started writing this entry to make sure that I was not the liberal version of them. I wanted to think the issue through, do a little poking about and see what both sides of the line were saying. I feel better, more grounded, and completely justified in calling him names:)
Well, I said Rush's points were valid, I didn't say they were correct or just. What disgusts me even more than the picture of this porcine, supercilious crud-muffin Rush Limbaugh spitting into is microphone is the picture of the blind followers hearing his words, slapping their knees, laughing, nodding in approval. I started writing this entry to make sure that I was not the liberal version of them. I wanted to think the issue through, do a little poking about and see what both sides of the line were saying. I feel better, more grounded, and completely justified in calling him names:)
