Saturday, March 03, 2012

Contraception, Sandra Fluke, and the Rush Limbaugh Controversy

I recognize that this will be bumping Thomas' post after only a day, but it's below and you should read it too.  You really can read that and this.  However, I didn't want to bump my post on Monday, because it's something I've been thinking about (haven't written yet), and didn't want to wait to write that one.


Alright, first the disclaimers.  I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh.  I'm working when he's on, to start.  Second, I'm already conservative, know the Constitution, and so I don't need him to tell me what to think.  So he's not interesting to me.  Last, he's sacrilegious to the point of discomfort to me.  He's blasphemous many times, so he's hard to justify.  His recent appearance in the mainstream media got my attention, and I'm writing this about a consideration of the flap.

Most of what I read centered on the words "prostitute" and "slut."  Just reporting.  Limbaugh called a young Georgetown law student those two names on his radio show.  Hmmm.  That seemed strange to me, just sort of unacceptable.  Very odd.  So I dug a little bit, and I do mean a little.  It didn't take much.  This is a media created event, I discovered.  It's obviously not actually about the name-calling.  It's about women's votes for the 2012 Presidential election.  Distraction from rising gas prices.

I guess I hadn't kept up with how important it was to women in America to get free contraception, but obviously the Democrat party knew that when they decided to cross the Roman Catholic religion, probably after doing an internal poll of Catholic female voters.  Limbaugh's comments about Sandra Fluke right now look like a gift to the President, which the latter attempted to juice with an empathetic phone call to appreciate her courage.  We'll find out where the politics of it will end.  People have to be expecting that not many will go further below the surface.

Limbaugh is not backing down.  If he's doing so much damage, why wouldn't he make this one disappear?  The critics are saying that his comments indicate what the GOP thinks of women.  They disrespect all of them, ya know.

If the above was all I was writing about, I wouldn't have been motivated to write anything.  Here's the real issue.  Sandra Fluke goes to Georgetown.  Georgetown is a Catholic school.  It seems that the Catholic school insurance, consistent with Catholic doctrine, doesn't pay for contraceptives.

Right here is where I found things I didn't know about how people think or at least fake like they are thinking.  Women are saying, as if this is old news, that contraceptives are part of "women's health."  They need to be supplied because they are part of the health of a woman.  Hence, if Catholics won't pay for contraceptives, even though they are against Catholic doctrine, these Catholic insurers are endangering women's health.  So prevention of pregnancy is the responsibility of an insurance company, not of women.

Stick with me.  Pregnancy is an endangerment to women's health.  If you do not support paying for contraceptives, you are for female unhealthiness.  I had not heard that the government or insurance companies were responsible for preventing women's pregnancies.  I thought women were with the support of fathers and husbands.

I'm not all that sure about the Catholic doctrine regarding contraceptives, and I didn't do the digging necessary there.  However, I considered that 1 Timothy 2 says women are saved through childbearing.  I remembered that God said to replenish the earth.  And then I thought about how that contraceptives taken by unmarried women could encourage premarital sex.

Enter Sandra Fluke again.  Congress wouldn't allow her to testify so Nancy Pelosi organizes a way for her to take up some time with her testimony.  Her courage, her stand for women, that merited a call from the POTUS, was that a single, female law student at a Catholic Georgetown, who had to pay for her own contraceptives, could pay two to three thousand dollars during her stay there in order to prevent pregnancy.  If she wasn't having sexual relations outside of marriage, she wouldn't need to pay any money for contraceptives.  However, since she needed to do that to the tune of 2-3 thousand dollars worth of prevention, she would be required those contraceptives to ensure her health, that is, prevent her pregnancy.

No fluke, her testimony at Congress was about receiving free contraceptives.  She was complaining about not being paid for contraception.  In essence, she was complaining about not being paid to have sex.

Enter Rush Limbaugh again.  Limbaugh thinks, "She is asking Congress to be paid for having sex."  He asks, "Who gets paid to have sex?"  So there we go.  By definition, he sees her as fitting the profile of the words he used.  Is someone who is asking to be paid for having sex a prostitute?  If this goes to court, which I can't imagine it would, it will be interesting to see how this is an unlawful connection to make.

I get why Limbaugh is not backing down.  Should Roman Catholics, who don't even believe in contraception, have to pay for one of their single lady law students to have sex?  Limbaugh went one step further and said that if people are forced to pay for her to do that as much as she wants, shouldn't she be required to provide something to show for it in the way of evidence.  I don't like the idea of any of that, but it really is how absurd everything becomes when we are debating this kind of issue.

It seems that the Roe v. Wade ruling has turned pregnancy into a women's health issue.  By extension, if you have tax payer funded health care, then people are required to pay for contraceptives, many of which, by the way, are truly the cause of infanticide.  Many contraceptives kill the person shortly after conception.  Most people just don't know that.

We're to the point where we are against women if we don't want to pay for contraceptives for single women who are sexually active.  This really does indicate how warped we've become.  And then when a woman argues for that, she gets a congratulatory call from the President of the United States.  He thinks that will help him win an election.


Anonymous said...

What a mess we have ourselves in! Just a few thoughts:

1. There is definitely a connect between pregnancy and health. Poor eating habits, for example, can harm the baby. Women often suffer calcium deficiencies with pregnancy, thus the old adage of losing a tooth with every baby. Some pregnancies cause extraordinary high blood pressure that is life threatening. And there are other health connects. However, with all that said, pregnancy is not an abnormality that must be treated or removed. Yes, there are some health risks, but certainly not to the extent that is hyped by the pro-abortion advocates.

2. The Catholic presumption is that all life is God created and sacred. To use contraception is to willfully step in to block God's timing, and therefore is sin. And contraception that destroys the egg/sperm union is murder.

3. Although I am not Catholic, I applaud their willingness to put themselves on the line for this cause. They are taking a bold step for the right for life movement, and for religious freedoms. Because of their speaking out, many more are also stepping up to speak against this unfair policy.

4. I have listened to Rush some in the past and in general agree with his observations. His crudeness on air keeps me from listening any more. But I can see his logic in coming to the labels he put on this woman. It's blunt and brutal, but it needs to be heard.

Steve said...

Distraction from rising gas prices? What does that have to do about anything? The government can't do anything about gas prices without becoming more socialist--gas prices as set in the world market. They're out of the control of the US government. Gas is high in the US. Gas is high in Canada--even Albert, which has the third largest oil reserve in the world is paying over US$4 a gallon. Gas is high everywhere.


The irony is that Nancy Pelosi is a Catholic, herself, and uses "natural birth control" methods approved by the Catholic Church.

Beyond that, why is it okay for the Catholic Church to pay for Viagra in their health plans?

Why does the Catholic Church pretend that this is a huge issue for religious liberty when there are numerous other issues that they constantly live with all around them that go against their doctrine? The death penalty for example. Why don't Catholics make a big deal about the fact that Catholic tax dollars go toward the death penalty?

Because this isn't really about religious liberty...

Kent Brandenburg said...

Anonymous, I agree.


Yes, I think the White House with the mainstream media concoct fake issues to take people's attention away from what bothers people. Even if gas prices aren't the President's fault directly, he, like his predecessors, will receive blame. And I think he deserves a lot of blame because of his energy agenda, which might be his worst political feature coming into the next election.

The rest of what you wrote evades the point I'm making about someone else paying for the contraceptives of frequently fornicating women. There is a subplot with religious freedom violations.

Anonymous said...

Contraception can serve more purposes than preventing pregnancy. It can help regulate hormones and treat other disorders. What about these women? Don't they deserve coverage?
Is it fair employers to deny birth control coverage but cover Viagra?

just a thought

Kent Brandenburg said...

Hi Anonymous,

It's fitting you are anonymous, even as those taking the 2 to 3000 dollars worth of contraceptions are anonymous to the taxpayer.

Viagra is a red herring. Of course, someone like me doesn't want them to cover that, but viagra doesn't prevent conception so that you can have unlimited fornication. It's the kind of obvious point that results in someone staying anonymous out of sheer embarrassment.

Roger said...

Great article! I get so fed up with the sick, twisted logic that is so prevalent in our society today! So many times I think of the parallel situation and in prayer I ask the same thing Abraham asked God when praying to save the city of Sodom and Gomorrah that Lot was in... If God would spare our country for the few believers (righteous) living here. And every day, when hearing all the different disturbing news stories, I keep thinking I/we need to keep lowering our number of the righteous just like Abraham did. But I fear that God's answer will still be the same as it was for Abraham too...

Unknown said...

Good Afternoon Brethren,

I am so fed up with the liberal propaganda and the trash being fed to us in the media. It's a lie when these women and the media claim that contraceptives are too expensive for couples that "need" them or else unavailable. If you go to CNS News' website, you will find this story - If this woman and the "married female" referenced in the hearing simply walked a few blocks, they could have purchased contraceptives at a low price of 5-6 dollars. (As a side note, is using the term "wife" politically incorrect now? If so, wow - God help us.)

In fact, the CNS reporter was able to get it for free from the local Planned Parenthood that was only 1.5 miles from the campus. (See the 4-minute mark of this video - What's more is that the reporter was told by PP that there were other clinics that offered the contraceptives for free. Are they trying to tell us that a married couple can't be bothered to walk, bike, or drive 3 miles (round-trip) to get contraceptives for free from the eugenists at PP?

As for Fluke, this girl is a radical far-left pro-abortion pro-sodomite pro-feminism activist. If you put her name into a search engine, you would be stunned by what you would find. This girl majored in "Feminist, Gender, & Sexuality Studies" between 1999 and 2003 at Cornell. There is evidence that sugguests that she "targetted" Georgetown and that she is in fact trying to infiltrate and thus intimidate "religious schools" that don't agree with her. It's a case of "You must agree with me or else" type activism.

This is the same kind of person who says that we're bigots because we take the biblical position that "homosexual marriage" is an oxymoron. Who is the real bigot here? Who is *really* being intolerant here? Furthermore, aren't there TONS of other pro-abortion schools out there that would have paid for a student's abortion or contraception bill? I am under the impression that it's just a minority of schools that don't do so. Why can't the leftists just go to their own schools that would insure their fornication instead of forcing their beliefs on the minority of schools that disagree with them and take physical purity seriously? What happened to LIBERTY and PURITY in America?

At any rate, I hail from Canada and it's sad to say that if any of "y'all" are thinking to come to the True North, it's even worse up here. I would go so far as to say that it's blasphemous to sing "God keep our land glorious and free" (a line from our national anthemn) when this country spits at God's standards the way it does. Our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the Canadian equivalent to the U.S. Bill of Rights) begins with the statement, "Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law ..." Justin Trudeau, an MP here in Canada, recently implied that he would rather live in a separated Quebec than a united Canada that was "going backward" on abortion. When politicans like him can get away with such statements, one can only wonder if our Bill of Rights' opening statement is the punch line of a cruel joke.

In Christ,
Isaac S.