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.