There has been much discussion lately regarding the Rush Limbaugh/Sandra
Fluke scandal in the issue of birth control. Well, this post will not be about
that; or more specifically them. I believe that continuing to
include Rush, Fluke, and their altercation in the birth control discussion
detracts from the entire debate and should be ignored. Limbaugh said some
things I’m sure he regrets now. That, people, is essentially what makes him
money; saying things that piss allot of people off and losing a few sponsors
isn’t really going to hurt him all that much, especially given all the new
publicity he is receiving. Fluke got upset at what he said, but it made her
famous and the president got to use her for good media coverage via his
telephone call. In the end, both sides win and we all lose because we were
talking about them and what they said instead of the issue which
actually matters.
So, moving on with a rational
discussion on the real debate, not what everyone says it’s about. Let’s examine
the actual argument and what the president’s mandate is aiming at, as well as
the counter arguments laid against it and the pros/cons of a specific example.
I’m also going to try and ignore the religious component as that is an entirely
different discussion.
The basis of the president’s
argument is that women’s contraceptive care should be covered, either by the
institutions themselves or by insurance companies. Or in other words, what this
really means and how the Right is seeing this issue, women’s contraception
should be paid for in some way other than direct monetary transfer by the women
themselves. The conversational disconnect I think we are seeing is that the
Left is saying “why shouldn’t insurance companies cover contraception?” and the
Right is saying “why should someone else have to pay for your contraception?” I
aim to bring the two arguments together.
First we need to agree on
something. If an insurance company wants to cover contraception, why shouldn’t
it? However, no matter what you do, the contraception will have to be paid for
by someone, it doesn’t come free. If the government passes a law dictating that
a company must provide that service, it will
be taken out on others in some way, whether that is through wages, hiring, or
some other benefit, it is impossible to prevent this. And let’s face it, nobody
can do this freely. If imposed on an insurance company, they will have to raise
their premiums, even if only slightly, to make up for the lost money spent on
providing those contraceptives. But in the end, the inclusion of this benefit
is something that must be decided by employees, companies, and their insurance
provider, not the federal government.
This brings us to the second point,
“Should someone else have to pay for your contraception?” My answer, Why should
they? Is there something in your humanity that absolutely demands that you must have free birth control? How can
you justify forcing someone else to support your desire to have sex?
Personally, I say that if you can’t afford birth control, either don’t have sex
until you can afford it, or live with the consequences of continuing on anyhow.
You do not have a right to have as much sex as you want free of consequence.
For example, should someone who had unprotected sex with anyone they could find,
and then contracts AIDS as a result, get free treatment? Of course not. You did
not “need” that sex and thus the consequences of having it anyhow rest firmly
on your own shoulders.
Now my opponents will likely bring
up the same example that Fluke used in her congressional hearing, and I
consider this to be a valid argument, but do we really have all the facts? The example
is of a woman who lost one of her ovaries because she could not afford to buy
the birth control medicine to prevent cists from on her ovaries. Now, I think
we can all agree that this is a tragedy, but was this situation really
unpreventable? If in fact this particular woman was at the end of her rope and
there was nothing more, within reason, she could do to get that extra $100 a
month, then that is indeed a tragedy and discussing that will take much more
room then I have here. But are we to believe that there was literally nothing that could be done by this woman
to afford her birth control medication? She didn’t have any extraneous bills
that she didn’t need to be paying, like a top of the line cell phone plan,
expensive internet or cable TV, excessive travel leading to high gas bills, or
other expenditures? Could she have perhaps gotten a second part-time job rather
than sacrificing these luxuries? Heck, did she have friends or parents who
could have helped her pay those bills so she didn’t have to suffer such a
serious illness? Now I know some of you are outraged right now, “She shouldn’t
have to sacrifice her lifestyle in order afford medical care!” Oh really? Why
not? Does she have a right to live as richly as she pleases? Does she have a
right to spend as much money as she wants and the rest of us have to pick up
the slack? Of course not. If a person has the ability to provide for themselves,
without reverting to something illegal like prostitution or organized crime,
then it is their responsibility to do so and any failure to make the necessary
sacrifices rest squarely on their own heads.
The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) is now putting pressure on the Federal Government to pass and enforce laws on banning the use of all electronic devices (i.e. cell phones, ipods) while driving (Distracted Drivers). They argue that even using a hands-free device is distracting. Having a conversation with passengers, children, drinking and eating, and looking outside are all distractions. Although most people see having a conversation on the phone (hands-free) and a conversation with a passenger similar, they support their argument for conversing with a passenger safer than conversing over the cell phone. CNN states, 
