Contraceptive Controversy

                    Conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh is defending himself against a growing ad boycott for exercising his right to speak freely.  Last week Limbaugh called Sandra Fluke, a thirty-year-old student at Georgetown University law school, a "slut" and a "prostitute" because she supports the contraceptive mandate of the Obama Administration that all employers provide contraceptive coverage for their employees.   "What does it say about the college co-ed Susan Fluke who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex - what does that make her?  It makes her a slut, right?  It makes her a prostitute."

There has been a great backlash from women over his statement.  Sponsors are defecting from his program, and at least one radio station has discontinued his program.  Limbaugh apologized to Fluke for using those words.  He basically said that he is sorry that he fell to the level of his opponents.  By attacking Fluke, "I became like the people we oppose.  I ended up descending to their level."  I personally don't expect this problem to force Limbaugh off the air and feel that his situation will smooth out in the not too distant future.  After all, he has been on the air for more than twenty years and has survived other controversies.

For the record:  I can understand how Limbaugh connected Fluke's support of government-sponsored contraception with prostitution.  Prostitution is defined as "the use of one's body, honor, talents, or other gifts, in a base way."  A prostitute - whore, harlot, slut - is defined as "a woman who has sexual relations with men for money."  If the government is in the business of providing contraceptives for women in order that they can have unrestricted sex, is not the government also in the business of being a pimp; if so, the women who are being "paid" to participate in the activity of sex could be considered in some ways as _____.  It is not a big jump to make the connection!  Were Limbaugh's comments inappropriate?  Yes.  Is he the only person that has called someone in public life a slut or other terrible and undeserved names?  No.  I remember well that President Obama used the "obscene and derogatory term `tea baggers'" when referring to members of the Tea Party.  http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2010/05/04/barack-obama-calls-tea-party-movement-tea-baggers-in-interview/   Other conservatives have been called sluts and worse.  It appears that all of us should be more civil to each other!

Lisa Murkowski, Republican Senator from Alaska, is also in the hot seat over this controversy.  She returned to Alaska for the start of the Iditarod Sled Dog Race and kept running into women who were not happy that she voted for the Blunt Amendment.  This measure would have allowed any employer to opt out of providing birth control or other health insurance coverage required by Obamacare for "moral reasons".  Moderate women are upset that Murkowski - a moderate lawmaker who supports abortion rights and contraception coverage - "betrayed" their confidence in her.  She claims that she voted for the amendment for religious freedom.

We must not allow ourselves to become engulfed in this controversy.  The whole uproar is about contraception coverage is distracting us from an attempt to take away freedom of religion, a right protected by the U.S. Constitution.  Religion is under direct attack by the Obama Administration, and Obamacare is the means of destroying this freedom. 

At least seven religious institutions are fighting back against this attack and have filed lawsuits against the Obama Administration's anti-conscience mandate included in Obamacare.  This "controversial regulation forces almost all employers to provide health insurance coverage of abortion-inducing drugs, contraceptives, and sterilization, without a co-pay."  There is a very narrow religious exemption that will cover only certain "formal houses of worship," which do not include church-owned businesses such as hospitals and schools.  Many non-exempted religious employers who morally object to abortion and contraception are in a difficult position.  The mandate forces them to "either violate their beliefs by providing coverage of morally objectionable services or forgo providing employee health insurance altogether and pay hefty fines for doing so."  You can find more information here.  http://blog.heritage.org/2012/02/22/morning-bell-religious-liberty-under-attack/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning%2BBel

You may recognize that this controversy has been going for several months since the White House announced the anti-conscience policy as an interim final rule.  Many religious leaders spoke out about it, and President Obama announced an "accommodation" in response.  After doing their research, the religious leaders declared that the accommodation was "unacceptable".

Religion freedom is just the first liberty destroyed by Obamacare.  The Heritage Foundation produced the following video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6PutWIZwpU about this very problem.   The video includes numerous experts speaking on this subject.  Here are a couple of quotes from the video:  "I'm not opposed to contraception.  I'm opposed to despotism" (Yuval Levin).  "What is at stake here ultimately is whether civil society will survive, and whether voluntary institutions or voluntary associations ranging from the traditional family to multimillion member organizations like the Catholic Church to small businesses will be allowed to function only if they imitate the government, only if they imitate the state" (George Weigel, prominent Catholic scholar).

Obamacare is shaping up to be the tool by which Americans will be forced into socialism.  Former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi was correct:  we are finding more and more that we don't like in Obamacare after it was passed.

Matthew Spalding, vice president of American Studies at The Heritage Foundation, wrote: http://blog.heritage.org/2012/02/22/despotism-thy-name-is-obamacare/ "What is happening has little to do with health care or even public policy and everything to do with the role of government in the most immediate and intimate matters of our lives.  All is subject to government control, regulatory dictate, and administrative whim.  Nothing will be allowed outside of the new regulatory scheme:  no independent state programs, no individuals or businesses permitted not to participate, no true private market alternatives."

 Just for the record, I am not opposed to contraceptives.  The choice of whether or not to use contraceptives is the responsibility of the man or woman or couple.  I am opposed to being forced to buy or have my tax dollars buy contraceptives for other people!  I am also opposed to the government forcing individuals and organizations to provide contraceptives as well as "morning after pills" and other means of abortion - whether or not it is against their conscience to do so.

I consider sex to be an activity that we can choose to participate in or not - with the rare exceptions of rape and incest.  If we make the choice to participate in this activity, we also choose to pay the costs of that participation.  If we choose to participate in unprotected sex, we also choose to face the possibilities of pregnancy and/or sexually transmitted diseases. 

Because sex is an activity that we can avoid if we so choose, it is no different than any other activity and should not be treated any differently.  My son plays hockey and has done so since he was six years old.  We always provided sufficient protective gear - helmet, faceguard, shin guards, cup, etc. - to insure as far as possible that he would not be seriously injured while playing hockey.  We covered that expense ourselves without expecting anyone else to pay for our son to have the opportunity to play hockey. 

Some of our daughters played soccer, and we provided shin guards and training to help them avoid as many injuries as possible.  In spite of all our precautions, both of our daughters broke collar bones, one daughter broke a leg, and the other daughter injured her knee serious enough to require surgery.  Those were the consequences of allowing our daughters to play soccer, and we carried the costs involved.

Other activities require other types of protective gear, such as football (helmet, faceguard, and all kinds of pads) or rock climbing (helmet, correct shoes, strong rope, etc).  When we choose to participate in an activity, we also choose to be responsible for any required protective gear as well as any consequences.  Sex is no different.  It is an activity requiring us to use our agency, not a disease or accident that just happens!

The contraceptive controversy is a distraction to take our focus off the fact that our religious liberty is at stake.  We must not take our attention from the real battle and stay alert and focused in order to protect our right to freedom of religion.