I hesitate to say it, but I side with Limbaugh in the recent selective outrage. Perhaps the word “slut” is currently anathema, but haven’t several other female public figures been called the same or equivalent names without the outrage? With a hard-R-rated movie like Project X opening last week, are we really this disgusted at some hard words on a ugly topic?
The whole point of this is that a Georgetown law student and feminist activist claimed to need $3,000 of contraception to get her through school, and public taxes should provide it. Meg McDonnell describes the story as I remember it before the outcry:
Claiming that contraception coverage was financially crippling to students, like herself, Fluke ended her testimony by saying: “We refuse to pick between a quality education and our health and we resent that, in the 21st Century, anyone thinks it’s acceptable to ask us to make that choice simply because we are women.”
Fluke claimed the costs of contraception were steep, saying that roughly 40 percent of Georgetown women struggle with $3,000 contraception bills over the course of a three-year law school term. But many quickly debunked her claim, notably The Weekly Standard, who found that Target in DC sells generic birth control pills for $9/month to those who do not have insurance.
That sounds like typical, ridiculous political rhetoric that gets politicians and newspapers moving again, and I’m having a hard time believing it should not be ridiculed. No one wants to deny women contraception; some of us are fighting the idea that every healthy provision can be paid for with federal taxes by the good will of congress.
I agree with the underlying points, that Ms. Fluke’s $3,000 figure was likely off and that the conversation should be about whether the government should be paying for every piece of health care and “health care.”
I don’t, however, think it wise to condone or side with the rhetoric Rush used. It is one thing to rationally debate a point and particularly to disprove some of the premises, but it is unwise, uncharitable, and unnecessary to use the type of language Rush threw around. Rush’s rhetoric is not only reprehensible, but it also encourages the media and all of us in the public to focus solely on rhetoric and on one woman rather than on the underlying, important issue.
As I see it, I guess we have to be consistent. If it was wrong for Bill Maher to say the things he did about Bristol Palin, then this is wrong too. If that was OK, this should be OK. Since I disapproved of Maher, I feel I have to disapprove of this.
But mostly, I’d prefer to get back to the real issue, free exercise of religion.
You’re right, Josh, and though this isn’t a high profile blog, I’m probably just adding to the noise with this simple post. There’s a freedom of speech angle though–I think it’s important to note that people like Rush should be reasonably free to talk about ugly, nonsensical topics like this… Of course, he is free, and advertisers are free to reject his show for any reason. Maybe I’m surprised that they are rejecting his show.
I heard Limbaugh say live on the air that Ms. Fluke would be a slut if she wanted us to pay for his sexual lifestyle, and I didn’t think a thing about it. Now, I have heard that he said the next day she and her friends should upload sex videos so that the taxpayers can see what they are paying for, and that’s shocking to me. That’s over the top, but the first part which is drawing the most attention seems normal in public discourse today.
It’s shameful that it seems normal, but it does.
Bristol seems to be a step removed, in that she was the public figure but a member of her family, but you’re right there too. The response when someone calls someone else a slut may be to ask if that person has personal experience with the other–do they know first-hand that she’s a slut. If not, they should shut up.
But like I said, this is an ugly topic. How do we talk about ugly topics in public? Usually someone gets ugly about it.
What about the smokers who claim to need millions of insurance dollars for treatment for their cancer?
Mr Limbaugh has gotten away with using this kind of language for nearly 25 years. It’s part of his shock value schtick. If the real problem was coarse language or personal attacks, that would have been cleaned up and removed from the airways and silver screens years ago. Rather, the core issue that is driving the current frenzy is that is that a prominent public figure stood up and tried to call sin sin. In a world built upon the concept that there is not and cannot be any absolute moral right and wrong, calling a popular behavior wrong and calling someone who engages in sinful behavior a sinner is absolutely the greatest sin that can be committed.
Good point, Greybeard, even though I don’t think of him as a shocker. He’s smart and does try to ridicule bad ideas in funny ways, but I think he does it very well. Others I’ve tried to listen to every now and then are just ugly. They don’t make arguments. They just shout at their enemies. Rush doesn’t do that.
Anyway, good point. If he hadn’t used the one word, this probably wouldn’t have happened.
Shelley, are you equating the two claims, the smokers and the grad students? I’m pretty sure smokers pay higher rates on health and even home insurance because of their choice, but that’s not the real point. Is Sandra Fluke arguing for taxpayer funded health coverage?
In another article on government health care, the writer states, “Even though [Santorum] has repeatedly claimed that children like Bella would receive inferior treatment under “socialized medicine,” the [Affordable Care Act] actually guarantees that insurance providers cannot use disabilities like Bella’s as an excuse to deny service, nor can they cap how much money is spent on an individual’s medical benefits. It also prevents insurers from denying or limiting benefits. ”
So what happens when the service runs out of money? I won’t be surprised if the Federal Gov’n tries to sue when the insurer goes bankrupt. This is how these ideas undermine themselves. People argue for benefits without work or supply and don’t appear to give any credibility to those who produce what they want. It’s as if the Tooth Fairy provides everything.