Where the far left and far right overlap for fun and enlightenment

Who is Rush Limbaugh to call anyone a "slut"?

In Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965), the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Connecticut statute that not only prohibited the use of contraceptive devices, but made it a criminal offense for anyone to give out information of instruction on their use. The case is cited by many as having begun the concept of the right to privacy as a part of the U.S. Constitution. The concept goes back earlier in the Court’s history, though. In Oldstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928), writing in dissent, Justice Brandeis noted protection "against such invasion of ‘the sanctities of a man’s home and the privacies of life’ was provided in the Fourth and Fifth Amendment by specific language." In Griswold, Justice Douglas found the right to privacy in an emanation of penumbras contained in the Bill of Rights. Jutsice Goldberg, who wrote in concurrence, said the Ninth Amendment protected the right to privacy, which is a fundamental right to be left alone by the Government.

Our world—planet and people—is endangered by overpopulation. We pollute the waters and air. There are more people than the environment can accommodate. Consenting adults engage in sex. Sex (sometimes and in some forms) results in pregnancy. Contraception is one mans by which pregnancy can be prevented. Since I was in junior high school, contraception was encouraged. (The outline of a condom was impressed on many a guy’s wallet, its presence one of hope, not a sign of regular use.)

The so-called Blunt Amendment would allow individuals or employers to opt-out of coverage, for religious or other moral reasons, from providing deductible-free coverage of contraceptives in health insurance.

Let us get the crap out of the way. For years, fundamentalist Christians have tried to say people who do not believe in a supreme deity cannot form a morality. Now many of these same individuals want to confer upon non-believers the mantel of "morality" to deprive people of something that is necessary? Pish-posh. Besides, one of the sponsors was interviewed on TV last night and, several times, said the basis for the law is religion. The "other morals reasons" is, therefore, crap meant to buy a few votes and a little secular support.

Rush Limbaugh, on his program, said the Georgetown Law Center student who had sought to testify at hearings on the bill must be a slut or a prostitute since she wants free contraceptives. The contraceptives are not "free." The employee who would want those contraceptives works in a job in which health care is part of her/his compensation. The employee’s labor is therefore given in exchange for certain benefits. Also, I never have heard of a post-graduate female student referred to as a "co-ed." Since Rush only attended Southeast Missouri State University for a brief time, he probably did not learn all the lingo. (Did I just express snobbishness?)

Now we have gone to the level of accusing a woman who supports contraceptives as being a slut. (He also said that, since sh wanted the contraceptives for free, she was a prostitute.) How very—1950s? 1930s?

Contraceptives have applications other than as birth control. One is the prevention of AIDS—or is that now a forgotten malady? Another purpose can be treatment of various health conditions. But even if the application is birth control, it is a necessary part of health care.

You say you have a religious objection to such a thing and, since you contribute to the health care plan of your employer, you should be exempt?

Let’s go down a check-list. Michelle Bachman (or does her last name have two n’s?) I think, based on comments she has made, believes inoculations cause mental retardation. So let’s cross off the list anyone who believes that, on moral grounds, their insurance money should not go to inoculations. How about hysterectomies? Even if a woman’s life is in danger from a health condition, that womb is down there to do the business of the supreme deity so—cut off dollars for any such procedure. Let’s get to the ultimate belief—Christian Science. Under that theology, medical care should not be provided for anyone. (Nic Martin has rad this, so far, and is ready to launch his arguments that I, on the other hand, am imposing the government on those people who do not want to pay. Hold on, Nic, I’m not there yet.) Ultimately, enough people would refuse to participate in health insurance that no such plans would be economically feasible. How many people would, if young enough and given the chance, punt on having to pay a few bucks a week on health insurance at all. ("All you have to do is write down on there you got a ‘moral objection’ to it. Can’t spell ‘moral’? Here—Jimmy give this piece of paper a while ago. Just copy off what he wrote.")

We can skip this side show and provide single-payer health care. In the meantime, Rush can refrain from calling anyone a slut. (How many wives has he had? Does he have any kids? Do you want to bet whether he had sex with any of his wives before marriage? He wouldn’t want to buy a car without taking it out on a test drive—and that’s how he looks at women, from what I have been able to perceive: as objects.) But if a man has sex outside of marriage and frequently, he is not a slut, I guess. If he does so without contraception (and leaves that responsibility to the woman, who cannot afford it), then he is called something else: Respondent, as in a paternity action. Otherwise We the People possibly pay the costs of a child being raised and educated, etc., for one night’s dalliance.

This is all a side show, though, because the Republican candidates for president do not have the economy to use as a issue.

Now, Nic, you can cut loose on my pro-State position.

0 members like this

Comment

You need to be a member of Civil Discourse Now to add comments!

Join Civil Discourse Now

Comment by Mark Small on March 2, 2012 at 9:38pm: Mr. Wheeler,

I read the clip to which you provided a link. (If my language in regard to our new techno-world is not technically correct, I shall attempt to acquire the proper terms.) I began law school when I was 30 years old. I do not see that as a valid attack against this woman for her action on this issue. She is a proponent for women's reproductive rights. So what if she did other things between undergrad and law school? After I graduated from DePauw I worked in construction, mucked out barns, chain-sawed wood, was a clerical assistant at libraries at Purdue University and Northwestern University, did stand-up comedy for two years in Chicago, had a dozen short stories and two dozen poems published, acted in three plays, and waited tables. In short, I graduated from a liberal arts college and sought my way in life. Then I enrolled in law school. I wish I could say I had been an activist in an area aside from hedonism (of which I am quite proud, by the way) as this woman has been.

As for setting the table for a challenge, that happens frequently, particularly where constitutional rights are at stake. Again, I invite you to be on The Show so that we can discuss these matters.

Comment by Mark Small on March 2, 2012 at 2:56pm: Mr. Wheeler,

If you prefer a more formal means of address, that is fine.

One matter that should be addressed here is that the Georgetown Law Center student is not a lesbian. If she were, we would not be discussing contraceptives, since pregnancy does not result from woman-on-woman interaction. So with whom is this woman having sex? She is branded a "slut" by Limbaugh. She should bear the responsibility of the act of sex and the guy just walks way whistling?

As for the moral bases of my views, I will reference later other blogs on which I have explained this.

Comment by Mark Small on March 1, 2012 at 9:57pm: paul,

Unfortunately, the premises of your argument are weak. The implication is that, since a woman uses birth control on a consistent basis, she is consistently and frequently sexually active. The way certain forms of birth control work, in case you were unaware, is that (e.g., the pill), the dosage is taken each day. Miss one or two days and the effect of the control is lost. A woman can abstain from sex for her entire three years of law school---or four undergrad, or four at med school---but be aware enough of the risk of pregnancy to stay on the particular method of BC. Ms. Fluke explained that as a student at a Jesuit campus, birth control costs can be as high as three thousand dollars. during the time she is in law school. Simply because she is responsible and concerned about risk of pregnancy does not equate with her being promiscuous. She never said she had so much sex that she cannot afford prevention methods. Given Limbaugh's lurid speculations about videos, and his past amorous history, the promiscuity possibly has occurred in his household. So Ms. Fluke never said what you contend she said and therefore the label applied to her is inaccurate.

I use terms in headlines to attract readers. The headline is accurate. Limbaugh is a hypocrite. You are guilty of taking less than half the story. You did not accurately quote Ms. Fluke. I do not see how I develop straw man arguments. Straw man arguments are fallacies because they are misleading or false. I use examples that are based in active belief systems and procedures or practices. I use my arguments to attack purported moralistic of others. I have a moral foundation. I can go on at length or refer you to past posts in this blog. At least 40 million women in this country use contraception. Overpopulation is a significant problem. You and I should pay for health services that should advance not just contraceptives but any other medical practices to which others might have religious or otherwise "moral" objection. I was incensed by those who have, for so long, denied atheists, as one group, having moral foundation for their beliefs to try to attract votes for their effort. So, as to your tag: very few fallacies, and plenty of time to read and watch classic movies on TV.

Comment by Paul K. Ogden on March 1, 2012 at 9:39am: Mark is for the First Amendment...unless of course it interferes with something he wants government to impose on religious institutions. Obama's rule is nothing more than a direct attack on the Catholic Church. Obama doesn't agree with the Catholic Church's opposition to birth control and frankly I, as a Catholic, don't either. But the notion that it's okay for government to then dictate the "proper" policy to a religious institution flies in the face of 230 years of religious freedom in this country, not to mention likely the Free Exercise Clause.

Mark is making policy arguments for why contraception is important. (Though his overpopulation argument is a myth....the problem is population concentration.) That's not the issue. The issue is religious freedom and it is not the job of the government to dictate good policies for religious institutions. Mark's version of separation of powers, means religion staying out of government. He's all for government involving itself into religions when those religions don't do the sorts of things government wants them to do.

As far as Christian Science theology, I'm not that familiar with it, but if Obama tried to impose a rule that mandated Christian Scientist schools (if they have such things, which I don't think they do) provide medical coverage to its employees in violation of their beliefs, absolutely that would be a problem and likely a violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.

As far as picking up a stray comment made by some radio personality and trying to smear everyone who stands for religious freedom, come on, Mark, isn't that a McCarthy tactic?

This is more about Mark's dislike for organized religion and his love of his religion of big governemnt that imposes collective values on people of religious faith. Mark, please reconsider your opposition to the First Amendment and religious freedom.