John Brock: Heavy the burden of students who must buy birth-control pills
Published Tuesday, April 17, 2012
Following the oh-so-sad saga of the pitiful unmarried law school student and her birth control pill woes has been an interesting commentary on today's morality. Alas, she believes that other Americans should provide her birth-control pills free. And should she become pregnant, many believe her fellow Americans must also provide an abortion of her unborn child. She, and others, might have you also believe it is her God-given right to have both provided for her young soul.
A couple of weeks ago, congressional supporters of Obamacare paraded out a law student before a congressional setting to lament that if the free birth control pills to be supplied by the president's health care plan is struck down, it will ruin her college career and devastate her budget.
The whole episode was laughable because Wal-Mart sells a month's supply of the little boogers for about $10. But, thusly, began the so-called Republican “War on Women.”
Rush Limbaugh called her a couple of “bad” names on his radio show and hoards of libbers piled on him for calling this “little girl” such names. (She is well into her twenties.)
Truth be told, a couple of generations ago, Rush's terminology would have been quite appropriately applied to a woman engaged in gratuitous sex. His terms are exactly what she would have been known as. But, of course, that was before the 1960s made “recreational sex” respectable among unmarried couples.
You recall the controversy that broke out recently by church-related institutions that will be required under Obamacare to provide insurance-paid or free distribution of contraceptives to employees and students. Some religious entities object to participating because of religious beliefs. Abortion can also be covered under Obamacare and many institutions object to this as well. This mandated health-care requirement was explained away by the president trying to explicate that the objecting institution was not required to furnish the product and services, but their insurance plan must pay the tab. Again, this president's administration has ignored the separation of church and state except when it serves the purpose of the non-religious folks.
This is just another example of the President thinking that Americans are stupid. Of course, some of them are but most of us understand that health insurance rates are determined by what's covered in the plan and premiums are adjusted accordingly. The protesting institutions would continue to be required to pay the employer's portion of the inflated premium or the whole cost if they are self-insured.
Furthermore, by what stretch of the imagination has this administration transformed sex for the sake of sex among unmarried people into a “health” issue and, thereby, under Obamacare, transferring the financial responsibility to other Americans? The notion that promiscuous couples are entitled to free or subsidized contraception, abortion and other services resulting from illicit sex is beyond rational thinking.
And speaking of rationality, I'm still trying to figure out the White House's strange philosophy that plans to require that every American must prove they are insured but NOT whether they are a legal citizen of the US.
The administration is now trying to turn the argument into a “War on Women” being waged by Republicans. Once again, there are enough gullible Americans who find no fault in this charade.
But let's look at the real facts of the so-called War on Women. Women have suffered more from unemployment than men under the current administration's free-spending philosophy. The unemployment rate among women has unquestionably risen in the last three years. Ninety-two percent of the jobs lost during the Obama administration were filled by women. Female employees on the White House's payroll enjoy salaries far below (about 18 percent) those of male employees. A trusted lesbian White House advisor, who has been invited to the Obama White House over 30 times, has cast aspersions on stay-at-home Moms by saying they are incapable of understanding economic problems because they had never worked a day in their lives. And the list goes on.
So, who's engaged in a war on women? Engaging in such arguments diverts from the basic matters at hand. Underlying all of this falderal is the simple fact that Americans are being forced to engage in at least two activities that many, if not most, don't believe in — killing unborn babies and subsidizing frivolous sex among unmarried couples. From the administration's point of view, it hopes that the so-called war on women will distract from the dismal record of this administration. We have a president who can't run for re-election (or win) on his jobs, national debt or economy record, so he must adopt a campaign of subterfuge.
The only hope for the rational population is that the Supreme Court will throw out Obamacare in its entirety. If not, voter repudiation in November must.
If you adjudge my thoughts as judgmental, you would be exactly right. It's about time some of us stood up for the basic moral fibers of civilization. I'm not a prude. I have enjoyed the basic satisfaction associated with procreation but I have enjoyed it with ONE woman — my wife. And, only after we were married.
How novel at this point in American history!
John Brock is a retired newspaper editor/publisher and college professor. He can be reached by mail at this newspaper or by Email at: firstname.lastname@example.org