Right-wing radio talk show host, Rush Limbaugh, has never shied away from making controversial statements. However, when he recently weighed in on the mandated-contraception debate, many feel he went too far.
On February 23rd, Sandra Fluke, a third-year student at Georgetown University Law School, spoke to a Democratic hearing about why birth control coverage is necessary. She brought up one real-life scenario to illustrate this, as a friend of her's needed contraception to prevent ovarian cysts. She then used this story to state that without insurance coverage, contraception can cost a woman up to $3,000 during law school.
Instead of listening to Fluke's testimony concerning her friend's need for contraception due to medical reasons, Limbaugh interpreted her words in another manner.
On his February 29th show, he stated, "Can you imagine if you're her parents, how proud of Sandra Fluke you would be? Your daughter testifies she's having so much sex she can't afford her own birth control pills and she agrees that Obama should provide them, or the pope."
He continued with, "Three thousand dollars for birth control in three years? That's a lot of dollars a year of sex - and, she wants us to pay for it. They're admitting before congressional committee that they're having so much sex they can't afford the birth control pills!"
Limbaugh's rant didn't stop there, as he went on to say, "What does it say about the college co-ed Sandra 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. She wants to be paid to have sex. She's having so much sex she can't afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex. What does that make us? We're the pimps."
The following day, Limbaugh said the following on his show, "So Miss Fluke, and the rest of you Feminazis, here's the deal. If we are going to pay for your contraceptives, and thus pay for you to have sex, we want something for it. We want you to post the videos online so we can all watch."
Limbaugh seems to be confused on multiple fronts. First off, if Limbaugh contends that a woman is a "slut" or "prostitute" if she uses any form of contraception and said contraception is covered by her insurance plan, the majority of reproductive-age women (15-44) could be cast as "sluts" or "prostitutes". According to the Guttmacher Institute, which specializes in sexual and reproductive health research, 62% of the 62 million women aged 15-44 are currently using some form of contraception and nine in ten employer-based insurance plans cover a full range of prescription contraceptives.
Secondly, just because a woman is using some form of contraception, doesn't mean she is using it solely for the purpose of pregnancy prevention, if that is a purpose at all. The Guttmacher Institute also reported that 14% of pill users (1.5 million women) rely on them exclusively for non-contraceptive purposes. Via this particular study, it was also reported that 58% of pill users rely on this form of contraception, at least in part, for purposes other than pregnancy prevention. Of all pill users, only 42% rely on them exclusively for the purpose of pregnancy prevention. What it seems that Limbaugh and many others are forgetting is the fact many women use contraception for reasons other than pregnancy prevention. The before-mentioned study reported that 31% of women use the pill to reduce cramps; 28% use it for menstrual regulation; 14% for acne and 4% for endometriosis. The study also cited that 762,000 women, whom have never had sex, use the pill. Also, it should be noted that this study limited the analysis to oral contraceptive pills, excluding other forms of contraception such as the ring, patch, implant and IUD. Due to this, it should be assumed that the before-mentioned 1.5 million whom use contraception exclusively for reasons other than pregnancy prevention, is a great deal lower than the actual number of women whom use contraception for such purposes.
Lastly, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services recently released an issue brief concerning the cost of covering contraceptives through health insurance. As one author of the study concluded, "The message is simple: regardless of payment mechanism or contraceptive method, contraception saves money."
This is largely due to the indirect costs concerning pregnancy, such as a woman's time away from work and the loss of her productivity there. Global Health Outcomes developed a model to showcase, given these indirect costs, how much money would be saved through health insurance covering contraceptives. They discovered that employers save $97 per year per employee to offer such a plan.
Given all this information, if Limbaugh stands by what he said, not only will he have spoken out against saving employers money, he will have spoken out against women's health concerns, preventing unwanted pregnancies and with that, abortions. For a person who claims to be "pro-life," I find this ultimately to be quite contradictory and disconcerting.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/03/rush-limbaugh-sandra-fluke-a-slut-and-prostitute/
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_contr_use.html
http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2011/11/15/index.html
http://aspe.hhs.gov/health/reports/2012/contraceptives/ib.shtml#Empirical
On February 23rd, Sandra Fluke, a third-year student at Georgetown University Law School, spoke to a Democratic hearing about why birth control coverage is necessary. She brought up one real-life scenario to illustrate this, as a friend of her's needed contraception to prevent ovarian cysts. She then used this story to state that without insurance coverage, contraception can cost a woman up to $3,000 during law school.
Instead of listening to Fluke's testimony concerning her friend's need for contraception due to medical reasons, Limbaugh interpreted her words in another manner.
On his February 29th show, he stated, "Can you imagine if you're her parents, how proud of Sandra Fluke you would be? Your daughter testifies she's having so much sex she can't afford her own birth control pills and she agrees that Obama should provide them, or the pope."
He continued with, "Three thousand dollars for birth control in three years? That's a lot of dollars a year of sex - and, she wants us to pay for it. They're admitting before congressional committee that they're having so much sex they can't afford the birth control pills!"
Limbaugh's rant didn't stop there, as he went on to say, "What does it say about the college co-ed Sandra 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. She wants to be paid to have sex. She's having so much sex she can't afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex. What does that make us? We're the pimps."
The following day, Limbaugh said the following on his show, "So Miss Fluke, and the rest of you Feminazis, here's the deal. If we are going to pay for your contraceptives, and thus pay for you to have sex, we want something for it. We want you to post the videos online so we can all watch."
Limbaugh seems to be confused on multiple fronts. First off, if Limbaugh contends that a woman is a "slut" or "prostitute" if she uses any form of contraception and said contraception is covered by her insurance plan, the majority of reproductive-age women (15-44) could be cast as "sluts" or "prostitutes". According to the Guttmacher Institute, which specializes in sexual and reproductive health research, 62% of the 62 million women aged 15-44 are currently using some form of contraception and nine in ten employer-based insurance plans cover a full range of prescription contraceptives.
Secondly, just because a woman is using some form of contraception, doesn't mean she is using it solely for the purpose of pregnancy prevention, if that is a purpose at all. The Guttmacher Institute also reported that 14% of pill users (1.5 million women) rely on them exclusively for non-contraceptive purposes. Via this particular study, it was also reported that 58% of pill users rely on this form of contraception, at least in part, for purposes other than pregnancy prevention. Of all pill users, only 42% rely on them exclusively for the purpose of pregnancy prevention. What it seems that Limbaugh and many others are forgetting is the fact many women use contraception for reasons other than pregnancy prevention. The before-mentioned study reported that 31% of women use the pill to reduce cramps; 28% use it for menstrual regulation; 14% for acne and 4% for endometriosis. The study also cited that 762,000 women, whom have never had sex, use the pill. Also, it should be noted that this study limited the analysis to oral contraceptive pills, excluding other forms of contraception such as the ring, patch, implant and IUD. Due to this, it should be assumed that the before-mentioned 1.5 million whom use contraception exclusively for reasons other than pregnancy prevention, is a great deal lower than the actual number of women whom use contraception for such purposes.
Lastly, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services recently released an issue brief concerning the cost of covering contraceptives through health insurance. As one author of the study concluded, "The message is simple: regardless of payment mechanism or contraceptive method, contraception saves money."
This is largely due to the indirect costs concerning pregnancy, such as a woman's time away from work and the loss of her productivity there. Global Health Outcomes developed a model to showcase, given these indirect costs, how much money would be saved through health insurance covering contraceptives. They discovered that employers save $97 per year per employee to offer such a plan.
Given all this information, if Limbaugh stands by what he said, not only will he have spoken out against saving employers money, he will have spoken out against women's health concerns, preventing unwanted pregnancies and with that, abortions. For a person who claims to be "pro-life," I find this ultimately to be quite contradictory and disconcerting.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/03/rush-limbaugh-sandra-fluke-a-slut-and-prostitute/
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_contr_use.html
http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2011/11/15/index.html
http://aspe.hhs.gov/health/reports/2012/contraceptives/ib.shtml#Empirical
Comments
Post a Comment