Ask not what you can do for your country… ask what your country can do for you!

Although President Kennedy’s own sexual life was, sorry to say, despicable (e.g., most recently Once Upon a Secret), this plea during his inauguration speech was stirring: “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.” One initiative provoked by this sentiment was the establishment of the Peace Corps where idealistic young people sacrificed two years of their lives to help people in impoverished countries.

Now President Obama makes a personal phone call to Ms Sandra Fluke to congratulate her for speaking out on behalf of health care plans that supply contraceptives.  Faculty, staff and administrators at Georgetown and other schools issued a statement lauding her for her courage. Oh my. Why does a plea for something that enables sex without responsibility count as an act of courage? And this by a young women destined to make a huge salary after she graduates from a Catholic law school. Courage! That is what is displayed by soldiers who are willing to lay down their lives for their country. It sounds a whole lot more like unmitigated gall and narcissistic entitlement to me, than courage.

I don’t think Rush Limbaugh was right to call Ms Fluke a slut but what would we call a young man who made a similar plea? How well received would be the testimony of a young man who complained that health care plans won’t pay for his condoms? Actually condoms are more accurately preventive means than are contraceptives. Contraceptives prevent something that is not a disease – pregnancy – while making women more susceptible to real diseases such as sexually transmitted diseases and some forms of cancer, not to mention migraines, depression, etc.  Condoms do reduce the incidence of some sexually transmitted diseases, or at least delay the transmission. For both men and women. So a government program funding free condoms makes a whole lot more sense than a government program funding contraceptives for women. (Of course, I oppose both, for many reasons.  The risk factor alone is daunting. Contraceptives fail 8.7% 0f the time; condoms up to 25%.  That is foolish risk-taking in my view.)

Ms Fluke tells us that it would cost her $3000 to pay for her contraceptives during her graduate studies. Many have asked where she gets that figure.  The duration of law school studies is generally three years. Is going to Planned Parenthood beneath her? These are the costs given on the Planned Parenthood website: Depoprovera costs $35-75$ and last 3 months. the pill at about $15-20 a month; Norplant costs $400-$800 but lasts up to 3 years.  Ms. Fluke is most likely taking out giant loans for her graduate studies. She is not expecting us to pay for her text books or subway tickets, trips home or beer (well, probably wine). But she is expecting a Catholic school to pay for her contraceptives and if Obama gets his way, everyone will be paying for everyone’s contraception. Studies show that 98% of sexually active women from 15-44 have used contraception. It seems like it must be pretty easily available! Poor women can get contraceptives from Medicaid. Obamacare is going to require that all insurance plans provide contraceptives for free. We all know that means the costs of contraceptives will be spread out across payments for other health care treatments.  And so everyone will be paying for contraceptives … and it means that the poor are paying for what the rich can afford to pay for themselves.

Fluke tells a heart wrenching story of a lesbian friend who needs the hormones available in the contraceptive pills to treat her polycystic ovarian syndrome and who lost the use of one ovary because of lack of access to contraception (I hate to say it, but a little investigative journalism might be in order here to verify this story!) Certainly health care plans should pay for such treatment and if they don’t that should be fixed.  But it is shameless for Fluke to piggy back on her friend’s legitimate health care needs to coerce others into paying for her elective contraceptives. And where were the friends of her lesbian friend?  Couldn’t they help out with the costs of the hormones until the insurance claims were straightened out? I have friends who make great sacrifices to help ill friends with health care costs. Giving up going to Starbucks, Netflix, or designer boots would probably yield enough funds to help a needy friend.

Moreover, Ms. Fluke maintains that contraception is necessary for the equality of men and women. Oh how randy college men must love that claim! Yes, I know women like sex but generally women also like committed relationships and contraception facilitates uncommitted relationships. Limbaugh was wrong to call Fluke a prostitute. That is objectionable but also imprecise. Fluke is the one paying the price! She is paying for the contraceptives, paying the health risks, paying the risk of an unwanted pregnancy, a possible abortion, possible single parenthood, possible truncated dreams. I hope the young man (men?) at least pays for dinner! But being a feminist Fluke probably insists on paying for half – or all — of dinner as well.



  • Carter

    Attention all of you!
    I have three commments to make.

    1.) The cost of hormonal forms of contraception does not vary with the amount of sex you have each month. You take one pill each day, whether you have vaginal intercourse or not.

    2.) Additionally, hormonal forms of birth control can provide many health benefits.

    3.) There are other reasons, aside from preventing pregnancy, women use hormonal birth control.

  • Chris

    As a Catholic, I am offended by you outright judgement of other people. Christ only teaches love, not hate. I will pray for you and your family.

    In Christ.

  • Vincent

    Rush’s logic is impeccable. What exactly do you call an unmarried women who wants to fornicate as much as she likes? What do you call a women who likes to fornicate so much that she has a high contraceptive bill? The absurdity is that it is so high that she wants the government to pay for it. If she were psychologically impaired she would be a nymphomaniac. If she were not psychologically impaired she would be a sexual pervert. That fact used to be universally held. Rush simply called a spade a spade. If he would have avoided using the more vulgar (=popular) term do you think the reaction would have been different? The wailing that we hear is not because the left is unaccustomed to hearing such language, it is because Rush dared to judge sexual permissiveness as wrong.


    Bottom line to all this is that when an old, agressive, overweight, hyperactive, gasbag, drug addict gets nasty and real personal with a soft spoken young woman, the parental hackles of most moms and dads are goingto be raised. Suppose she were your daughter and, yes, you didn’t like her sex life, and you were at a party and ol’ Rush, hopped up on pills, started talking about her like he did. Pow, right in the kisser!

  • Henry

    So if it’s immoral for the government to fund contraception with taxpayer money, what can be said for Catholic politicians who voluntarily enroll in taxpayer-funded government health care with contraception?

  • Jon

    Follow the money. The US Government exists to facilitate business and commerce. Widen the use of contraceptives, and you have increased some corporations profits. Check out sites like See where your representative and senator get support.

    The “etitlements” that they throw at us are chump change compared to the money that changes hand in our economy.



Receive our updates via email.