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.

6,968 views

Categories:Uncategorized

41 thoughts on “Ask not what you can do for your country… ask what your country can do for you!

  1. ccwade says:

    2 things, first is my father in law is t type 1 diabetic and he has to pay. Also if her friend is a lesbian why doesn’t she have surgery and have the ovaries taken out?

  2. toledo bill says:

    Dr. Smith, As usual a very good article and very well reasoned points. I too felt her testimony was “more like unmitigated gall and narcissistic entitlement…, than courage.” Her arguments are parochial and immature. When she grows up into an attorney perhaps she will make better arguments than she does now.

  3. JenV says:

    Fluke’s story about her friend definitely should be investigated. At the very least, I believe she used the wrong term for what her friend has. Poly-cystic ovary syndrome often, but not always, involves small follicular cysts over the surface of the ovary. But the main aspect of PCOS is a hormone imbalance. But the cysts do not get large enough to rupture and cause damage to the ovary itself. They do cause problems with infertility.

    What her friend probably had was a different type of ovarian cyst disorder – which does cause large cysts to form. But the pill does not always help that condition. It may slow the grow of the cysts, but they can still get large enough to rupture even with the pill. (I had a friend when I was in college for whom this was the case.)

    For either of these conditions, there are other treatments that can be used. Taking the pill does not cure them, it only masks the symptoms – somewhat like taking pain relievers. You may feel better, but stop taking it and it comes back, sometimes worse.

    What Ms. Fluke should really be lobbying for is more research into actual cures for these types of diseases and not just coverage of the “band-aid” of contraception.

    1. Joyfully says:

      Yes! Lobby for more research! That is nearly exactly what I had thought after the “Fluke-Flak”, except I had hoped some bright representative of the Catholic point of view would suggest that the Church would use the monies saved from paying for the “manddate issues” to do medical research into understanding and helping women “who hemmorage for 18 years” be cured of their female health problems, and healthy fertility is not a problem.

  4. Francis Wippel says:

    There was a time in the nation not too long ago when self-control and self-reliance were seen as virtues.

    In Ms. Fluke’s case, apparently, it is now proper to exercise no self-control and no self-reliance, and President Obama agrees. Instead, it is now considered morally acceptable and virtuous in our nation to plead helplessness (as in, I can’t stop having sex), and then demand that someone else pay for it. How did our nation descend to this level? If I had a daughter that behaved this way, I’d crawl in a hole from embarrassment.

    It is also worth noting that Ms. Fluke seems to have willingly chosen to take this fight to a Catholic school, and knew beforehand the teachings of the Church on this matter. There are plenty of non-Catholic Law Schools in this nation. And for someone who spends $50 grand a year to attend Georgetown, to claim that she can’t afford to pay for her own birth control? Really? Sorry, but as they say down south: “That dog don’t hunt”.

  5. Mark S. Latkovic says:

    Just what did women do before the pill? The way this Georgetown University law student’s testimony at a congressional hearing (sponsored by Democrats) about her need for taxpayer-funded contraception came across, you would have thought she was desperately pleading for a bone-marrow transplant! (See http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2012/02/23/147299323/law-student-makes-case-for-contraceptive-coverage and http://www.womenofgrace.com/blog/?p=128250). Trying to shift this debate from one over consequence-free sex to healthcare, as she attempted, is not only misguided, it’s simply disingenuous. For one thing, having sex — contrary to the cultural cant — is not a necessity, but healthcare is.

  6. Antonio A. Badilla says:

    I saw Miss Fluke testifying before Congress on the O’Reilly show tonight and could not believe my eyes and ears tonight. Perhaps Limbaugh could have used a more polite way to describe the woman but what Limbaugh said of her is precisely what she offered to Congress and to the public in general. The most I can say about Limbaugh is that he did not use the virtue of prudence in what he called her.
    The left media has successfully made this issue into an issue of contraceptives rather than what it is, religious freedom. The President is showing exactly who he is, an avowed enemy of the Catholic faith, and the liberal Catholics who support him are showing the entire nation they are willing to sell Holy Mother Church for thirty pieces of silver. The so-called “Catholic” politicians are a complete disgrace and the bishops have the power to make sure they speak from the outside of the Church, rather than as members of it.
    Dr. Smith could not be more right about what she states in her article.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

STAY CONNECTED


DON'T MISS A THING

Receive our updates via email.