I can't imagine anyone on the planet who's more despicable than Rush Limbaugh.
His insulting of the young woman who testified before a mock congress was both crude and childish. All the negativity that is now hitting him in response is both appropriate and deserved.
Yet, somewhere, underneath that pile of whale blubber that he calls a body, Rush has a point.
I wanted to see the testimony myself before I formed an opinion, so I tracked down the video and watched it.
As I did, I felt slightly bewildered. It was as if the whole presentation was intended to be a satire, like a Saturday Night Live skit. The Georgetown University student seemed to be suggesting that paying her way through law school while, at the same time, having to provide for her own birth control, was so financially onerous that someone else should be required to cover her expenses.
Thirty years ago, this idea would have been the plot for a teen sex comedy.
Today, however, it's congressional testimony and it illustrates exactly what is wrong with the liberal mindset; the obsessive dependence upon the group to solve the problems of the individual.
Yes, there are times when the group is needed to attend to the needs of the individual. But the size of the group required will inevitably be smaller than that of the United States Federal Government (or one of the various global corporations.) Almost always, something along the lines of the family or the community will suffice.
Furthermore, most things in life don't necessitate a group at all, and should, therefore, be handled by the individual. Birth control, if anything, falls into this category.
Every woman's birth control is well within her own means to provide, no matter how poor she might be. If the pill is too expensive, there are always condoms. If, for some reason, she is engaging in such an enormous amount of intercourse that even the cost of condoms is prohibitive, then she can abstain.
The problem with abstinence, of course, is that people like to have sex.
Which is great. It is, naturally, everyone's right to have sex as they see fit. But it is a decision a person makes for their own benefit. And if a woman decides that she wants to have sex without the possible outcome of pregnancy, then it is her (and her partner's) responsibility to provide the appropriate birth control.
It is not the government's responsibility and it is especially not the responsibility of a religious institution that finds birth control immoral.
One has to wonder, if a healthcare plan that provided birth control was so important to Sandra Fluke, then why did she choose to attend a Catholic university. I venture to guess that she wasn't concerned with such things at the time of enrollment. She was probably thinking about which school would best advance her career.
Now, Rush Limbaugh is no self-reliant individual either. Not by any stretch of the imagination. Limbaugh is an advocate of war and corruption and in order to have respect for your own individual humanity you also need to have respect for the humanity of others.
As Ayn Rand once said, a leash is a rope with a noose at both ends.
Ultimately, as we develop a society of individuals who are dependent upon the group, we also develop a society of individuals who are too easily manipulated by the group. As any college student knows, you can take your parents money for tuition, but that means they're going to want to influence your choice of major.
In the case of our American empire, it is an easy trade-off for the government and corporate leaders to provide birth control in exchange for permission to invade another oil-rich country. Most people, I'm afraid, don't see that connection. But it is real and it is profound.
Therefore, if Sandra Fluke's real concern is to ensure that women are free to live their lives as they see fit, or, for that matter, that all people should be free to live their lives as they see fit, then she will encourage everyone to depend only upon themselves and their neighbors, because true freedom can only come through self-reliance.