Don't cede the argument on contraception (and — eek! — sex)

Tom Tomorrow's tweet below is worth consideration (even if put in bolder language than I would myself).

It is important to note that women take the Pill for a variety of reasons beyond contraception. Its mix of various hormones are legitimately used for treatment of a variety of conditions. Indeed, the whole Sandra Fluke case (which Rush Limbaugh has surpassed his usual level of loathesomeness about) included testimony about a friend of hers at Georgetown University who suffered from ovarian cysts, but was unable to afford the contraceptive pills that would have treated it because Georgetown doesn't include them in its student insurance policies; the friend eventually had to have an ovary removed, which has led to further complications.

But as Tom Tomorrow notes, focusing on just these cases — which are a minority of the reasons women use contraception — is an apologetic surrender of the fundamental argument. Women use contraceptives of various sorts because they want to control their fertility. And that's a good thing. In doing so, not only do they and society benefit economically (and, I'd say socially), but women gain control over their bodies and destiny in a way that was unthinkable before the advent of modern contraception. Again, that benefits women and men.

For women who are struggling economically, though, contraception isn't necessarily affordable. What the contraception mandate says is that insurance companies have to include contraception coverage. Just as Rush's beloved Viagra is covered.

Rush's point — echoed in less incendiary terms by a variety of pundits and pols from the Right — is that the answer to contraception being a financial problem is that women should simply not have sex. Unless, of course, they are wealthy. Or if they have a hubby to provide financial support for them (and who, thus, in his all-American high-paying job, can afford to buy contraception. Maybe. And, if not, well, Big Families are God's Gift, whether you want them or not).

Of course, one might argue that if Rush and any number of other men find difficulty with male erectile dysfunction, they simply should not have sex, either. After all, isn't that also the "taxpayer paying them to have sex", too? Let's see how far that argument flies. About as far, I suspect, as observing that it isn't just women who are having sex — at least not sex that requires contraception to avoid pregnancy — and that men who have sex when they don't intend to produce babies that they'll support are also "sluts."

Tomorrow's point is that having sex is a reality. Having responsible sex means doing so with contraceptives. And an added reality is that means the woman is going to have to provide it. That birth control pills have additional medical application is non-trivial icing on the cake, but ceding to Rush and the Right their assertion that women — married or not — having sex (with men) is simple sluttishness that can be solved by an aspirin between the legs (or else social mockery) is the wrong course — and indirectly legitimizes Rush's foul rhetoric. #ddtb

Embedded Link

Twitter / Tom Tomorrow: putting too much emphasis …
putting too much emphasis on BC for other health reasons cedes ground to GOP cavemen. They are the anti-fucking party, make them own that.