Sandra-Fluke1I do not like to get into political discussions and I didn’t do it, for a very long time. Unfortunately, time is running out, and I believe that every one of us has the duty to say the truths that need saying, so that this world does not go spiraling down into the dark ages again.

I am sure that most of my readers know by now about the fact that a political commentator has horribly insulted an outspoken women’s rights activist, Sandra Fluke, (along with almost any other woman in this world) by calling her (and every other woman along with her) a slut because she is in favor of contraceptives for women being covered by health insurance. If you didn’t know about this, take a few minutes to watch your heart rate go up, get filled with really violent urges, then try to gather some of your composure.

I do not need to defend Sandra Fluke here, because she is so unbelievably self-possessed, composed and so outrageously smart, that she can do it better than anyone else. I just saw her on The View and wow, this is the person whom they do not let speak in front of Congress, while allowing that … man to poison the radio waves? I do not need to speak for Sandra Fluke, but I do need to speak for women. I do need to speak for myself.

“Slut” is a word that does not describe anything in nature. This is an abstract noun used against women to make them feel like they are lesser human beings. This sort of language is not acceptable in any public forum in a civilized world.

But the words this … man used, as unbelievable as they are, are the lesser of wrongs here. The bigger problem here is that this type of rhetoric is trying to undermine a very clear and simple right of women to have their medical needs covered by health insurance. This is not about tax payers giving their money for contraception, but about employers and insurance plans who should not be allowed to opt out of covering contraception based on faith and “moral” objections. So first of all, this is not about women getting anything “for free,” OK? It is clear that some part of the political spectrum wants people to misunderstand this issue. This is not about charity. This is about the basic human right to basic medical care. But sure, we are women, so our human rights are lesser than the rights of other humans who do get Viagra on health coverage and nobody uses any slur against them.

(I do not want any of my words to be construed as an attack against men. Many men are open-minded and intelligent to understand the social injustice that women face and not to condone it. There are also many close-minded men and women, and the world we live in is a man’s world [in most ways]. It is this world that needs changing, a change that can be brought about by those open-minded men and women together. Together. Having only men testify regarding women’s needs for healthcare is not acceptable.)

If you feel you are on the fence about this, think about one thing: the United States is the developed country with the most unwanted teenage pregnancies. U.S. does not have “a high” teenage pregnancy rate, nor “one of the highest” teenage pregnancy rates: it has “the highest” rate. It is a fact. As a parent, as a productive and proud citizen of a prosperous, wondrous country, aren’t you shocked about that? As a woman, aren’t you in tears with outrage? Do you think that is right? That it is fair? That it is how things should be?

The thing is that contraception has been recognized as one of the main contributors to women’s liberation success. It is not an issue of “personal sexual recreational activities,” as it has been called by Rush Limbaugh in his so-called apology. Without contraception (and I am solely speaking here of contraception used for birth control, not other medical issues, which are many) women would not be able to step out of the house and into the public/work space any more than they did in the middle ages. If you take that back from women, you can erase a few hundred years of history and struggle of very courageous women that came before us.

Another problem that I cannot help but decry is that religious freedom of the employer is being invoked while debating the issue of covering contraception for women. So, if my employer, who most likely is white, older and male, has any religious affiliation (most religions will not support many women’s rights), he has the right to deny me coverage for contraception. So his religious rights would trump my religious rights. Do you see anything wrong there? Religious rights are supposed to be personal. An employer can have the right to deny contraception for himself. He has no right to limit my own rights. It is the basic logic of human rights, isn’t it? Why is that logic absent from the political dialogue? As a woman, I feel that unfortunately most religious traditions let me down and fail to give me any rights whatsoever. So when we speak about “religious rights” again, we basically speak of men’s rights. And when our governing bodies are formed mostly of men who are allowed to decide women’s medical needs … what should we expect as a result?

We need to find more Sandra Flukes out there, who are not afraid to speak and get involved, who don’t flinch in front of disgraceful attacks. When someone resorts to such despicable tactics, it means they have no rational argument on their side. It means the irrational has replaced the common sense. It’s actually a good sign that things can only get better. Let’s hope that the debate cannot go lower than that. Our collective voice needs to be heard, though. The Sandra Fluke in each of us needs to speak out loud, unafraid, before it’s too late.

People also boycott the companies that support the Rush Limbaugh show through advertising. Several advertisers have already distanced themselves from the show by withdrawing their ads.

One comment

  1. OMFG. You know, sometimes I get all trinyg-to-be-reasonable about this, and then I hear something like this radio commercial from the second look foundation (a front for some Catholic group), and I just want to scream. Actually, I do, but it’s in my car so only I hear it.I’m going from memory, so I have probably left out some of the lies, but:Claim: Roe v. Wade gives women the right to abort on a whim up to the moment of delivery. Bullshit. Setting aside the fact that you’d be hard-pressed to find even one person who in fact did this, Roe v. Wade established a tiered system based on trimesters, with increasing restrictions allowed the farther on the pregnancy has gone.Claim: There are X thousand abortions a year after the 5th or 6th month (I forget which). [Later] 25% of pregnancies end in abortion. Two facts that are probably true (or close enough), but when juxtaposed falsely imply that a large percentage of pregnancies are terminated after that date. In fact, 87% of abortions happen in the first trimester. About 1% happen after the 21st week (approximately 5 months). Probably not a lot of on a whim abortions in that bunch.And let’s not leave out the fact that saying for any reason implies that women who have abortions are doing it for no good reason, when the facts run counter to that unstated assumption.It just pisses me off when people lie like that. It destroys whatever shred of respect I have for them, and also if you’ve got to lie to advance your position, what does that say about it?[Statistics from Guttmacher institute]

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: