Slut! This is in effect what the extremist religious fanatics of Ramat Bet Shemseh B yelled at 8 year old Naama Margolese as she tired to go to her religious all girls elementary school. The constant barrage of verbal abuse against this young girl and other students, their parents and the entire Religious Zionist community bordering their town has earned these extremist Charedim justifiable and near universal outrage.
Their excuse has always been that young Naama and her fellow students did not dress modestly enough by the standards of their town. But as we all know Tznius has nothing to do with it.
In what has to be an interesting parallel the politically conservative - mega radio personality Rush Limbaugh- has done virtually the same thing. Well not exactly the same… but read on.
Sandra Fluke is a 30 year old female law student at Georgetown – a Jesuit (Catholic) university that does not dispense contraceptives as part of its student’s health insurance coverage. She testified at a congressional hearing about the Affordable Care Act contraceptive coverage regulation.
As part of her testimony Ms. Fluke said as follows:
I attend a Jesuit law school that does not provide contraceptive coverage in its student health plan. And just as we students have faced financial, emotional, and medical burdens as a result, employees at religiously-affiliated hospitals and institutions and universities across the country have suffered similar burdens…
Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school. For a lot of students who, like me, are on public interest scholarships, that’s practically an entire summer’s salary. 40% of the female students at Georgetown Law reported to us that they struggle financially as a result of this policy.
Based on Ms. Fluke’s testimony, Rush Limbaugh called her a slut and a prostitute.
The outrage directed at him is justifiable and near universal as well; even his supporters have condemned him for it. Rush has apologized for his comment although Ms. Fluke has not accepted it. Meanwhile the outrage continues, the media attention is relentless and Rush has lost many of his sponsors. One radio station has actually dropped his program.
First let me say it was a disgusting comment. While what Rush said is not the same thing as calling Young Naama a slut to her face -it was nonetheless reprehensible. His feeble attempt at humor was extremely inappropriate. I agree with his critics. You don’t make an innocent woman a sacrificial lamb just to make a point. Had he said something like this as a comment on my blog, I would have been outraged and deleted it immediately!
Lost among all of this legitimate indignation at his comment is the actual point he was making, which I believe to have merit. No one is talking about that. Not even those who might agree with him about it.
The issue is one of public policy with respect to contraceptives. The Obama administration has mandated that contraceptives be a benefit of health care coverage. Even for hospitals that are affiliated with religious groups that oppose contraception for religious reasons – like the Catholic Church. Opponents of this benefit say that this is a church state issue and that any institution that is morally opposed to contraception should be exempted from it.
Ms. Fluke and her supporters feel that this is a health issue and not a religious one. With sexual promiscuity a fact of life on the college campus it is certainly a reasonable position for her to take.
But is it right? Should public morality not be a factor at all? Should the government use ‘facts of life’ like this as the basis handing out contraceptives like candy? Is that not saying that as a country we have abdicated personal responsibility? Are we not saying that sexual promiscuity is no longer considered immoral? That it is almost expected for young people away from home in colleges and universities all over America to engage in casual sex? And therefore we are going to make it easy for them to do so? Is this what parents should now expect when they send their children off to college? That the government will ‘grease the way’ for them to be as promiscuous as they want? Have we lost our senses? From the above excerpts by Ms Fluke it would seem so.
I realize of course that there are times where contraceptives are a moral imperative. Married couples use them too. Even for Orthodox Jews - there are various instances where a contraceptives are permitted or even required. For example when a pregnancy can endanger the life of the woman. There are other less dramatic circumstances where contraceptives are permitted as well.
So a blanket exclusion of any contraceptives from any health plan is a bad idea – at least for Judaism. I cannot speak for the Catholic Church but I’m sure they have exceptions to their rules as well.
The point however is that the vast majority of college campus use of contraceptives is by young people who want to have casual sex. If contraceptives are given the same status as any other medication it will certainly be used mostly for that. Morality?! None of the school’s business.
So when a 30 year old law school student says that the pill ought to be part of a health care plan is she not saying that the government ought to be in part paying for her ability to have casual sex?
In seeing this scenario as one of encouraging promiscuity Rush Limbaugh took a leap and called single women who seeks the pill for purposes of casual sex – sluts. I don’t think he was calling Ms. Fluke a slut directly – although that may be how it sounded. He just used her to make that point.
It does not take rocket science to understand what he meant. Sex is everywhere these days. It is on TV, in movies, in magazine articles and ads, on billboards, and just about anywhere you look. Casual sex – which was once seen as a taboo - is now taken for granted as an everyday normal occurrence between young people – especially once they enter university campus life. Parents are now cautioned to tell their children to use contraceptives when they go off to college instead of cautioning them against having casual sex in the first place. It is considered a foregone conclusion that they will. No use in talking about the morality of the issue.
Is this the kind of world we want to live in? Orthodox Judaism is strongly opposed to casual sex. In most cases today casual sex between unmarried couples is considered a serious religious offense. Do we want to live in an environment that treats casual sex as normal behavior?
I am not saying that a democratic government like ours ought to legislate morality. I am opposed to that. Morality belongs to religion or personal conscience. But neither should the government be actively seeking to destroy it by giving in to a Hollywood inspired Zeitgeist of treating casual sex as morally neutral. It may reduce unwanted pregnancies to dispense the pill for free. But that doesn’t make it right.
That said, I support those who say that contraceptives ought to be part of any health care plan that includes medication coverage because of the actual medical needs. But it is unfair to attack those who oppose it for religious reasons. There is an argument to be made for retaining a sense of moral rights and wrongs. And the government handing out the pill like candy is not the way to do that.
