Rush rash

I’m trying to understand the logic…erm, no. The reasoning…uh, uh. The thinking…

Well, I mean to say that I’m trying to imagine the ratiocination construct that lies below Rush Limbaugh’s recent verbal vomit about Sandra Fluke. You know, the Georgetown student who testified before a Congressional committee on why contraceptives should be part of any health insurance. I’m at a bit of a disadvantage, because I’ve heard neither Fluke’s nor Limbaugh’s full spiel, but here’s my understanding.

Fluke, a third-year law student, went before the committee to represent other women who depend on Georgetown’s health coverage, but have to pay for contraception out of pocket because the plan doesn’t include it. She pointed out that birth control pills can be prescribed for medical conditions outside actual prevention of pregnancy. (These include irregular menstrual periods, acne, endometriosis, Polycystic Ovary syndrome, amenorrhea and some others.) Refusing out of hand to cover any contraception means that women who are diagnosed with these conditions don’t have access to these therapies.

Ignoring that, Limbaugh went on the attack, claiming, “She wants to be plaid to have sex. She’s having so much sex she can’t afford the contraception. She wants you and me & the taxpayers to pay her to have sex.”

So, I have some questions about this. Maybe you can help me out with some answers.

Who’s the “us” he’s talking about? He objects to “us” paying for Fluke’s alleged sexual activities. (And, by extension, that of all women. But evidently he’s not opposed to men, you know, screwing. Except probably men having sex with other men. I’m just spitballing, here; but I’m guessing that as a conservative flag waver, he’s probably not down with that.)

But unless “we” are an actual, you know, insurance plan (or the employer that might be contributing to that plan’s costs), then “we’re” not paying for anything: not for treating the consequences of sex, smoking, skydiving or any other social behavior.

Could he be talking about “us” in the sense that “we” are also major shareholders in, say, GM? As in “we the taxpaying people”? Meaning “a single-payer health policy supported by our taxes”?

Hmm, I shouldn’t have thought so from the mouth-foaming tenor of conservatives' opposition to the Affordable Care Act. But I suppose I could be wrong.

Is he saying health plans shouldn’t cover pregnancy—since sexual activity is the most common cause of pregnancy and Limbaugh seems opposed to the price tag of contraception? I have to say that compared with pre- and post-natal obstetrical treatments, even a normal childbirth and a couple of decades of pediatric care, the cost of contraceptives is quite the bargain. I won ‘t go into the considerable non-medical burden of social services required to deal with children whose parents are ill-equipped to raise their offspring.

(Although, in fairness, it’s been my observation that conservatives’ interest in the moral imperative of protecting the sanctity of life pretty much stops, uh, dead at the moment of birth. They’re disinclined to fund anything that would help that creature so sacred in utero have a life of dignity outside the womb. So those costs wouldn’t figure in any cost-benefit analysis run by the right.)

And finally, is Limbaugh going to go ballistic about funding Viagra, Cialis and all the rest of the erectile dysfunction meds that big pharma can’t produce fast enough to meet the demand of middle-aged men? Since (as I understand it) men wouldn’t need Vitamin V unless they specifically intend to engage in, you know, sexual activity in the immediate future?

Or would the possible alternative therapeutic uses—for hypertension, Raynaud’s phenomenon or heart disease—be his ticket out. “Oh, get stuffed, liberal pinko scum. Men need these pills for very serious conditions. Not like birth control pills for women.”

Well, look—in Limbaughland, that sort of argument not only holds water, it’s a mainstay of all discourse.

Another staple of Planet Rush is the grudging, forced non-apology. (Forced, in this case, because several ad sponsors of his show have cut him off.) He’s made this to Fluke via a statement that said he never intended that calling her a slut and a prostitute would be construed as a personal attack.

I think his own meds are due for adjustment.