Fluke ex­pects U.S. to pay for her choices

The Washington Times Daily - - Opinion -

Ge­orge­town law stu­dent San­dra Fluke and the con­gress­men who wished to present her to the coun­try as a vic­tim are the new stan­dard-bear­ers of a sick so­ci­ety (“Why San­dra Fluke should thank Rush Lim­baugh,” Web, Mon­day).

Here we have an un­mar­ried coed at a Catholic univer­sity telling the world that she and her co­hort of friends are all sex­u­ally ac­tive — with­out shame or dis­cre­tion — and ex­pect­ing, nay de­mand­ing, that some third party pay for their play.

This sit­u­a­tion rep­re­sents a ver­i­ta­ble Ru­bik’s Cube of in­di­vid­ual and so­ci­etal psy­chodys­func­tion. Where does one be­gin to slice and dice the var­i­ous el­e­ments on dis­play here? Ms. Fluke’s par­ents en­dorse both her be­hav­ior and po­si­tion, and then she re­ceives a shout-out from the oc­cu­pant of the Oval Of­fice. Does one con­clude that this cadre rep­re­sents the na­tional norm for a new set of val­ues and virtues? Is this the des­ti­na­tion that the late Sen. Daniel Pa­trick Moynihan an­tic­i­pated when he warned about “defin­ing de­viancy down”?

This sor­did drama has re­ceived a seal of ap­proval from the apex of the po­lit­i­cal pyra­mid, Pres­i­dent Obama. What are the cit­i­zens to do, those “bit­ter” clingers, when this man once again makes a mock­ery of val­ues they still honor, that quaint no­tion of the Founders and Framers that our Con­sti­tu­tion was suf­fi­cient only for a moral and re­li­gious peo­ple? Per­haps this public episode of­fer in­sights into the mind­set of an elec­torate that was so eas­ily se­duced by the empty slo­gan of “hope and change.” When you be­lieve in noth­ing, you’ll be­lieve in any­thing.

Just how did this is­sue morph into one about women’s health in the first place? We’re not dis­cussing ovar­ian cysts or en­dometrio­sis. At is­sue here is re­cre­ational sex, en­gaged in with fore­thought, an act that has con­se­quences and should be ap­proached re­spon­si­bly. Yet many in the na­tion nod af­fir­ma­tively when some fem­i­nist leg­is­la­tor or me­dia maven be­moans Ms. Fluke’s lack of ac­cess to birth con­trol prod­ucts and phar­ma­ceu­ti­cals, claim­ing they have be­come a bud­get buster. Non­sense. They are read­ily avail­able and mod­er­ately priced. Down the road at Planned Par­ent­hood, they are pro­vided at no (up­front) cost. Amer­i­cans are sim­ply re­sist­ing the fed­eral re­quire­ment to pick up the tab for some­one else’s roll in the hay. R.M. ZOBENICA Moun­tain Iron, Minn.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.