I recently read your comments on the birth control debate. I was especially delighted with this gem about college girls:
“They’re admitting before congressional committee that they’re having so much sex they can’t afford the birth control pills!”
I just wanted you to know, dear Mr. Limbaugh, that unlike some unfortunate, balding, rotund, older gentlemen, these college girls don’t have to pay for sex.
I find it very interesting that you repeatedly denounce birth control coverage under the new health care mandate as being equivalent to paying for women to have sex. There are two main problems with this opinion. First, you don’t actually object to paying for people to enjoy sex. After all, I have never heard you speak out against Viagra being covered under the very same health care mandate. In case you were unaware, Viagra is purely a sex aid which serves society in no other way — unlike the much maligned birth control pills you’re arguing about. Secondly, you misunderstand the purpose of birth control. My dear little man, it is to prevent unwanted pregnancies, not to help people have sex. You know, so we can minimize abortion rates, the number of unwanted babies born to mothers who may not be prepared for it, and of course, the number of people on welfare! Those are all things you want, I presume.
With or without birth control, (as we’ve proven over the years with abstinence-only sex education) people will be having sex. The question is, then, whether you want to be the one paying to take care of their unwanted offspring. If the problem you have is with potential taxpayer financing, I guarantee that contraception, as most forms of preventative care, is much cheaper than the alternative.
No love for you,