Unamed Firewoman Blog - Rush Limbaugh, The First Amendment, and Women’s Health

Nate told me I could write a blog if I wanted. I said “all I can think of something all political and feminist and stuff.” He said that would be fine, as long as I made it funny.

Well, I’ve been working on this one for a while, and I still can’t make it funny. And I know my audience here are mostly men from Punshouse, so I think I’ll try to show you why these issues are important for you males, not just for one of the few womenfolk you let hang out in your locker room.

If you haven’t heard, a few weeks ago, Congress had hearings on a portion of the health care act that said that insurance companies are required to provide coverage for birth control for women, no matter who the employer. The exception of course is religious institutions that are against birth control, but here’s where the disagreement begins. If I work in the Church’s office, then I am clearly working for a religious institution. But what if I work at the Catholic-affiliated hospital? Or school? Is THAT a religious institution?

The sides have lined up framing the issue as they will. The Republicans are framing it as a religious freedom issue and crying for their First Amendment rights. The Democrats are framing it as a women’s health care issue. So, the stage is set for the hearings, where we find that the only ones called to testify are….men. No women. No women on the committee hearing things either. If you saw the pictures, the absence of women was glaringly obvious even to the least politically-minded friend of mine. There of course were women there to testify. One of them, Sandra Fluke, is a law student at Georgetown. When women were not allowed to testify, they left, and the Democrats held their own hearings. Ms. Fluke testified on behalf of a friend who needed birth control pills not for pregnancy prevention, but because of a painful medical condition.

That is not how Mr. Limbaugh portrayed it, however. For three days, Ms. Fluke was slandered by Mr. Limbaugh, who mischaracterized her testimony, which was not about sexual behavior at all, but serious health issues. He called her names, which is his job, really, but then also suggested that he would want to watch all this sex she was having via the Internet.

Predictably, the media erupted. Calls for Rush’s removal from the air echoed, and advertisers dropped like flies. Such is the way of capitalism in the media. (I have no doubt that many of his advertisers will quietly make their way back once things have died down.)

The political response was intriguing and scary. Predictably, Democrats defended Ms. Fluke, and condemned Mr. Limbaugh. President Obama called Ms. Fluke to see how she was doing. Even twenty-six Republicans sent a message to Speaker of the House Boehner asking him to condemn Mr. Limbaugh’s tirade. For their part, the rest of the Republicans, including Boehner and the presidential candidates called Mr. Limbaugh’s words “inappropriate.”

We know the outcome. Mr. Limbaugh issued an apology that was only slightly less sincere than Komen Foundation’s was. And interest was deflected away from the real issue for a few days.

So what you say? Well a few things disturb me about this and they all center on the First Amendment.

Let’s go in order.

“Congress shall make no law respect an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” The Right is arguing that mandating that affiliated hospitals and schools allow employees to use insurance to pay for birth control is violating that. And let’s be clear. That’s all the law is stating.  It’s not stating that we hand birth control out willy nilly to everyone who asks. It’s not mandating that women be forced to take birth control pills as a condition of employment. It’s not even stating that, as Mr. Limbaugh continued to rant about, taxpayers pay for birth control pills. It is say insurance companies have to cover them as they would any other prescription.

It’s also maintaining the exemption for churches themselves, but hospitals and schools are not religious institutions. They are medical and educational, respectively, and while they may receive some funding and support from their religious affiliates, they also receive it from private donors and government funding as well. (When they start providing medical care and education free, then we can talk).

One could also apply the same logic the other way: Allowing for an exemption actually RESPECTS an establishment of one religion, saying that it is someone special and thus special rules need to be made for that religion.

Both arguments are flawed though. The Amendment is about making a religion the official state religion and making others illegal. This doesn’t do either of those things.

The second relevant part of the First Amendment in this debate, and one that’s getting a little lost, I think, and the more important one is “Congress shall make no law . . . prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech . . . .” Let’s be clear. Congress hasn’t done that. Private individuals and companies withdrawing their support is not a violation of the First Amendment. And Congress hasn’t passed any laws about this issue. But Congress and the President have weighed in on the appropriateness of Mr. Limbaugh’s comments, which does not carry the weight of law at all. Or
does it?

Mr. Limbaugh has the Constitutional right to say what he wants, even if it’s factually wrong, and even if it is civilly liable (civil law being a very different animal). And I have the Constitutional right to say he’s a big douchebag. The President and Congress however, do not get a say in this matter however. To say speech of any kind is inappropriate is the first step toward saying “Hey, we ought to write a law…” I’m not a fan of slippery slope arguments, but when it comes to the Bill of Rights, I’d rather be safe than sorry.

Having determined that this is actually not a Constitutional religious freedom issue, that just leaves one other issue, and it’s one that the Republicans are finding has support from even voters within their own party. At best this is a miscalculation. At most, it might cost them the next election. People, not just women, want the government to mind its own business when it comes to medical decisions (isn’t that the point of opposing the whole health care act anyway?) Of course, some don’t see it that way. Some see it as a lack of personal responsibility (although getting birth control to avoid an unwanted pregnancy seems to be the very height of responsibility). Others see it as…well, I can’t even fathom what some of them are thinking. And it’s not Republicans. There are Republicans who are not on board with this, and Democrats who are disturbingly silent.

I know that most of the readers here are men, and if you’ve stuck with me this long, you might be thinking, “So what. “ This doesn’t affect me.” Well, sit back.

What if your sister ends up needing a full or partial hysterectomy due to untreated endometriosis, polycystic ovarian syndrome, or any number of other medical conditions birth control pills can treat successfully, but she couldn’t get them because the Catholic school she works for is allowed to ‘opt out’ of that portion of her insurance coverage?

(And in an era of still 8 to 10 percent unemployment, the “find another job” argument isn’t going to fly.)

What if your daughter is raped and impregnated. Before any discussion of abortion she is required to hear the heartbeat (if she’s in Ohio, potentially), or be laid down on a gurney while a total stranger takes a probe to do an internal ultrasound, whether she wants one or not? (That requirement was stripped out of the Virginia legislation, but if you live in the state of Virginia, what if it had not?)

What if your pregnant wife, gods forbid, discovers that your child is going to be stillborn or miscarried, but instead of being able to go to the doctor and have it removed safely, she is forced to go through the emotional and physical pain of either miscarrying (which can be a very slow and dangerous process) or must carry the child to term and deliver as if everything was okay. You get to watch. If you live in Georgia, there’s a law going through right now proposing that very thing.

Still think it doesn’t affect you? Something to think about this November.

Firewoman is a regular contributor to both the Pun's House and Online Onslaught message boards.  She is also a charter member of the OOWF e-fed.  Her interests include sex, drugs, rock-n-roll... chips, dips, chains, whips... You know, your basic high school orgy type of things.