(NOTE: I am integrating two of my comments that Boundless chose not to post. I thank Martha Krienke for providing those comments in an e-mail so I could do that.)
Matt Kaufman of Boundless has this post regarding both the interview of Kirk Cameron by Piers Morgan, and Rush Limbaugh’s Slutgate. While I agree with much of what he has to say, I’ll take small exception to part of what he said here:
[What Rush Limbaugh said] distracted from the clear-cut, slam-dunk principle at stake — that the state has no right to order religious institutions to violate their principles…
I disagree in this respect: it’s more than religious freedom, although that is certainly a large part of it.
Ultimately, this is about government infringing on free markets and forcing individuals to subsidize what others wish to have for themselves.
This issue should have been addressed decades ago, but that conversation needs to happen sooner rather than later. It is long overdue, and there is no better time than the present, as we are at a financial crossroads as a society: our health care system is not sustainable as it is now.
This is not about what you or I want–or what we wish government could or would do. It is about pure mathematics.
But this practice of people–including Ms. Fluke–teaming up with government to compel entities to provide coverage against their will, is counterproductive to a free and responsible society.
(As an aside (planting tongue firmly in cheek): if Ms. Fluke has time for sex at a rigorous law school such as Georgetown, then she needs to drop out immediately and sue them, demanding her money back. They are doing her a disservice–not to mention falsely advertising their academic rigor–if she has that much time on her hands.)
As for what Rush Limbaugh said, ultimately, this issue is not about Sandra Fluke or Rush Limbaugh or contraception or even abortion; it’s about free markets.
If it were a man demanding that the university to pay for Viagra, Levitra, Cialis, or any other drug designed to facilitate the same behavior the consequences of which Fluke wishes to mitigate with university assistance, my view would be the same: it is not the responsibility of others to pay for a product you wish to have for yourself.
Rush Limbaugh was right until he started calling for her to make a sex tape.
Fact is, Fluke is seeking to team up with government and force the university to subsidize her chosen strategy for mitigating the consequences of her behavior.
As for what Rush called that behavior, it is no more harsh than what Scripture calls it (“Playing the harlot/playing the whore”). Moreover, the cause that she supports is right in line with those who sacrificed children to Molech. Only she–and her supporters in Congress–are worse than the Israelites of old: she wishes to force taxpayers to fund the practice.
As a libertarian, I’m all for keeping the government out of your bedroom. As long as you aren’t expecting someone else–me, my wife, a church, etc.–to endorse your behavior, it’s no one else’s business–not mine, not the government’s, nor anyone else’s–what you do with other consenting adults.
That said, the libertarian case goes both ways: just as what you do with other adults is none of my business, neither are your consequences my responsibility either.
You are free to take your risks, but you are on the hook for the outcomes of your choices.
Over here, we are all about people being grownups. We want men (women) to put on their big boy (girl) pants (panties).
That means accepting that
(a) it is no one else’s job to do for you what you can and should be doing for yourself;
(b) it is no one else’s obligation to pay for the risks you choose to take.
Until our society gets sober about those two things, we are going to continue to see our freedoms wane, and we will be the slave of the freeloaders.
As for Kirk Cameron: good on him. I think he did a decent job with Piers Morgan. He’s an actor, not a politician. Some folks will take issue with the way he answered some questions, but–you know what?–Jesus called His followers to be witnesses, not lawyers. He answered like the former, and one cannot fault him for that. It was quite ballsy for him to go on to Piers Morgan’s program and field those questions.