How about sex for free?

Big kerfuffle over coverage of contraceptives in the Senate this week. Seems the Democrats want women to have contraceptives given to women at little to no cost while Republicans want the state to not interfere with church doctrine.

It all started with this:

The Health and Human Services Department ruled earlier this year that, under the new health care law, religious-affiliated institutions such as hospitals and universities must include free birth control coverage in their employee health plans.

Note the "free birth control coverage" phrase. I think this is very important to the argument. You see, contraceptives devices and medications are legal in every state in the union. They are available everywhere. Yes, there have been reports of some pharmacists refusing to dispense the so-called "morning after" dosages on religious grounds but these are actually so rare as to be next to non-existent.  But the kerfuffle is not about buying them, it's about providing them free for anyone who wants them.

So, to me, the issue is about ignoring the separation of church and state (in this case, the state overrides the church) in favor of pandering to young women who want free birth control.

I can understand people wanting free services and products. But nothing is really free, is it? Someone, somewhere has to pay for it. I thought, when I enlisted in the Navy, that the uniforms were free. You probably did too. They aren't. I had to pay for everything they issued to me. And I had to pay for having them cleaned and laundered. Now, granted, the shipboard laundry service was "free". But they didn't press anything. And they did no dry cleaning. So all dress uniforms had to be done at a commercial cleaners. Even what we called "work" whites had to be done at those places.  It was more than obvious that the blue uniforms (which are made of wool) had to be dry-cleaned and pressed.

I was reminded of a story my mother told about my father's stint in the Army during WWII. He showed up one morning at formation with his sleeves coming up short of his wrists and his pants cuff a few inches above his ankles. These were wool uniforms and my father had run them through the laundry instead of a dry cleaners. Of course the sergeant chewed him out. Of course the sergeant told him he should have taken them to a dry-cleaners. My father's response was that the Army did not give him a cleaning allowance, did not pay for the dry-cleaning, and his pay was not sufficient to cover it.

We all want free stuff, don't we? But we never really get it.

By the way, it seems Limbaugh has gotten into hot water over this one with his remarks. Specifically about a woman named Sandra Fluke. I think he overstepped the bounds of good taste but I also think there's some things about the woman and her "testimony" before an unofficial Congressional panel. Here's her testimony...


http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/statement-Congress-letterhead-2nd%20hearing.pdf


In this, she relates two anecdotal stories, neither of which can be corroborated and would never be permissible in a court of law. 
She also makes the claim that contraception (presumably prescription but not clearly stated) would cost $3000 during a woman's full stay at Georgetown. To do so, the monthly cost would have to be over $80 and the stay would have to be three years in length. Law school can be completed in two years and Planned Parenthood and others state that the pill runs "$15 to $50" per month. Just Google "contraceptive costs".


And here's something I came across today...

 http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/03/stunner-georgetown-coed-sandra-fluke-is-a-30-year-old-womens-rights-activist/


This last says she's 30 years old, not the 23 years old that had been reported. It also claims she's a women's rights activist and enrolled at Georgetown in order to create an issue regarding Georgetown's insurance coverage. I don't know if it is true but I wonder if we will ever know for sure.