I’ve already explained that the Obamacare contraception-coverage controversy is about economics and religious liberty, not birth control.
But now that the debate has been transformed by the remarks of a Georgetown student, this cartoon seems rather appropriate.
The bubble quotes in the cartoon do a good job of capturing the statist mentality. They want me to leave them alone (which I’m happy to do), but they won’t leave me alone.
So here’s a deal for Ms. Fluke and her fellow travelers. I’ll agree to you doing whatever you want behind closed doors (heck, you can even leave the doors open, as far as I’m concerned). But, in exchange, I want you to leave me alone, which means I don’t want to pay higher taxes OR higher insurance premiums to subsidize your birth control.
In a nutshell, this is the non-aggression principle that motivates libertarianism.
I’m quite disappointed, by the way, that the cartoon portrays the student in an unflattering light. This is the mistake Rush made (not for the first time), and it enables the left to deflect attention from the real issue of whether the government should be mandating subsidies.
[…] she had a right to third-party-financed birth control. That led to some clever jokes, including this cartoon, this cartoon, and this […]
[…] I thought some of the anti-Fluke humor was hard hitting, but both “hold my sippy cup” and “from my damp soft […]
[…] she had a right to third-party-financed birth control. That led to some clever jokes, including this cartoon and this […]
[…] programs, but also no involvement in underwear, college football, Major League Baseball, condoms, birth control, or the National Football […]
Why do you never mention Hauser’s Law? He makes it clear that no government ever gets more than 19% of GDP, no matter what tax scheme they use.
[…] you want to see previous examples of Fluke mockery, check out this great Reason video, this funny cartoon, and four more jokes […]
[…] you want to see previous examples of Fluke mockery, check out this great Reason video, this funny cartoon, and four more jokes […]
…. the Obamacare contraception-coverage controversy is about economics and religious liberty, not birth control ….
Why pick on its contraception-coverage? Obamacare – so-called government “health-care” – is everything about liberty. Depriving all Free Men of theirs, that is.
And nothing at all about any aspect of “health care.” Let alone about the facilitating of promiscuity by any other name. Including “birth control.”
[…] with some jokes at her expense. You can enjoy some laughs with this great Reason video, this funny cartoon, and four more […]
The difference between Republicans and Democrats is that the Republicans always close the bedroom curtains, even though they don’t need to, and the Democrats leave the bedroom curtains open, even though they should close them.
[…] Well, you can remember her ignoble role and enjoy some laughs with this great Reason video, this funny cartoon, and four more […]
[…] birth control, you can enjoy some laughs at Sandra Fluke with this great Reason video, this funny cartoon, and four more […]
Mary,
Why would the argument change one bit if it were not about birthcontrol for fun versus birth control for medical purposes?
You might admit it is wrong to force people to pay for your sexual giggles. Why is it also not wrong to force other people to pay for your health concerns? Please clarify what the moral difference is here.
Forcing people to pay for things whether they be unecessary or necessary is still wrong.
Thus, the discussion has not been skewed at all. It has been further clarified as an issue of morality, no matter what the ends are.
[…] Speaking of Sandra Fluke, you can enjoy some laughs with this great Reason video, this funny cartoon, and four more jokes […]
[…] of fame for demanding subsidized birth control. You can enjoy some of that humor by clicking here, here, and […]
[…] of fame for demanding subsidized birth control. You can enjoy some of that humor by clicking here, here, and […]
[…] Fluke issue. For more on that you can check out this great Reason video here, another funny cartoon here, and four more jokes […]
You have, not surprisingly, COMPLETELY skewed the discussion. It’s NOT about paying for birht control AS BIRTH CONTROL. It’s about paying for it AS A MEDICAL TREATMENT FOR ENDOMETRIOSIS, PCOS, and other menstrual problems. Hence this cartoon is COMPLETELY INAPPROPRIATE. Typical ignorance. How sad.
when i read your article and that cartoon a glimpse of so many things passed through my head. i used to think what wil happen if the ratio between birth and death doesnt keep a proportion? nowadays the number of births is 4 times that of the number of deaths. if things are going on like this where will people live? and how will people survive with this minimum resource?
[…] already posted some humor about Sandra Fluke and the Obama Administration’s contraception mandate, including this set of […]
[…] already posted some humor about Sandra Fluke and the Obama Administration’s contraception mandate, including this set […]
[…] Daniel Mitchell makes a good point on the Sandra Fluke issue. I’ll stay out of your bedroom if you stay out of my wallet. […]
To Judy McNamara,
Rush Limbaugh’s comments were coarse and objectionable. He could have made his point without the distractions of name calling. Sandra Fluke was not being a slut or prostitute, she was displaying her feelings of self-importance and entitlement. She wants other people to pay for her expenses. Birth control is related in some way to health, and so other people’s resources are in some way required to pay her.
Is your indignation heartfelt and based in the principle of civil discourse? I would like to believe this. Possibly you could link to your reactions to similarly coarse comments by liberal personalities Ed Schultz, Keith Olbermann, and Bill Maher. If you didn’t know about their remarks, possibly you will want to post your objections to them here and now, including your desire to boycott their shows.
It is never too late to object to insults against women, regardless if the source is a liberal or conservative personality.
Ms. McNamara, As an American, I am appalled by Ms. Fluke’s worldview, one that believes her morals should be forced us, and upon a private Catholic university, in direct violation of the First Amendment (notice that freedom of religion is listed FIRST, even before freedom of speech). Ms. Fluke is no mere “college student”, she is a liberal activist who was planted by the Democrat party for the express purpose of moving the discussion away from the unconstitutional mandate on a private organization to “women’s rights”. And you fell for it. She absolutely entered herself into the fray and deserves every bit of the sting that society gives her as a result. You should be embarrassed that you fell for the narrative. Instead, you are embarrassing yourself.
As a parent I was disgusted by Mr. Limbaugh’s comment about Miss Fluke. I am also appalled that you would use your daughter’s image in the cartoon portrayal above. It’s a parent job to protect our children from all varieties of slime that presently occupy our world. Many who call themselves conservatives espouse the thought that just because Miss Fluke “put herself out their” (in their words) she deserved the digusting barrage which soon followed as Rush tried to enrage his viewers with some more smear and vilification. Are you getting my point? ( I know its not your daughter) Following that same thought …by you posting a family picture with the hideous cartoon I was hoping you could reach deep down inside and try to find some empathy and think how you would feel if something similiar happened to your child. Possibly you could connect the dots of how it must have felt for a college student to be obliterated by a four times married, ex drug addict,self appointed king of the conservatives with apx 15 million views of his same ilk listening. As of today 29 sponsors have pulled out of the Rush Limbaugh show.Many of them Republicans, some Democrats however most “parents”.Mr. Limbaugh is pondscum who has just been kicked out of the pond by a little fluke.
[…] it’s also why I shared the cartoon yesterday about Ms. Fluke and the controversy over the birth control […]
Mr. Mitchell,
I am sending the following along in hopes that you could find a broader audience than I could reach. It seems to me the left is impervious to constitutional arguments. It is almost as if they have some sort of invisible force field around them; when a constitutional argument comes their way, it hits the force field and just bounces off. So, on the issue of the contraceptive mandate, I am providing a lesser argument, but perhaps one that could penetrate the force field. Please consider passing it along.
According to the left’s expert witness, 30-year-old law student Sandra Fluke, the cost of contraceptives is $1000 per year, and she wants that to be fully covered – at no cost to her – in the health insurance package offered by the university. Fine. Let’s walk through the economics of a decision to do that.
Does anyone have any doubt whether the insurance company will pick up the tab? No. It will not. It will pass the cost along to the university. Will the university eat the cost? No. It will not. It will pass that cost on to the students. So, every single student on the university’s health insurance plan, male or female, sexually active or not, will experience increased costs in order to meet Ms. Fluke’s birth control requirements.
But, make no mistake about it; there is no decision involved any more. This has already been decided. And there is no ability to “opt out”. The university cannot opt out, and the students cannot opt out.
– By order of the President of the United States
Isn’t that the way it has always been? People have a right to do what they want (as long as it is legal). I do agree that their rights end when they start to invade my rights (in this case the right to keep my money).
I really don’t care what Ms. Fluke does, but please don’t expect me to pay for your behavior, either directly or indirectly.
If the promiscuous Ms. Fluke wants me to pay for her birth control pills, then I get to regulate her use of them.
This goes beyond far religious liberty in the context of some government program, for as to argue religious liberty (which I contend the administration actually wants us to do) is to use “Obamacare” to codify liberty itself.
The true issue here, and always has been, is whether or not the government, any government, empowered by American citizens, has the authority to mandate the purchase of healthcare insurance. I believe the left has pushed for a single payer system from the beginning simply because they can justify it as just another program, such as medicare and social security. Without single payer, personal liberty (as viewed in the mind of a collectivist) rears its ugly head.
Dan, I hit on this very thing yesterday too. Unbelievable how our entitlement structure has promulgated such nonsense. At what point does it stop? Next will she be asking the insurance companies (read premium payers) to buy her dinner and a movie before sex?
“If you want to live in a world without judgmentalism, it also means living in a world without morality or decency.”
“If you think the most immoral thing someone can do is say, “That’s immoral,” you’re helping to ruin the world.”
“Once you start catering to people’s pathologies, it seldom ends well or at a reasonable point.”
—John Hawkins
I don’t have a problem at all with what Limbaugh said. Value judgements ARE a big part of this conversation. A good portion of the arguement is having the government require something that some have deep moral beliefs against. While it’s all well and good to have a libertairian attitude toward life, an ‘anything goes’ attitude only leds to the survival of the fittest and resulting loss of liberties to those that have power to control. There has to be lines in the sand. When we get to the point that we can’t call a spade a spade…
Liberal minds seem to operate on the principle that if some result is “one step removed”, then it doesn’t happen at all or can be ignored.
() I want my contraceptives covered by insurance. This only burdens the insurance companies. Where they get the money is one step removed.
() Borrowing money funds useful government spending. Paying back the loans is one step removed.
() Government spending immeditely produces jobs and prosperity. Taking taxes from people produces complicated effects, which can be ignored because they are one step removed.
Rush was pilloried for calling a lib-prog lady who engages in frequent premarital sex a “slut”.
Howard Stern calls every lady a “slut” and is ignored.
Apparantly misogeny is fine.
Truth in labeling is not because it is judgemental. And it acknowleges a behavior that the left is determined to legitimize.
May have to start listening to Rush.
[…] I'll Stay Out of Your Bedroom, Ms. Fluke, if You Stay Out of My Wallet … This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged cartoon, control, facebook, fellow, health, linkedin, political, student by admin. Bookmark the permalink. […]
Apparently I’m learning a lot from visiting this site! I’ve recently equated “stay out of my uterus” to “stay out of my wallet!” I firmly believe that no woman’s uterus is more sacred from government intrusion than is my billfold.
The irony of it is that since Ms. Fluck and her likes facilitate governmental involvement in personal decisions, they invite the government to take over the decision making process. If federal government controls much of the birth control market, a patent holder for a specific type of contraception can lobby on its behalf and push other products off the market.
It’s not in our interest to have our contraception mandated and paid for.
“I’m quite disappointed, by the way, that the cartoon portrays the student in an unflattering light.”
I quite agree. It detracts from the proper argument. (The cartoonist could make her hot and make the exact same point.)
Rush made the same mistake. Some people are already loathe to listen to anything coming out of his mouth. Now, they have another excuse not to listen to his ideas.
Dumb.
Further, I’m disappointed in his apology. He “apologizes for the word choices”? Well, why not the ideas behind the word choices? This should not be an argument about how much sex somebody has – the more the merrier, as far as I’m concerned. Nor should it contain any value judgement about whether you do or don’t, or with whom, or why. But, why should I pay for it?
Excellent blog. I agree wholeheartedly. Based upon Ms. Flukes bio, it appears that she is going to be part of the on-going problem plaguing our liberties and country. She creates nothing of value, causes chaos where balance exists and generally promotes a socialistic progressive platform which continues to erode our hard won liberties and the countries constitution. Happy to pay for her one way ticket out of the country!