Travails of Bourgeois Feminism

By Rod Dreher • February 29, 2012, 10:08 AM

Tina Korbe notes that a young woman of low morals and even lower dignity complained to Congress that she and her Hoya sistren are suffering terribly from a lack of subsidized contraception. Excerpt:

“Forty percent of the female students at Georgetown Law reported to us that they struggled financially as a result of this policy (Georgetown student insurance not covering contraception),” Fluke reported.

It costs a female student $3,000 to have protected sex over the course of her three-year stint in law school, according to her calculations.

“Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school,” Fluke told the hearing.

Korbe observes:

What Fluke is arguing, then, is that her fellow law students have a right to consequence-free sex whenever, wherever. Why, exactly, especially if it costs other people something? When I can’t pay for something, I do without it. Fortunately, in the case of contraception, women can make lifestyle choices that render it unnecessary.

At one point, Fluke mentions a friend who felt “embarrassed and powerless” when she learned her insurance didn’t cover contraception. Can you imagine how proud and empowered that same friend would be if she learned she has the ability to resist her own sexual urges? We can only assume she doesn’t know that because Fluke and she both labor under the illusion that contraception is a medical necessity.

Yeah you right, Tina Korbe. Is there anything more embarrassing than going whining to Congress — to Congress! — about the gross injustice of your Catholic university not subsidizing your extramarital sex life? Is this what bourgeois feminism has come to? The sense of entitlement here galls.

99 Responses to Travails of Bourgeois Feminism

← Older Comments

Icarusr says:

February 29, 2012 at 1:17 pm

“I demand that employers be forced to subsidize the sex life of their employees, and then give a cash refund to their homosexual employees, to compensate them for the fact that the benefit is of no value to them.”

This, and other comments such as this, as usual miss the point of, well, “insurance”.

Insurance is a system of pooling of risks. The fact that specific benefits might not have relevance to specific beneficiaries, does not in any way vitiate the relevance of that benefit to the general risk pool. As someone noted above, the general risk pool also include obese people, and smokers, and drinkers, and motorcyclists, and mountain climbers, and sex addicts, and couples who have children. I am not any of the above and thus in no way share the “risks” of these other lovely people. Some of them pay higher premiums; most don’t. It would be asinine of me, of course, to complain about hundreds of thousands of dollars being spent on organ transplants or major surgeries or related costs as a result of any of the high-risk people getting sick or needing medical attention. So, on the point of economics and basic operation of insurance schemes, the critics just don’t get it. In any event, we all have something to which we morally object – Viagara is my pet peeve – and that, surely, is not how insurance risk is determined and priced.

But economics is not all, and the issue is not just about economics. If anything, all economic arguments are a red herring in this instance. All the arguments about “whining harpy” or sluttiness of the witness or “why can’t they just get a condom” goes back to something far more basic: individual autonomy. What constitutes coverable basic health care – whether it is doctor’s visits or contraceptives or other matters – is a social decision, and not necessarily a medical one. That social decision is based on a number of factors, and the bodily integrity of women and their control over their own bodies is central among these.

You may disagree – most devout Catholics do – but that is really the essence of the question. And, really, it does boil down to what you think of the role of women in society, and how much control they should have over their own destinies.
Dave D. says:

February 29, 2012 at 1:18 pm

Brutus, agreed. At least the fundamentalist colleges are consistent, and require students to adhere to codes of conduct based on their faith. You may not like it, but you know what is expected of you when you are there.

But I doubt it, the Catholic church could never dare give up the prestige or temporal power that would involve.
JT says:

February 29, 2012 at 1:18 pm

Leviathan is pushmi-pullyu, there is no escape.

Oh, you can escape. You just have to do without the benefits doled out by the government.
JT says:

February 29, 2012 at 1:21 pm

I’d counter with “You should pay for my child care, if I have to pay for your chemically-induced sterility”

If your child suffers from any number of disabilities, there’s a good chance she will. I’d be interested whether people thought we ought pay for care of children with diseases diagnosed in utero and brought to term. Again, a choice.
Icarusr says:

February 29, 2012 at 1:22 pm

@Peterk: “Viagra and Cialis are covered by insurance because they do treat a medical condition – erectile dysfunction which can be caused by numerous conditions. BUT! it is not something men want to have.”

Right, because no man has ever used Viagara without being having ED; because no man ever wants to have four hours of continuous erection.

You people are just beyond the Pale in your ridicuouls justifications.

By the way, that condescending “comprende” was a nice touch. Really persuasive.
Dave D. says:

February 29, 2012 at 1:22 pm

Don, bjk:

Then they go out of business. I doubt they will though. But they wont be sued by the eeoc, plenty of religious schools and colleges exist fine under restrictions, because they actually are religious, dedicated to doctrine as well as education.

Otherwise it just makes a mockery of being Catholic. One of the most disillusioning experiences I had being a Christian was attending a Christian mainline college, and sleeping in the lounge because my roommate was sleeping with his girl. There’s strong reasons why what Brutus says is the right course, even if unpopular.
Polichinello says:

February 29, 2012 at 1:49 pm

In any event, we all have something to which we morally object – Viagara is my pet peeve – and that, surely, is not how insurance risk is determined and priced.

What exactly would be the moral objection to Viagra. I can see not wanting to mandate insurance payments for it (as well equivalent female hormonal treatments), but what would be the moral claim for the medicine itself.

Right, because no man has ever used Viagara without being having ED; because no man ever wants to have four hours of continuous erection.

Are you kidding here? Seriously, I really can’t tell. Assuming you’re not kidding, no man outside of the porn industry would want to walk around with a boner for four hours. I can’t think of another reason to use it if your machinery otherwise works.
Turmarion says:

February 29, 2012 at 1:49 pm

Edward Hamilton: You should pay for my child care, if I have to pay for your chemically-induced sterility

IIRC, France provide both.
Polichinello says:

February 29, 2012 at 1:51 pm

I’d be interested whether people thought we ought pay for care of children with diseases diagnosed in utero and brought to term.

That you even raise this question points out the truth of what Mark Steyn said: When we nationalize the health industry, we nationalize our bodies. This is only the beginning of these wonderful, edifying debates.
Erin Manning says:

February 29, 2012 at 1:53 pm

Catholic blogger Larry D at Acts of the Apostasy had what was, to me, the best line about this whole silly situation. After citing a blogger who ran the numbers and came up with the statistic that to need to pay this much for birth control Georgetown students had to be having sex on an average of 2.74 times per day, Larry writes:

“One thing is for certain – I won’t be seeking legal advice from any recently graduated Georgetown-educated lawyers. Ever. It appears the only thing they know about legal briefs are the ones they stripped off of a fellow student.”

Post is here:

http://actsoftheapostasy.wordpress.com/2012/02/29/georgetown-co-ed-tells-congress-were-going-broke-having-sex/

Given how expensive Georgetown’s tuition is, it’s amazing that the male students would refuse to buy their own condoms and that the female students would have to pay up in order to get laid. I wonder if these ladies have to pay for dinner, too…
Polichinello says:

February 29, 2012 at 1:55 pm

IIRC, France provide both.

And not just for Frenchmen, either. I hear they help pay for Greek children until they reach the age of sepulturation.
JT says:

February 29, 2012 at 1:57 pm

What exactly would be the moral objection to Viagra.

Presumably the same as the objection to birth control: why do you need it if you’re not married?
Elizabeth Anne says:

February 29, 2012 at 2:17 pm

” I can’t think of another reason to use it if your machinery otherwise works.”

…you’re clearly not a young man in modern America. It’s used recreationally.
Joanna says:

February 29, 2012 at 2:18 pm

PeterK,

You argument falls….short.

Pregnancy IS covered by insurance, as well as, labor, delivery, & postpartum care. And to become pregnant, in most cases, also involve choice. I ask you to recall the public outcry when insurance companies attempted to deny coverage 2nd postpartum day coverage to new families.

Some insurance even covers IVF.
Francis J. Beckwith says:

February 29, 2012 at 2:25 pm

Ms. Fluke believes that extra-marital sex and the use of contraception are morally benign. That is her right, and all right thinking people should support her right to believe this and engage in practices that she believes are consistent with these beliefs. But for some odd reason, she lacks the imagination to see that that the principle that grounds her right to believe these things applies to Georgetown University as well. GU, apparently, maintains that extra-marital sex and the use of contraception are not only not morally benign, but gravelly immoral. Ms. Fluke disagrees. And, again, that is her right. But on a matter like this–on which reasonable people in differing moral and theological traditions disagree–we should extend and expect mutual respect. Just as I don’t and shouldn’t expect Baylor University–my employer and a Baptist institution–to set aside a place on campus so that I can attend Catholic Mass celebrated by a Catholic priest, Mr. Fluke should not expect Georgetown University to violate its moral principles to accommodate her needs. In fact, the thought that I would expect Baylor to accommodate my desire for Mass attendance is so embarrassing to entertain that it pains me to even offer it as an example. For it would on my part show a level of arrogance and narcissism that would reveal a deep disrespect of the theological tradition that my employer embraces. This is why I am a mystified that Ms. Fluke can offer her testimony without a hint of embarrassment.
Polichinello says:

February 29, 2012 at 2:27 pm

…you’re clearly not a young man in modern America. It’s used recreationally.

So it’s being abused by a subset of jack offs, making it irrelevant to the argument.

Presumably the same as the objection to birth control: why do you need it if you’re not married?

The “married” qualification was not included.

Personally, I don’t object to birth control, BTW, FYI, and TMI.
Polichinello says:

February 29, 2012 at 2:30 pm

I ask you to recall the public outcry when insurance companies attempted to deny coverage 2nd postpartum day coverage to new families.

Been there, done that, the insurance companies were right. The second day was an absolute waste of time and money.
Polichinello says:

February 29, 2012 at 2:32 pm

Pregnancy IS covered by insurance, as well as, labor, delivery, & postpartum care. And to become pregnant, in most cases, also involve choice.

If only there was a way to buy a policy that covers your pills, while we’d buy one that covers our pregnancies. But, that wouldn’t allow you to meddle in our lives, so, can’t have that.
Polichinello says:

February 29, 2012 at 2:34 pm

But for some odd reason, she lacks the imagination to see that that the principle that grounds her right to believe these things applies to Georgetown University as well.

No, she lacks the motivation.
James says:

February 29, 2012 at 2:59 pm

Her testimony before Congress sounded like a script from The Onion. It baffles me that that it isn’t.
Elizabeth Anne says:

February 29, 2012 at 3:02 pm

” The second day was an absolute waste of time and money.”

Speak for yourself, man. I still couldn’t walk at that point.
James says:

February 29, 2012 at 3:05 pm

“Birth control pills should be available over the counter, in which case prices would be lower and no insurance would need to cover them.”

Actually, there are very good reasons they are not. They have for more effects than many people realize, especially for some individuals. People forget that these pills are messing heavily and seriously with hormones, etc. It’s not Advil.
J says:

February 29, 2012 at 3:24 pm

Mr. Fluke should not expect Georgetown University to violate its moral principles

You assume conviction or obedience where there may be none.
Polichinello says:

February 29, 2012 at 3:38 pm

Speak for yourself, man. I still couldn’t walk at that point.

Serves you right for not using the pill, or getting an abortion.
Polichinello says:

February 29, 2012 at 3:42 pm

From the Weekly Standard (H/T AOSHQ):
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/dc-target-sells-birth-control-9-month-georgetown-student-tells-congress-friends-are-going-broke-pay-pills_632955.html

“But Fluke’s testimony was very misleading. Birth control pills can be purchased for as low as $9 per month at a pharmacy near Georgetown’s campus. According to an employee at the pharmacy in Washington, D.C.’s Target store, the pharmacy sells birth control pills–the generic versions of Ortho Tri-Cyclen and Ortho-Cyclen–for $9 per month. “That’s the price without insurance,” the Target employee said. Nine dollars is less than the price of two beers at a Georgetown bar.

It strains credulity to believe that a single Georgetown student can’t afford $9 per month for birth control. But this is the justification the mandate’s supporters give for forcing religious institutions to purchase insurance that violates their religious and moral convictions.”
Rod Dreher says:

February 29, 2012 at 3:48 pm

This just in: Snooki reportedly knocked up. If only the Pope and Rick Santorum had given the poor thing cash for condoms, this wouldn’t have happened!
cecelia says:

February 29, 2012 at 4:07 pm

geez – I think insurance should cover contraception – after all – you know even Catholics can use contraception when pregnancy endangers their health. But this woman is pathetic – not to mention lacking in basic ability to think logically. $3,000 over three years – wonder how much she spends on Starbucks or her text messaging bill in three years? Give me a break – what is worse is they actually listened to this twit at a Congressional hearing.
Lord Karth says:

February 29, 2012 at 4:32 pm

Re: “Snooki” being knocked up:

Some things you simply cannot make up. Or would want to.

Your servant,

Lord Karth
Hector_St_Clare says:

February 29, 2012 at 4:34 pm

Gee, I don’t suppose it occurred to Ms. Fluke that she could have gone to a cheaper, less prestigious (but still very good) public law school, paid less money in tuition, and had the university give her free birth control to her heart’s content. I don’t agree with the Roman Catholic view on birth-control pills, but it’s not a self-evidently silly or evil view, and they have the right to hold it and act in accordance with it. It’s a private, religious institution, after all. There are no shortages of other good universities out there that would be happy to provide Ms. Fluke with her birth control pills.

Honestly, this is entitlement run amock. No one has a right to attend a prestigious, private, Catholic university, and if you do choose to go there, then you need to play by there rules.
Hector_St_Clare says:

February 29, 2012 at 4:35 pm

I’d like to fully agree with Cecelia and Francis Beckwith here.
Hector_St_Clare says:

February 29, 2012 at 4:41 pm

Re: What exactly would be the moral objection to Viagra.

Um, I think there are legitimate arguments to be made against Viagra, on moral grounds, same way as there are for the Pill. E.g. “if nature/your body are telling you you’re too old/infirm for sexual pleasure, then you ought to be obedient and not try to artificially prolong your sexually active years’, etc. I don’t subscribe to that argument, but that’s because I take a weaker view of natural law, and of the ability to discern purpose in nature, than conservative Catholics do, and thus I don’t object to the Pill either. Personally, I don’t see any reason for saying ‘Viagre is OK, but the Pill is not’. But in the last analysis, none of that matters. Georgetown isn’t under any obligation to ‘make sense’ to me, or anyone else. They have the obligation to be faithful to their conscience, and to their religious authorities, and that’s about it.

What a boring society we would live in if everyone thought exactly the same way.
dcs says:

February 29, 2012 at 4:59 pm

you know even Catholics can use contraception when pregnancy endangers their health

Do you mean “can” use it or “may” use it? They can, in the sense of being able to, because we live in a morally depraved society, but they may not (but of course that’s not unique to Catholics).
Another Matt says:

February 29, 2012 at 5:43 pm

Georgetown isn’t under any obligation to ‘make sense’ to me, or anyone else. They have the obligation to be faithful to their conscience, and to their religious authorities, and that’s about it.

Is “Georgetown” the kind of thing that can have a conscience? I can see it having policies and bylaws, but “conscience” goes a little bit too far.
Maggie says:

February 29, 2012 at 6:25 pm

@lcarusr

“The US government does not pay; the insurance companies go. And they went along with the mandate because it actually makes business sense for them: pregnancies and abortions, both medical procedures, are far more expensive, and so for insurance companies, contraceptives are preventive medicine.”

The mandate is coming from the government, and that was what I was referring to. I find it odd that the government felt compelled to mandate what apparently is in the economic best interest of insurance companies, which leaves me somewhat suspicious of the claim that BC magically lowers premiums.

“Well, yes. But rape laws have been strengthened, at the insistence of liberals and feminists and much to the chagrin and against the strong opposition of conservatives. There is no contradiction whatever between the “mantra” and the mandate: both emanate from the Englightenment principle of individual empowerment: first, man as against Church; then man as against State; woman as against Patriarchy; black as against Racism; sexual minorities as against identity oppression. The role of society is to serve as the protector of the individual claim to self-hood; in the sexual realm, as Santorum would put it, this is done by keeping society out of the bedroom as to what may be done, and empowering women as to when they get pregnant.”

Except that in order to do so you are disempowering those who would prefer not to subsidize what people do in the privacy of their bedrooms. The quarrel here isn’t at all about what anyone has the right to do in their bedrooms. It’s about why all of a sudden someone other than the people in the bedroom should be footing the bill. But that doesn’t even come close to the entitled whininess of Ms. Fluke, who thinks we’d be crushing her “right” to attend the elite law school of her choice AND have “free” contraception if we suggested that if “free” contraception is so important to her she might consider chosing to attend school at an institution that would be happy to provide it to her.
Andrea says:

February 29, 2012 at 8:02 pm

I don’t think there’s any good reason for any Catholic affiliated institution not to pay for birth control that is prescribed for polycystic ovarian syndrome. Apparently they have denied coverage even when there’s a good medical reason for it.
JonF says:

February 29, 2012 at 8:49 pm

Re: “if nature/your body are telling you you’re too old/infirm for sexual pleasure, then you ought to be obedient and not try to artificially prolong your sexually active years’,

By that logic would there be any medical treatment that would be licit? After all, we are manipulating nature from its preferred course by use of medical technology. There was at least one Pope who pronounced against smallpox vaccination on that basis.

Re: They have for more effects than many people realize, especially for some individuals. People forget that these pills are messing heavily and seriously with hormones, etc. It’s not Advil.

Advil (not to mention aspirin) can have dangerous side effects when misused too. To what extent do we want people to be saved from their own stupidity by the nanny state at greater cost to everyone? I tend to think we ought to make a good many drugs OTC for adults– though literally, over the counter, as in with required consultation by a pharmacist. Many things not of course: powerful drugs for things like cancer, HIV etc. Antibiotics (which are overused even with prescription) and of course narcotics. And there are many drugs that ought not require a new Rx once a patient has shown that they will use them responsibly. Why should I have to incur 80$+ for an office visit just to renew my asthma inhaler and Advair?
JonF says:

February 29, 2012 at 8:52 pm

Re: I’m old enough to remember when most medical insurance plans did not cover prescriptions of any kind, let alone contraception. It really was not much of a hardship

Um, these days it would be a disaster as there are drugs which cost hundreds, even thousands of dollars a month. The times you are thinking of there were only a handful of effective drugs on the market. Like it or not, as our technology becomes more and more complex, it also becomes more and more expensive.
P J says:

February 29, 2012 at 11:01 pm

I have to agree with some others above that the obvious end solution to all this is that the Catholic schools stop accepting anyone who applies and redo admission and hiring standards. My sense is they won’t do that though. Maybe a few will and we will end up with a two-tier Catholic education system.

I remember the first wave of battles over contraception availability at Catholic colleges back in the day and was involved in fighting it. It really took off around the time Magic Johnson said he had HIV. Thing was, I was there as one of the few Protestants at a Jesuit school amazed that the Catholic leaders just sat on their butts and let others fight their battles for them. Back then the leftist rage was “you must make condoms and the pill available at the student health center and pay for it by raising student fees.” There were a bunch of us students fighting it because there was no way in hell we wanted to have to pay for other peoples’ sex habits when we were working our way through college on Pell grants, work study programs, and Stafford loans. But I remember it was largely us non-Catholics leading the fight. The Catholic hierarchy could’ve just shut the whole thing down by saying “No we won’t allow that.” But they kept completely silent in the hopes that students would defeat other students and they wouldn’t have to tick anyone off in the process. It worked for them. We shot down the proposals in the student senate and the church ended up not having to a raise a finger. But little seems to have changed. The Catholic Church has allowed these mandates to pass in many states without raising much of a fuss as far as I can see until it reached the national level.
Siarlys Jenkins says:

February 29, 2012 at 11:02 pm

“I’d be interested whether people thought we ought pay for care of children with diseases diagnosed in utero and brought to term. Again, a choice.”

Now that is one I’ve given some thought to. After all, I’m pro-choice, and I definitely consider evidence of severe genetic damage in utero to be a valid reason to choose to abort and start over. Yes, I do think of it as starting over, not as killing a baby. Some disagree of course, but that is quite frankly how I look at it, and, in my seldom humble opinion, it is the most accurate way of describing what it materially going on.

So, the question is implied, should society have the option to notify a pregnant couple that if they choose to carry a fetus with severe genetic damage to term, they are on their own, public funds will NOT be available to subsidize their decision?

Well, no. There is a certain logic to that, but the fundamental issue to me is that the pregnant woman concerned makes the final call, and the first person who is entitled to offer her an opinion is the man responsible for the pregnancy, particularly if he is married to her. Note, I said offer her an opinion.

A man who WANTS her to abort has no more right to make the FINAL decision than a man who insists that she should not. She is the one who will have to live with whatever depression, regret, physical symptoms, may result from abortion, and those are certainly a reasonable possibility — just as she is the one who will have to endure the morning sickness, the pain of delivery, etc.

Parents who choose to carry a pregnancy with severe genetic damage to term will pay plenty of prices for their decision. Its not free. They may or may not qualify for public assistance, but in some manner, probably will receive some. I’m willing to accept that we are all going to pay a little for the parents’ choice, because the right of the woman concerned to make the decision is indeed paramount, and I don’t want to quibble over a little money. We all help with those who make it into the world without advance diagnosis. Leave the pro-life families to make their intimate private decision according to their conscience.
Hector_St_Clare says:

March 1, 2012 at 12:54 am

Re: By that logic would there be any medical treatment that would be licit? After all, we are manipulating nature from its preferred course by use of medical technology. There was at least one Pope who pronounced against smallpox vaccination on that basis.

Like I said, I don’t agree with the Viagra argument. I think it’s as logical as the argument against the Pill, though (which is to say, it’s not silly, and it has a sort of logic of its own).

I think someone making the argument againt the Pill and/or Viagra would probably say that smallpox vaccinations are correcting nature gone wrong, they’re not facilitating the seeking out of a pleasure to which we are not ‘naturally’ entitled, or something like that.
Hector_St_Clare says:

March 1, 2012 at 12:56 am

Smallpox vaccination, of course, is stimulating the body’s own immune system to promote resistance to future infection, so it would be a good example of a medical intervention that’s anything but unnatural. Arguably, of course, so is the pill (since it mimics natural hormonal cycles), but thats a separate argument for another time.
William Dalton says:

March 1, 2012 at 2:44 am

Unlike Ms. Fluke, I went through three years of law school without need of birth control. I hope she realizes the injustice done to many of her brethren because their school’s health policies don’t cover treatment by “sex therapists”.

By the way, for those who bring up the ‘viagra” question – as I understand the nature of the drug, it is used to improve the experience of BOTH partners in a sexual relationship. Where is the gender inequity in that?
Stephen says:

March 1, 2012 at 2:53 pm

The pill is on the Walmart list but for $9.00 a month.

http://i.walmart.com/i/if/hmp/fusion/genericdruglist.pdf
John B says:

March 1, 2012 at 2:53 pm

Jacques Barzun, in his great “From Dawn to Decadence”, says it all: in the 1920s “copulation became a human right.” Everything else follows.
Megan says:

March 1, 2012 at 7:21 pm

I believe Rush Limbaugh has recently contributed some poignant commentary on this issue.
Mac S. says:

March 1, 2012 at 8:25 pm

” The second day was an absolute waste of time and money.”

Unbelievable.
Siarlys Jenkins says:

March 1, 2012 at 9:59 pm

Mac S. is this some new revelation of what God said after dividing the waters from the dry land?

Oh, I didn’t think so, but your choice of words had a ring to it.
Stef says:

March 2, 2012 at 8:39 pm

When you take federal funds (including Pell grants), and when you have a federal tax exemption, your so-called religious freedom goes out the door.
Siarlys Jenkins says:

March 4, 2012 at 5:13 pm

Stef, the application of religious freedom is a little more complicated than that, no matter how much agnostic liberals tend to think you are right.

First, the constitution does not speak of “religious freedom,” it says “Congress shall make no law respecting the Establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

Conditions placed on acceptance of Pell grants may not Establish a religion, nor prohibit the free exercise thereof. For instance, a college may not be required, as a condition of receiving the money, to hold Episcopalian services or to cease holding Jewish services. A college might well be required to admit students without regard to what the student’s religious beliefs are, or to cease mandating that students attend religious services.

A private college that accepts NO federal funds could darn well hold religious services, specify what faith’s services those will be, and require all students to attend. But no student could be required to go there.

Frankly, I favor repeal of all laws regarding tax exemptions for non-profit organizations. Let every cause raise money because the donor finds it worth while, not out of expectation of a tax deduction. That will get the IRS out of the business of vetting what causes are and are not worthy of tax deductions.