The Freedom Bulletin

After the Obama love-fest that overtook much of the Internet and the general public this past week after he announced his support for gay marriage, I figured I would be remiss if I did not at least give it a mention on the Freedom Bulletin.

Obama’s endorsement wasn’t exactly surprising, especially after Vice President Biden kind of spilled the beans by saying he was “comfortable” with the idea of gay marriage.

And, despite all the gushing about how courageous Obama is, in my opinion, it wasn’t any more courageous of him to support gay marriage than not to support it. Yes, Obama took a political risk, but he would also have been taking a risk by sticking to his previous position of only supporting civil unions. Most of Obama’s base supports gay marriage, and he decided to gamble that energizing his base would outweigh any objections from his religious supporters and more conservative Democrats. If you look at the myriad polls that have been done, it seems like the American people are, overall, divided pretty evenly on gay marriage, so it’s not as if Obama went out on a limb and took an unpopular position for the principle of it.

Unlike what many newspaper columnists, activists, and online commentators seem to think, gay marriage does not equal “marriage equality” or “equal rights.” As long as our society treats it as better to be in a couple relationship than to be single, there will not be true equality. As I explained before, the government should get out of the business of marriage altogether and allow people and religious institutions to categorize relationships as they see fit. The only way to truly have equality and justice is for the law to treat people equally, regardless of their romantic relationship status. For a politician to stand up for single people, now that would be courageous.

Dan Savage, the creator of the “It Gets Better” project to combat anti-gay bullying, is now himself being accused of bullying.

During a speech to high school journalists, Savage ranted against various kinds of alleged “bull**** in the Bible.” These comments caused about 20 students to calmly and quietly leave the auditorium. Then, Savage said, ”It’s funny, as someone who is the receiving end of beatings that are justified by the Bible, how pansy-a$$ed some people react when you push back.”

I agree that by making these comments, Savage acted as a bully. A lot of attention has been given to the bullying that gay teens face, and that’s a good thing. But people shouldn’t forget about all the other victims of bullying. Religious people are often bullied for their beliefs, as are teens who, either for religious reasons or otherwise, choose not to date, wear “sexy” clothing, swear, or drink, for example. In my experience growing up in liberal, gay-marriage-supporting Massachusetts, this is actually more common than anti-gay bullying.

It’s also interesting that this article about Savage’s speech shows him wearing a t-shirt that reads, “Google Santorum.” Arguably, it was bullying for someone who disagreed with the former senator’s political and religious views to turn his name into a disgusting term. It is also arguably bullying to encourage and promote this kind of ridicule as Savage did.

And worse, Savage once said on the Bill Maher show, “I wish Republicans were all f***ing dead.” (Thanks to Say Anything, via The Humble Libertarian, for this example.)

How about being civil to people you disagree with, instead of ridiculing them (or wishing for them to be dead)? Just as no one should condemn gay people for being who they are, gay-rights supporters should not condemn Christians or Republicans for being who they are.

In our society, psychologists, psychiatrists, and other self-proclaimed experts have been labeling an increasing number of things as “addictions.” For example, people who spend a lot of time online are often diagnosed with “Internet addiction,” and people who eat a lot of sweets are accused of having a “food addiction.” And whenever a famous person ends up in a sex scandal, self-proclaimed experts will inevitably pontificate about how this person “suffers” from “sex addiction.”

This is what happened to John Edwards, Tiger Woods, Anthony Weiner, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, and more recently, former Massachusetts gubernatorial candidate Christy Mihos. Mihos’s wife accused him of domestic violence and of being “addicted to hiring prostitutes, strippers, and porn stars for sex.” In the aftermath he issued a statement saying, “Andrea and I have been married for almost 38 years and I cherish the perfect wife she has always been…I am now seeking the proper course of treatment to make myself a better husband, father and person.” In addition to being a terribly sad end to the career of a quirky, independent-minded candidate, it is sad that Mihos has succumbed to the majority view that his sex life makes him “sick” and in need of “treatment.”

As David Ley points out in an excellent piece in the New York Post, to label someone’s actions as an addiction denies their individual responsibility and unjustly absolves them of blame if they have done something wrong. Even more harmfully, it classifies actions as bad when there is nothing wrong with them at all.

It might be true that food, sex, and surfing the net increase dopamine activity in the brain, which drugs like cocaine, meth, and heroin also do. But this is true of all pleasurable things. What makes drugs addictive is that they act by physically affecting the body, and there are physical consequences to using them or ceasing to use them. According to the logic of the mental health police, people should avoid doing anything that they find pleasurable; in other words that we should deliberately be unhappy and have a bad quality of life. This is not only wrong, but defeats the purpose of life.

Why do some people feel that they have a right to describe others’ preferences and actions as an “illness”? Why do they feel the need to attribute other people’s actions to some brain defect or trauma? It’s bad enough to condemn and look down on the way another person lives their life, but it’s even worse to treat them as if they are sick and need treatment. Instead of looking at others as equals, with whom they might disagree, people who think this way deny the personhood and rationality of others. This is the ultimate in arrogance and disrespect.

This attitude is embodied by Dr. Drew Pinsky of reality TV fame, who actually said in an interview, “It’s foolish that we don’t help people more. There’re a million pathologies that are excused under, ‘hey, whatever you’re into.’” In other words, he thinks that our society has too much freedom, and not enough telling people who differ from the norm that their preferences and lifestyles are unhealthy and defective. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Far too many people today, especially in the fields of psychology and psychiatry, believe that everyone should conform to an arbitrary standard and that any preference, desire, life decision, or character trait that differs from the average is an “illness” that requires “treatment.” This belief is the greatest assault on individual liberty in the world. Our society pays a lot of lip service to diversity, especially in the areas of race, religion, and sexual orientation. But in order to truly support diversity, society must accept all ways of living, as long as they do not involve trampling on the rights of others.

Some people have sex a lot, some people don’t have sex at all, and most people are somewhere in between. The same goes for eating, gambling, web browsing, video games, and any activity a person might choose to do. People have all different preferences and choose to spend their time in different ways. That is not something to be “treated,” but something to be celebrated.

As almost everyone in the world knows, Rush Limbaugh made some controversial comments about Sandra Fluke, a Georgetown law student who testified at a congressional hearing in support of requiring all health insurance plans to cover birth control pills for free.

Limbaugh said:

“What does it say about the college coed Susan Fluke [sic], who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex? What does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She’s having so much sex she can’t afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex.”

And later he said,

“So Miss Fluke, and the rest of you Feminazis, here’s the deal. If we are going to pay for your contraceptives, and thus pay for you to have sex, we want something for it. We want you to post the videos online so we can all watch.”

After almost all of the world erupted in rage at him, Limbaugh apologized.

Here’s my take: Yes, Rush made some bad word choices. It was somewhat mean to call Fluke a slut, not a perfect analogy to call her a prostitute, pointless to use the word “Feminazi,” and nonsensical to call for sex videos to be posted online. But he made a good point, which has been almost entirely overlooked: that indeed, to pay for someone’s birth control pills is to pay for them to have sex. Birth control pills are not essential, because they are only useful to people who have sex, and one can always make the choice not to have sex.*

The truth is, Limbaugh is right on this issue, and Fluke is wrong. Fluke and other proponents of free birth control are winning the public opinion war by making it seem like they are arguing for basic rights, and their opponents are trying to take these rights away. For example, Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) said, ”The right to space and time our children for our own health and the ability to manage our lives — this is a basic right, and they’re going after it.”

In actuality, Fluke and her allies are arguing a very aggressive position, one that violates the freedom of others. These people are outraged at the fact that there is some opposition to forcing all people to purchase health insurance that covers a discretionary product (birth control pills) preferentially to medically necessary products. Fluke does not just demand that she have access to birth control, or that she be able to make her own decisions about her life or her body. She does not even demand that health insurance plans cover birth control just as they would any other health service. Instead, she demands that all health insurance plans be required to cover birth control with no co-pays, co-insurance, deductibles, or cost-sharing measures of any kind; in other words preferentially to chemotherapy, antibiotics, heart surgery, casts for broken bones, and all other health services that actually treat a medical problem.

In other words, she demands that I be required to pay for a health insurance plan that does not work for me and that I cannot afford because it covers discretionary products that I will never use. Unwilling to make any sacrifices in her budget to accommodate her desire to be sexually active, she demands that I make sacrifices in my budget to accommodate her desire to be sexually active. Anyone who falls short of supporting this extreme position, advocating, for example, something as modest as allowing companies to charge a $10 co-pay for birth control pills as would be required for any other medication, is characterized as a misogynist who wants to control women’s bodies and lives. This is ridiculous. I am not trying to control anyone’s body or anyone’s life; I am simply trying to control my own money.

In summary, Fluke is advocating injustice, unfairness, and outright aggression against every American by advocating that we all be required to pay for something that we do not necessarily want and will not necessarily ever use. Maybe Fluke shouldn’t have been called a slut. But that doesn’t change the fact that on this issue, she is completely, utterly wrong.

Here are a few more random points that, in my opinion, people haven’t been paying enough attention to in the birth control debate:

1. Fluke complained that birth control can cost someone $3,000 over the course of law school, or $1,000 a year. Apparently she mentions this because she thinks it’s a huge burden, but this is not an unmanageable price, especially if you consider that according to some sources, the price is actually as low as $9 per month. Unlike some medications that give people with cancer their only chance at life, birth control is reasonably priced even without insurance.
2. Birth control is not a women’s issue. It really, really annoys me that commentators unanimously, casually, and without thought, refer to this as a “women’s issue.” It is not. Sex and reproduction (and sex without reproduction) have to do with both genders equally. People of both genders have an interest in being able to have sex without making a baby, and men do not want to become parents against their will any more than women do. It is demeaning to women to suggest that somehow they should be more associated with reproduction than men are.
3. Why is there such an outrage about co-pays for birth control pills, but no outrage about co-pays for any other medication? For example, my dad, who takes statins for his cholesterol, wondered why no one is marching on Washington to demand free statins. Unlike birth control pills, statins are actually needed to treat a medical condition.

One of the only sensible articles I have seen about this issue is this one by Cathy Cleaver Ruse of the Family Research Council. I highly recommend it.

* Yes, birth control pills are sometimes used to treat medical conditions, and in these cases, they should be treated the same as any other medically necessary product or service. In this blog post, whenever I refer to birth control pills, I am referring to those used for birth control purposes.

I am glad that Virginia governor Bob McDonnell decided not to support a bill that would require all women to undergo ultrasounds in order to get an abortion, which would de facto require them to have a probe inserted into their private parts. (A typical ultrasound, involving a wand on your belly, would not work early in a pregnancy.) McDonnell said, “No person should be directed to undergo an invasive procedure by the state, without their consent, as a precondition to another medical procedure.” I agree with him completely. But it seems that he withdrew his support for the law not because he personally opposes it but because his advisors told him that it could violate the Fourth Amendment.

This raises an interesting point, and I agree that this requirement violates the Fourth Amendment. An ultrasound is, in a way, a search of a person’s body, and in this case an extremely invasive one, which people would be forced to undergo as a condition of exercising their right to abortion. I agree with a Boston Globe editorial stating that this law “would physically violate women,” as well as with people who have called it “state-sponsored rape” and who have said it would “force doctors to rape their patients”

Many people have the principled stance of opposing abortion and wanting to outlaw it, and although I do not agree with them, I respect their opinion. But to require an ultrasound at all, and especially to call this requirement a “women’s right to-know-bill,” is paternalistic and degrading. No bill is needed to ensure that people have the right to know the status of their fetus before having an abortion; I am sure that in this culture of excessive medical tests and procedures, most doctors would agree to do an ultrasound if asked. Requiring people to know something is far different from allowing them to know, and it is insulting to people’s rationality to assume that they cannot know what fetuses look like and that they have a heartbeat without personally seeing and hearing this. As Virginia democratic chair Brian Moran said, even if a law does not require a physically invasive ultrasound, it still ”forces an unnecessary medical procedure on Virginia women whether their doctors think they need it or not.” (As a side note, although I agree with his general point, I would add that it shouldn’t even be up to doctors what medical procedures someone needs; it should be up to the individual.)

To require a physically invasive procedure adds to what is already a bad idea. In addition to the fact that people who support liberty should be vehemently opposed to anyone being required to undergo a medical procedure, one would think that social conservatives, who are supposed to support modesty and the dignity of all people, would, if anything, want to discourage people from having their private parts examined and probed.

During debate on the bill, Virginia state senator Janet Howell proposed an amendment stating, ”Prior to prescribing medication for erectile dysfunction, a physician shall perform a digital rectal examination and a cardiac stress test.” I guess she was trying to prove a point, but I have to object any attempt to pass such an amendment, even if meant as satire. Requiring people, as a condition of anything, to undergo an invasive procedure involving the most private parts of the body, is horrible regardless of gender.

It is wrong whenever any government, organization, or person interferes with a person’s right to make their own decisions about their lives or their bodies. But it is especially horrific when a violation of someone’s liberty also involves taking away their innocence, integrity, or dignity. That is exactly what the transvaginal ultrasound requirement would do. It is also what the TSA does through its virtual strip searches and pat-downs, which Governor McDonnell (correctly) called ”probably over the line with regard to people’s concerns about privacy and their civil liberties.” It is what law enforcement does by forcing defendants to undergo strip searches and even more invasive searches when they have not been proven guilty of any wrongdoing. And it is also what doctors do when they require patients to undergo similarly invasive exams as a condition of any medication or treatment.

I am glad that so many people were outraged by the invasive ultrasound requirement. There should be just as much outrage at all violations of people’s liberty and dignity.

Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) wrote a letter urging Defense Secretary Leon Panetta to allow women to serve in all roles of the U.S. military, including infantry, armor, special operations, and other combat units. The Pentagon recently adopted new rules which expand women’s opportunities to include jobs such as tank and artillery mechanics and rocket launcher crew members, but the most dangerous jobs are still off-limits.

“I believe women should be able to serve in front line positions if they desire,” Brown wrote. “We should not waste time endlessly studying this issue and getting bogged down in bureaucratic red tape.”

Thank you, Sen. Brown, for supporting gender equality.

…and more about why birth control pills should not be free.

In the controversy about whether people who do not use birth control pills should be forced to pay for them, Republicans have generally been on the right side.

But, as Alex Koppelman at Slate points out, they are generally on the wrong side for supporting a Virginia law that would require women to undergo an ultrasound before being allowed to have an abortion. What makes this law particularly bad is that, “in many cases (most, in fact) that would mean having what’s called a ‘transvaginal ultrasound,’ in which a probe is inserted into a pregnant woman’s vagina to get the necessary image.” I believe that each person has the right to have an abortion either with or without looking at an image of the unborn baby. But for everyone who has an abortion to be forced to undergo such a degrading procedure is even worse. No one who believes in human dignity should support such a requirement which, in Koppelman’s words, ”clearly violates that woman’s liberty, not to mention her person.”

It would be a great thing for the Republican Party if they strove to become the party of liberty, not just on certain issues but on all issues.

It is right of them to view the debate about insurance coverage of birth control pills in terms of religious liberty, not in terms of medical and reproductive choice. After all, contrary to what the majority of people seem to think, no one is debating about whether people should have access to contraception. The debate is about whether people who use birth control pills should have to pick up some or all of the cost (either by actually paying the full cost or merely paying a co-pay or co-insurance), or whether they should be free, in which case the cost is evenly distributed among all of the people who purchase health insurance (which, since the Affordable Care Act requires essentially all people to purchase health insurance, equals essentially all people).

In this sense, and as many people of both parties fail to notice, the controversy is just as much an economic one as it is a “culture war.” Whether something should be paid for collectively or by the people who use it is an important issue to discuss. It is currently being discussed, for example, at hearings held by the MBTA to get the public’s input about whether the public transportation system’s budget woes should be solved by fare increases, service cuts, advertising revenue, tax increases, and/or cutbacks in other areas of the state budget.

For some reason, when a budget debate involves anything related to sex, instead of just public transportation, liberals try to frame the issue in terms of men oppressing women. Contraception is an issue that applies to both genders equally, and I object to it being treated as a women’s issue. It is women and not men who physically take birth control pills, but there are other methods of contraception, like vasectomies for example, that men physically do, and in any case, the ability to have sex without having a baby is equally important to men and women. It would really surprise me if, as has been implied, men would prefer a world with no birth control, where they would be unable to have sex without worrying about becoming a father against their will.

Additionally, I have personally encountered people who say that they are outraged and furious at the few politicians who dare to oppose the requirement that birth control pills be covered for free. This makes no sense. Unfortunately, on this particular issue, the liberal side is winning. With the Obama administration’s new policy, we went from a nation where insurance companies can choose whether or not to cover birth control pills, to one where they will be forced to cover them. Not only will birth control pills be covered, but they will be covered with no co-pay, something that cannot be said of medications that actually treat medical conditions, such as antibiotics, high blood pressure pills, asthma medications, or chemotherapy. This is, to say the least, a move in the direction that liberals would want. But as (most, but not all) liberals apparently find horrific, there are some people who disagree with this shift in policy and – gasp! – have the audacity to express their views. If liberals act as if they are being oppressed and trampled on when they are winning, I would hate to see how they react when they actually lose a policy battle.

The Republican Party should fight back against this inaccurate, illogical rhetoric by standing up for liberty on all fronts, including freedom of religion, freedom to make your own medical decisions, freedom to live your personal life the way you wish, and, as is forgotten by many people in the birth control debate, freedom to keep your own money and spend it the way you wish.