Rush Limbaugh, Choices and Consequences

As of the writing of this column broadcaster Rush Limbaugh is still on the air but losing sponsors because of inappropriate comments that he made concerning Georgetown University law student, Sandra Fluke. As many of you know Rush called Ms. Fluke a word that I will not use in this column. The word is a demeaning reference to one’s morals and conduct.

There was controversy involving Ms. Fluke’s testimony in front of a congressional committee concerning requirements in the new health care law that insurance plans must pay for contraception. This issue is related to the recent controversy of requiring religious institutions to provide such contraception as a part of their employee health coverage even though the religious institution might be morally opposed to contraception.

Ms. Fluke felt that including the cost of contraception in insurance should be a requirement for all, but Rush felt differently. The result was Rush questioning Ms. Fluke’s morals on the air and uttering the demeaning phrase.

Needless to say Rush was in the wrong. The confines of civility and good taste dictate that Rush keep his language in check. Even if Rush’s description were accurate it is not proper and civil language for one to use about another.

Many have pointed out that equally demeaning comments have been made concerning Sarah Palin by comedian Bill Maher with little public condemnation. Indeed there does seem to be a double standard in the main stream media and in our political discourse concerning who can say what about whom.

Even so, this does not excuse the behavior of Rush Limbaugh. To say it bluntly no woman should be called the word used by Rush.

Now of course Rush has apologized. Whether he was sincere only he and God know. Whether his talk show continues is another question but Rush could retire today and live a comfortable life. Ms. Fluke will move on and the notoriety of this incident will surely help her land a prestigious position after graduating law school.

The whole controversy has been a distraction and taken away from a discussion that needs to be had concerning the ramifications of the government’s health plan. There are two questions in play that I see. One is does the government have the right to force religious institutions to do things that violate their principles.

The answer is no. The first amendment clearly says that the free exercise of one’s religious beliefs shall not be infringed. The government has no right to force religious institutions to violate their principles.

Over the last 50 years our courts have removed many religious activities from public forums. Hence, public prayer has been removed from public school, manger scenes have been removed from town squares and references to the Ten Commandments have been moved from court houses in the name of separating church and state.

I’ve had very little problem with this. If a parent wants their child to hear prayers they can pray at home or take them to church. Most parents do not do this. I think following the Ten Commandments is much better tribute to them than hanging them up in the court house.

Further separating church and state also protects the church from interference from the state and allows Christians and other religious groups to follow the dictates of their heart—until now. These rules surely cross the line and show a blatant disregard for the beliefs of many Christian traditions. This clearly restricts the rights of many freely exercise their beliefs.

Another question that is raised is “Are all persons required to pay the costs of the choices and behaviors of others.” As long as insurance was private this mattered little but now that insurance has fully become the government’s business it is a greater question.

Health issues are often times matters of choice in many areas not just sexual issues. Diet, exercise, alcohol consumption, smoking and yes sexual practices all play a role in our health. There are times these choices are moral choices; sometimes these are practical choices but they are choices none-the-less.

There is no clear cut answer to this question. Perhaps this points to the folly of expanding government’s role in our health care system. What I do know is that our society seems to move more and more towards being a society with consequences.

In my adult life I have observed a desire by many to shift the burden of the consequences of one’s actions on to someone else. I could give numerous examples of this but I don’t believe this is necessary.

This might be the greatest lesson to be learned of this whole debacle—choices indeed have consequences. The only question is “Are we willing to pay the price for the choices we make?”