What if Ms. Fluke Wanted to Have Sex?

In the uproar over birth control it’s very appropriate that people call attention to the fact that BC is taken for a number of reasons. However, all this “paying so you can have sex” and calling sex “social activities” rhetoric makes me want to add something (or bang my head against the wall). What’s wrong with sex? Have none of these men had sex or wished to exercise control over when they’ll reproduce?

Today a friend of mine posted a comic strip of a woman saying she wants her contraceptives to be treated by insurance companies like other medication and listed all the reasons she took it. PMS, acne, ovarian cysts, etc. In the next panel Rick Santorum calls her a whore and says he won’t pay for her to have sex.

The comic is great and calls out one part of this rhetoric (that they’re feigning ignorance over what BC does). But, what if that woman did want to have sex? What if Sandra Fluke had no other reason for taking her birth control than the desire to control her reproductive destiny?

Well, I for one, would still support her. I will support any adult who wants to have sex with a consenting partner and take certain precautions. And I still support the idea that insurance companies need to cover the medications involved to some extent.

Bbeing sexually active and wanting to avoid unintended pregnancy is just as appropriate a reason to take contraceptives as acne control, PMS, or other medical reasons.

It is not the place of insurance companies, schools, employers, hospitals, or the government to decide what “activities” or completely natural parts of human life merit medical coverage. What’s next? Denying STI treatment? Because if you can get your STI’s treated, what’s to stop you from having sex? No. I reject the notion that women need any other excuse or reason to use birth control. An adult woman should have no problem saying, “I have sex and I demand that if I am paying an insurance company I am given coverage for all my medical needs.” Full stop. Companies do not get to decide what natural parts of human existence we can take part in just because Bill O’Reilly objects and wants to call them “activities.” Rush Limbaugh might not like The Sex, but who is he to determine what coverage I receive? Or any employer? Every company ought to cover the medical needs of its clientele. The government should not have to intervene, but clearly some employers are so harshly punitive that they will refuse to cover preventative care for women. It is at this point that I think it is appropriate for the government to mandate that medical coverage be applied indiscriminately.

I am a vegetarian. Does that mean since I don’t believe in eating meat my company can deny people for coverage if they contract an illness after eating a diet that is high in meat and fat? There are religions that practice non-harm and vegetarian diets. Should employers of a particular religion pick and choose medical treatments employees can receive? No. That’s between a patient and a doctor. Mr. O’Reilly, did you ever think about not having a cheese burger?

No one should have to validate their use of birth control. Just about everyone has sex. It doesn’t matter if you’re married. It doesn’t matter what your religion is. Sex is a natural part of human life and life for a great deal of creatures on this planet. Yeah, the GOP needs to learn that contraceptives are not all about sex. But also, disowning the reproductive control contraceptives provide women and their partners allows the GOP to silence those women who do use contraceptives for preventing unintended pregnancy and that’s a totally valid reason that women shouldn’t feel uncomfortable talking about.