Whoever wrote the secondary headline to this article is either incredibly obtuse or is trying harder to sensationalize news than inform people.
Sandra Fluke, who gained notoriety a few years ago for trying to convince Congress that the rest of society should pay to ensure that sexually active women can remain sexually active without consequence. Actually, she gained notoriety when Rush Limbaugh called her a nasty word for prostitute. Now, she's attempting to extend that fame so she can provide more for the few at the expense of the many (ie she wants to be an elected Democrat).
Why is birth control—an uncontroversial form of care used by an astonishing number of women—different from blood transfusions and vaccines, which many individuals have religious objections to? The fact is, it’s not.Well, I guess it was Sandra Fluke. Uhh, yes it is. I almost feel foolish explaining, but the primary difference is that the latter two are necessary procedures to heal or prevent illness that patients have little control over. Birth control, though, is used to nullify the consequences of an action people choose to take even when they know the consequences.
No comments:
Post a Comment