Steyn on Fluke, America

March 14, 2012

Mark Steyn, as usual, is must-read material:

Nor is the core issue that, whatever the merits of government contraception, America is the Brokest Nation in History — although the Fluke story is a useful reminder that the distinction between fiscal and social conservatism is generally false. . . . When even casual sex requires a state welfare program, you’re pretty much done for.

6 Responses to “Steyn on Fluke, America”

  1. Snoodickle Says:

    Don’t students pay for their own health insurance?

    • My understanding is that

      (1) we’re talking about health-insurance plans offered by the school which

      (2) students pay for, but that

      (3) students can also buy their own health insurance from any other provider if they so desire.

      So we have a contraceptive activist who enrolled in a Catholic school knowing the insurance plan it offered didn’t cover contraceptives, “who has spent the past three years lobbying the administration to change its policy on the issue.”

      So the question was whether the government would force the Catholic school to change its insurance plan to cover contraceptives—to make them “free” (to Fluke).

      Read this in its entirety. See also the Wikipedia article.

      • Snoodickle Says:

        Right, the religious issue. But for a nonreligious school, where the student pays for their own insurance, what’s the issue. Steyn doesn’t seem to distinguish between the two situations, and doesn’t mention freedom of religion in his latest post. So I guess I don’t understand where the problem lies as it pertains to insurance plans offered through nonreligious institutions that the students pay for. If he’s talking specifically about the religious qualm, that’s a different story. But it didn’t sound that way.

      • Right, actually he did mention freedom of religion: “But I’d say the core issue here is not religious liberty . . . .” He mentions five possible frameworks for looking at this controversy—religious liberty, liberty more broadly, the “Republic of Paperwork”, prolonged adolescence, and the Brokest Nation in History. Ironically and non-ironically at the same time (“pretty tongue-in-cheek” but not entirely joking, if you will) he says that none of those five things is his point or the core issue here—his point is the combination of all five of them:

        It’s that a society in which middle-aged children of privilege testify before the most powerful figures in the land to demand state-enforced funding for their sex lives at a time when their government owes more money than anyone has ever owed in the history of the planet is quite simply nuts.

        He is talking specifically about this example, in which the school was Catholic. But objections like basic liberty would apply for any school—if you don’t think there’s anything wrong with the American government telling a school what kind of health insurance it has to offer its students, well, I think you still don’t understand liberty very well.

      • Snoodickle Says:

        What about state schools? Can the government not tell the government what to do?

    • Snoodickle Says:

      Also, your concept of “liberty” is a little goofy. You say you’re in favor of individual liberty, yet you want the government to regulate marriage, personal drug use (but not personal alcohol use?), and are willing to allow the execution of innocent persons, the destruction of the environment, and the confiscation of my tax dollars for the purpose of funding ill conceived wars. And I don’t understand liberty? Ha!

Agree? Disagree? Thoughts?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: