Doesn't change the issue that Rush was the best thing that happened to Mrs Fluke.
Which does not in anyway excuse his behavior, or what what he said any less stupid or offensive, or his interpretation of what she said any less ignorant or misogynistic.
And yes she's an activist. Despite the BS floating around, she never said otherwise. She introduced herself as the former head of Law Students for Reproductive Justice. And yes, she has written papers that express viewpoints that I don't share, and I don't agree with everything she said before Congress
And, as I have explained several times:
1) I'm not too fond of the government making people pay for services they have a problem with, BUT
A) Those private companies aren't the ones, by and large,
really paying for that insurance. The employee is through lower wages (in fact, they are often literally paying a portion of it), the taxpayer is (because of the huge tax deduction). The employer writes the check, but the only reason they do so is that our system is designed that way for reasons that made some sense after WWII and none whatsoever now. (This is not to diminish the problems that whole thing causes for
employers either, who are often caught between a rock in a hard place in that they are expected to provide a "perk" of ever increasing cost and are punished, in some cases, if they don't, yet cannot simply further decrease wages to pay for it)
B) Women do not have a choice in their health insurance in any practical sense (they take what their employer purchases, or they pay through the nose for an inferior product).
C) If they buy without insurance, they pay outrageous prices even for generics, prices that are actually high above market price (which is what the insurance companies pay).
D) Therefore, allowing employers to determine what is, or is not covered under the health insurance plan for moral reasons (there is almost NO cost difference) allows the employer, in effect, to determine if its female employee pays a small reasonable co-pay (or if the admin has their way nothing) or whether she pays upwards of $50, and likely far more, for her BC. For lower income women, the result is that their employer can determine whether BC is a minor expense, or whether it is a serious burden and might even be out of reach.
2) So, though I have a problem with the government making employers buy (with the money that would have gone to wages that contributed by employees) insurance that covers something they don't like, I also have a problem with the
government though the health system that it has created over the decades (and ,have no illusions, it HAS created it, if not always on purpose) empowering employers to decide for religious reasons, whether their female employes pay a small reasonable price for BC for an outrageous, possible budget busting price . . . (or indeed to decide for religious reasons whether she (or he) receives any service that they for some reason object to).
Which again, doesn't change the fact that Rush's behavior was outrageous (and, as you point out, counterproductive to his cause) or the fact that BC should
certainly be covered for medical reasons, and because of how our system is set up, for the reasons that I have repeated in several places, should also be covered for
all reasons.
Caveat: I don't agree with the administration on the "no co-pay" thing, which is part of the problem here, because it also excludes allowing women to buy a cheap rider. Assuming that the insurance co-pays are reasonable, I don't see any reason why women shouldn't pay them. I have always had a co-pay, and its never been very high for generic BC (admittedly, I've always had reasonably good insurance, even when I was otherwise dirt poor). I really don't see any reason why it should be
free. However, it should be
covered. I'll also point out that the "uninsured price" for even generic brands is outrageous . . . but that will lead into another lecture on perverse incentives.
Frankly, the solution that would fix everything: MAKE BC AVAILABLE OVER THE COUNTER. I'm told there is NO medical reason why it isn't, except for a desire by doctors to make sure women have their "well-woman" exams yearly and pressure from the right.