A Chain Reaction With a Little Side-Note

As part of the HHS mandate requiring all insurance, even from Catholic organizations, to offer contraceptives with zero co-pay: The Democrats had Sandra Fluke, a 30 year old Georgetown law student testify on the subject. I won't get into the weeds on the value of her testimony from a legal standpoint since she was not called as an expert witness, but rather as a representative victim. The real controversy came about when talk radio personality, Rush Limbaugh called the student a prostitute and a slut. He has since apologized for his words.

My choice of words was not the best, and in the attempt to be humorous, I created a national stir. I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for the insulting word choices.

--I apologize for taking so long to get to my point, which still requires some set-up.--ed

President Obama ended up phoning the student and among other things said that he thinks her parents should be proud of her.

Ann Althouse, found someone who called the student a "coed" and this was determined to be insulting too! As for me, I think the president and the users of the term "coed" are pulling from the same well, we commonly think of a student as young and so coed is a diminutive term, just as is the use of proud parents.

When I had read the blog posting from Alhouse, I did a little web searching to see if it is at all common to see the use of "coed" as insulting. I didn't come up with any controversy surrounding its use other than the inclusion of a hyphen or not.

Naturally, I commented that I prefer co-ed with its hyphen intact.

Added Notes:

--A common argument against contraceptives being part of insurance is that they are not an unexpected cost. This is probably true most of the time, but I could easily think of a case where it would be true. Say a coed has no plan to become romantically involved while in school and so does not go on the pill. Then, sometime in the course of her studies, she falls in love, gets married and wants to go on the pill. In this sense it would be an unplanned expense.

--Why the insistence on a zero co-pay? Birth control is rarely life-or-death, for the woman that is. Meanwhile, other drugs that treat heart disease, hypertension and diabetes are essential for preserving health and life and yet co-pays are allowed for these. I would class birth control in about the same way I would class my running shoes: Excercise is healthy and athletic shoes are a necessary* cost associated with this healthful activity. My pet hypothesis is that the Obama administration wanted a fight. They could have put all of this off till after the election if they wanted to.

*Frequent readers know that I am increasingly running barefoot, though I don't think it weakens my argument, though possibly my credibility.