The GOP, Rush Limbaugh, and the Sluts in the Garden

On the eve of the Super Tuesday contests in the GOP presidential primary race, the Republican candidates weren’t talking about the economy, jobs, Newt Gingrich’s three wives, or Mitt Romney’s wife’s two Cadillacs. Instead, the GOP has been embroiled in a controversy—let’s call it ‘slutgate’—that arose after radio host and GOP darling Rush Limbaugh revealed the true intent behind Republican opposition to women’s healthcare.

President Obama set the candidates up perfectly. He sat back and watched as they made political hay over the issue of whether or not institutions like Catholic hospitals should have to provide insurance that covers contraception for female employees. The GOP candidates signaled that their opposition to contraceptive coverage had nothing to do with women at all; it was an issue of religious freedom, they said.

Indeed, it was about religion, but not religious freedom. That became clear when Obama swooped in and seemed to save the day by announcing that religious employers would be absolved from the responsibility of providing contraceptive care for female employees; instead, the burden would be on the insurance company to reach out to the female employee and offer it.

Boom! Problem solved. Women’s rights protected. Religious freedom protected. Everyone is happy now. Right? Wrong.

Oh, some Catholics were happy. John Gehring, Catholic outreach coordinator at Faith in Public Life, said that the change “shows the White House respects the Catholic community” and that it was “clear the president worked very hard to protect both religious liberty and women’s health.”

But Republican lawmakers were not happy. Nor were the presidential candidates. 

Instead of claiming victory and congratulating themselves for “forcing the president’s hand,” they doubled down in their opposition to funding for contraceptives. Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) attempted to attach a “conscience amendment” to a highway funding bill that would allow any employer to refuse to provide their employees with contraceptive coverage—not only the religiously opposed, but for anyone who could cite a “moral objection” to birth control.

Rush Limbaugh

But wait, “moral objections?” Weren’t Republicans worried about religious freedom—not women and contraception? Enter Rush Limbaugh, the unofficial ideological leader of the Republican party.

When he attacked Sandra Fluke, a college student who testified about the high cost of birth control for women without insurance, he threw the “religious freedom” baloney aside and intimated the real motivation:

“Three thousand dollars for birth control in three years? That’s a thousand dollars a year of sex — and, she wants us to pay for it . . . They’re admitting before a congressional committee that they’re having so much sex they can’t afford the birth control pills.”

[Note: Birth control pills are not taken on the basis of when a woman is having sex; in order to work, they must be taken on a regular schedule regardless of whether the woman is sexually active at the time or not. Additionally, birth control pills are used for numerous healthcare reasons that have nothing to do with having sex. But let’s not allow a pesky thing like reality to get in the way.]

Rush continues:

“What does it say about the college co-ed Sandra Fluke, who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says she must be paid to have sex, what does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She’s having so much sex she can’t afford the contraception.”

Sandra Fluke

Now, what in that implies a concern about a threat to the First Amendment and to religious freedom? Nothing. In fact, the concern seems to be that the “slut” might be having a little too much fun, a little too much sex. The worst part? She might get away with it! 

Rush Limbaugh obviously doesn’t mind “being slutty.” After all, he is now on his fourth wife. One must assume, and thank God, that he has used contraception quite effectively considering he has produced no offspring. Since he’s a man, that’s okay; it’s his prerogative as a man to have all the sex he wants and never have to endure any consequence—certainly not one that would grow in his belly.

But women are different. Women, we understand, deserve to pay a price for recreational sex. After all, woman first brought sin into the world and thus the curse that would follow all of mankind. 

According to the book of Genesis, when the serpent in the garden of Eden convinced Eve to eat the forbidden fruit, God told her thus:

"I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception; In pain you shall bring forth children; Your desire shall be for your husband, And he shall rule over you." (Genesis 3:16)

A rigid interpretation of this passage, as is common on the religious right, would make clear that women deserve the pain that comes along, not only with childbirth, but with periods, too. And since birth control is great at lessening the pain and occurrence of periods as well as the chances of pregnancy, well, we can clearly see why the pill might be looked upon by some as a great wrench in God’s plan to punish Eve.

While Jesus never affirmed this theology, Paul seemed to in 1 Timothy. He wrote that women are not to be allowed “to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet” because

“it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint.” (1 Timothy 2:11-15)

See? Deeply ingrained in the fundamentalist mind is the idea that pregnancy is a means of punishing women for Eve’s sin. Not only that, but according to Paul, it’s a means of atonement for the female gender.

"And look, here's another one instructing you to
shut the hell up and get back to the kitchen."

So if you think about it, the outrage over contraception makes perfect sense. How dare these sluts think they can just get a (literal) free ride and avoid the penalty they are due! How dare they attempt to whore their way out of punishment via the healthcare system!

This is the root of the “war on women,” as some are calling it. It’s the root of Republican efforts to cut programs like WIC. It’s the root of efforts to cut healthcare for single mothers and their children. It’s the root of attempts to introduce mandated intrusive transvaginal sonograms for women seeking abortions.

Oh sure, there genuinely are people out there who believe GOP messaging, and honestly think they are fighting to “preserve religious freedom,” "cut unnecessary spending," and “to protect the sanctity of life.” Those people are sincere in their devotion to those causes, bless their hearts.

The motivator of those pulling the strings, however, is rooted in a religious based animus that does not view women as equally created in the image of God (as Genesis 1:27 seems to imply), but as creatures especially deserving of punishment for their part in the fall of man.

Three of the GOP candidates have given tepid responses to the slutgate controversy.

But neither Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, nor Rick Santorum seemed particularly upset by the substance of Limbaugh’s rant. Rick Santorum sought to justify Limbaugh’s “absurd” comments by arguing that he's just an entertainer. Mitt Romney criticized Limbaugh for going off message, saying, “It’s not the language I would have used.” 

Yet while the three expressed discomfort with his language, none criticized the sentiment behind it; if anything, they only seemed frustrated by Limbaugh’s astonishing breach of the GOP narrative. That’s because, beneath all the rhetoric about protecting religious liberty, they, too, are truly concerned that the sluts might slither out of the garden unpunished.