Then what can we call her?

What do you call a young woman who testifies before Congress and the Nation that her annual birth control costs far exceed the earnings of her summer job?

It seems that in our tragically politically correct state, we are not allowed to call her anything else but a victim.  This young woman claims "victimhood" by the fact that she is "forced" to spend thousands per year in order to avoid pregnancy.  Yet this is far from accurate, nor is the entire story.

Rush Limbaugh gave this young woman a more apt label, and has since endured an unjust media firestorm as a result.  You are free to find Mr. Limbaugh's loud firebomb-throwing style distasteful (as this commentator often does), nor are you required to like Mr. Limbaugh or his politics, but in this case you cannot - within the limits of sanity - criticize his harsh truthfulness.  You may think it mean or uncouth to call this young woman a "slut" - and I would agree with you - but a slut she nevertheless remains.

Let's drop the self-righteous liberal indignation and instead engage in some critical thought:
The budget this woman claims to need for the simple satisfaction of carnal desires reveals her to be an intemperate and irresponsible individual.  The fact that she would reveal such private information to the entire nation makes her astoundingly immodest.  That she expects private insurance companies (see: the other people on her insurance plan or private taxpayers, since nothing is free)to be required to cover her intemperate and irresponsible activities makes her either a freeloader or patently delusional. 

So here we have an intemperate, irresponsible young woman who immodestly implies the extent of her carnal activities to the world, and then demands that the rest of us pay for it.  Seen in the light of truth, Mr. Limbaugh's ire seems far from misplaced.  (While this was not part of the hearing, one can only imagine that this unfortunate young woman would also want a free backup plan (see: abortion) just in case her carnal safeguards fail her.  Judging by the size of her budget, the frequency of her escapades statistically dictates that this is only a matter of time, if it has not already happened.)

(Once must ask the question:  Why doesn't Pelosi just send her to the local Planned Parenthood?  Don't they cover such things in the effort to generate return customers?  It wouldn't have anything to do with radical feminists trying to enshrine their depraved vision of sexuality at all levels of American culture?  Nah, that couldn't be it....)

Finally, she is also a victim, though not in the way that Obama, Pelosi, Sebelius, or the leftist media would have you believe.  She is the victim of a modern culture which has framed her sexuality in the dialogue of modern feminism and liberalism, while clearly also being a victim of the modern popular culture.  One must feel compassion for a woman whose body has become nothing more than a means to an end.  This is one lost individual among many in a lost culture, and we should indeed weep and pray for these young women denied a vision of true femininity.

Mr. Limbaugh's comment may have been uncouth, but it is the type of comment made by healthy people living in healthy societies.  The shunning of immorality may be a painful part of certain cultures, but it holds the distinct role of being yet another safeguard and deterrent from such unacceptable behavior becoming normalized.  What we witness here is a young woman proudly proclaiming the normality of her deviant behavior, and the healthy reaction against it being condemned.  When we "compassionately" accept such depravity while shunning the just criticism of its messengers, we only fall further from the standards of common decency which once were a guidepost and safeguard in our culture.