Responsibility A.K.A. Prostitution

A Georgetown Law students' recent testimony to a congressional committee regarding a contraception mandate has lead to off-the-wall political commentary.  A couple blog posts caught my attention on this subject. One post was made by Eileen Smith, the editor of the liberal blog In The Pink.  The post titled If Sex is Outlawed, Then Only Georgetown Law Students Will Have Sex argues the ridiculous commentary made by Rush Limbaugh, Catholic Cardinal Timothy Dolan and Rick Santorum against the Georgetown Student, Sandra Fluke. Another post I found very interesting and supportive to Eileen Smith's argument I found on Juanita Jean's blog under the title It's Sing Along Friday.  This post is a video that further illustrates how the commentary made about this subject truly is ridiculous.  
I felt the need to include the video but I am going to continue my critique on the post by Eileen Smith.  The argument was made out of sheer reflection of how immature people can be and the fact that the "birth control issue" continues to be an policy that is being made into a huge political battle.  Sandra Fluke simply found the need to stand up, take responsibility and request help from the government.  Eileen argues that this is not a battle worth fighting against. I believe Eileen targeted this post towards anyone who may agree with commentary made against Sandra Fluke and also to gain support for Sandra Fluke's general cause.  Eileen was able to attract and keep the audience by highlighting the controversial comments that were made and adding humorous side comments in response.
The basic argument is how the comments made were ridiculous and uncalled for.  Sandra Fluke's outreach to get help from the government to support a contraception mandate on private insurance companies was redefined by Rush Limbaugh. Limbaugh states that she is asking the government to essentially pay her to have sex and continues to say that this makes her a slut and a prostitute. She also reflects on comments made by religious and political leaders who have equally immature and uncalled for comments.  She argues that their are greater battles to be fought and condemning a girl who is just trying to be responsible is cowardly.  Of course in support of her argument the general assumption is that Sandra Fluke is an average American law student who is not a prostitute, she is simply just a responsible student who is asking for a little help in her efforts of being responsible.  I don't feel this is a risky assumption to make and it does not effect my support one way or another.
The values at hand are free speech, responsibility and freedom of religion. I feel the government should help out with birth control costs because it will only help out in the future.  Less costly abortions and less children being born into poverty, which leads to  an increase in government spending anyways. The only way I could see this affecting values or being an invasion of rights would be if the government said that every woman is required lawfully to take birth control.
The evidence to support Eileen's argument is based on empirical observations. It is shown overtime and across the world people are going to have sex and reproduce.  Not mandating a birth control policy is not going to stop people from do so. The laws in China over the years for example have been viewed as extreme and unlawful by America.  Maybe if everyone had greater access to birth control then they wouldn't of had to take such measures to control or reverse their population.
I believe Eileen's argument to be a success, although the opposing side basically "dug their own grave". I am convinced but it really did not take much, I have always believed it is ignorant not to support birth control contribution.  Honestly, I am a college student who is not able to be on birth control because I can not afford it and my insurance does not cover it. Ironically, if I was to get pregnant it would cover most of those expenses which is was more costly for them.
The argument really develops because of underlying political significance. The argument of pro-choice versus pro-life, the separation of church and state, population control and the economy concerning welfare government funding.  It introduces the understanding that in the political world no matter what your opinion is, someone will argue against you. You could say "puppies are cute" someone will argue and support it with ridiculous comments. When such extremes are presented points are seen but rarely gain full support.