Sex: The New
Entitlement
by J. H. Huebert
The Collegian
September 24, 1998
There's been a lot of talk in
recent months about Viagra, the new impotence drug (as if you needed me
to tell you what it is) and, after I finish writing this, I think I'll
have had just about enough of it.
First there were news stories simply stating that this new impotence
drug was available. I could handle those.. an impotence cure is pretty
big news for some people, I guess. Then there were the late night
comedians' jokes. Well, who could blame them for going for such cheap,
easy laughs? Then there was Bob Dole proudly telling Larry King about
how well Viagra had worked for him. I really didn't want or need an
update on Bob Dole's sexual performance, and I hope you didn't either,
but there it was. And now, like it or not, Viagra is almost everywhere,
even in family-hour sitcoms. I can't even turn on NBC without seeing an
ad for the next hilarious installment of Mad About You in which
Paul Reiser runs around New York City brandishing his newly-acquired
Viagra-induced sexual abilities, just dying to put them to good use. Is
any medical breakthrough worth that?
Unpleasant as some of those things may be, they're really just minor
annoyances. It's not like they violate my rights or impinge upon my
freedom. No media outlet or pharmaceutical company could force me to
read, watch, or do anything against my will. But the government could,
and that leads me to what is by far the most disgusting Viagra-related
story I've heard.
The government, of course, never hesitates to utilize the latest
technology to waste your money doing something really stupid. And so it
is that at least ten states have already started paying for Viagra for
Medicaid recipients using taxpayer dollars.
Politicians have been inventing bogus "rights" for a long time
-- the "right" to a certain kind of job, the "right"
to live in a certain kind of house, the "right" to a
"free" education. I suppose some fairly decent people might go
along with some of those, even if I wouldn't. But a right to sex? Does anyone
think that's included in "the pursuit of happiness"?
This is obviously wrong, and it is important to recognize the reasons
why it is wrong. The first reason why this is wrong is that it's simply
not right to forcibly take money from those who have earned it in order
to give it to those who have not. If some vagrant stuck a gun in your
back as you were walking down the street and stole all of your money
(and in this case he'd probably need all of it and then some -- Viagra
costs $10 a pill) to pay for his impotence treatment, that would be
undeniably wrong. How is it any different if the government essentially
does the same thing on his behalf? Stealing is stealing, even if the
thief is the government.
The second reason is that we just don't need more welfare recipients
having more kids. I thought we wanted to reduce the number of people
addicted to welfare, and I thought we especially wanted to reduce the
number of poor children. Offering free Viagra can only have the opposite
effect. It's bad enough that the government has been paying poor women
to have kids out of wedlock -- now they're paying men to impregnate
them!
How much are they going to pay them? It's hard to say just yet, but it
will likely amount to tens of millions nationwide. Does it even matter
how much? Isn't one dollar of "sex welfare" too much?
I may be sick of hearing about Viagra, but I'm far more sick of our
government's constant search for new things to spend money on. It's time
for the government to stop screwing taxpayers with ridiculous, wasteful
programs, and cutting sex welfare would be a good place to start.
© 1998 J. H. Huebert