The New York Times's Linda Greenhouse gets a lot of things wrong in her new piece on the Sandra Fluke case, and one thing partially right: that "sex without consequences" is integral to any discussion on the subject. Though even there she gets something fundamentally wrong, in contending that this part of the matter goes "deeper than the religious garb in which the debate over access to contraception is clothed."
What's particularly disturbing about Greenhouse's take on the matter (aside from trying to make a Loretta Lynn song into an argument that can't be trumped) is her assumption that advocating "sex without consequences" is enough to make a woman into a heroine. The sad truth is that devastating consequences -- including splintered families, soaring disease rates, and a sex-saturated youth culture -- are, in fact, exactly what decades of increasing "sex without consequences" have brought us. To deliberately ignore that in order to push for more of the same is anything but heroic.