To me, boxing is like a ballet, except there's no music, no choreography, and the dancers hit each other. ~~ Jack Handy

From the San Jose Mercury News via Drudge this headline: “Boxer compares denying women abortion coverage to denying men Viagra.” Unfortunately for us fans of professional fisticuffs the article is neither about the “Golden Boy” Oscar de la Hoya nor “Sugar” Ray Robinson (the brilliant Mrs. Jones’s two favorites of the ring, I personally prefer the alliterative Lennox Lewis if only for his Lex Luthor-like name).

Well, and his terrifying charm.

No, sadly, this article is about Senator Barbara Boxer, from the state of California. Let’s see what the Senator has to say, shall we? Regarding the debate over state-sponsored abortion in the pending healthcare reform bill being considered by the Senate, Boxer asks,“Why are women being singled out here? It's so unfair…We don't tell men that if they want to...buy insurance coverage through their pharmaceutical plan for Viagra that they can't do it."

Let us for the moment ignore the essential difference between giving a man Viagra (which could lead to him impregnating his wife) and killing an unborn child. Let’s put that aside and ask a more basic question: Why would I pay for either?

I feel bad for men with ED, I really do, but I don’t consider sexual dysfunctions to rise to the threshold of “healthcare rights.” If -and I am far from conceding this point- if all Americans truly do have a right to healthcare, surely we are talking about the minimum level of healthcare. You know, the amount of healthcare one might need to stay alive and in good health. Not coverage with all the bells and whistles.

ED falls into this category. I feel terrible for anyone with diabetes who has ED. Same for victims of accidents. But sexual dysfunction isn’t really life-threatening and I can’t help feeling like I’m being taken advantage of when I am forced to pay to treat it. Furthermore, I suspect most of the people who think healthcare for ED is an innate right also think that sex itself is an inalienable right (perhaps falling under “the pursuit of happiness”?). And this same crowd wouldn’t dream of withholding any means of achieving that "right."

I guess my point is that I wonder if Sen. Boxer has ever considered that some of us might appreciate it if the Feds didn’t mandate that we spend a whole lot of money on things that don’t, you know, save lives and all that. I know not many Americans are libertarians but I think that most can agree that if the government has to get involved it should be in as minimal a way as possible. What with the government having to take money away from somebody in order to pay out any benefits, you’d think we’d want play a minimal game here.

GIVE ME VIAGRA OR GIVE ME DEATH!

But then again, Sen. Boxer compared Viagra, a drug to help older men impregnate their younger, trophy wives, with abortion, which kills off future tax payers. So her math might not be so good anyhow.