I had sworn never to do another Rush Limbaugh post. Never say never. Here is the coward called Rush Limbaugh attacking law student Sandra Fluke for testifying about the cost of contraception. And here is what that lowlife scum had to say about her:
LIMBAUGH: What does it say about the college coed Susan [sic] Fluke, who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex? What does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex.
She’s having so much sex she can’t afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex. What does that make us? We’re the pimps.
The johns, that’s right. We would be the johns — no! We’re not the johns. Well — yeah, that’s right. Pimp’s not the right word.
OK, so, she’s not a slut. She’s round-heeled. I take it back.
For the record, here is what she actually said about the cost:
Without insurance coverage, contraception can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school. For a lot of students who, like me, are on public interest scholarships, that’s practically an entire summer’s salary. Forty percent of female students at Georgetown Law report struggling financially as a result of this policy. One told us of how embarrassed and powerless she felt when she was standing at the pharmacy counter, learning for the first time that contraception wasn’t covered, and had to walk away because she couldn’t afford it. Women like her have no choice but to go without contraception. Just last week, a married female student told me she had to stop using contraception because she couldn’t afford it any longer. Women employed in low wage jobs without contraceptive coverage face the same choice.
Please feel free to rant on my behalf. He has made me so angry I can’t even find the words to say much that would be safe for work.
crossposted to CrooksandLiars.com
Well, I hate Rush L. but he’s right on this one.
In what way, Amy? Calling her a slut or a prostitute? It’s not like taking birth control pills means you screw every day, after all. You take them preventively, so there’s actually protection there when or if that choice is made. As for the condom issue, I wouldn’t ever trust a condom by itself. Ever.
When I first read this story, I was inclined to strongly agree with Rush’s take on the matter, having been raised Catholic to frown upon sex outside of marriage, and being incensed by any circumstance in which MY taxes have to pay for other’s undeserved benefits. I had to look into the issue further, though. I found there’s much more to what Ms. Fluke says, however, than Rushbo admits. She seems more of an advocate for other women who are looking for contraception coverage, rather than seeking coverage so she herself can have casual sex & avoid pregnancy. She told of a woman who uses the pill for Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome who could not get coverage, in spite of medical verification of the syndrome, because the pill also functions as Birth Control. The woman is LESBIAN, so the danger of unintentional impregnation by a MAN is unlikely, at best! So, IF women are paying insurance premiums like the rest of us and the Pill is mandated as a covered RX, I then have to agree with Ms. Fluke’s point.
Whether you like casual sex or not is irrelevant. Nobody should care how you were raised. Public funds for reproductive healthcare is a matter of public health, based on statistics and wellness. We don’t have to make up excuses about why these drugs should be available. They should be available because the human body is programmed to breed, and excessive unintended breeding is not good for the health of our planet. Hormones drive sex, not “immorality”. We have to keep random interpretations of “morality” and “ethics” out of science. However cute and well intentioned they may be.
Not only are women on birth control most likely NOT having sex every day, but they also may not be having sex at all. I started using the pill while a virgin for its other benefits. But then I had to take it again after having my daughter to regulate cysts that had developed on my ovaries. In neither case was I using it because I having too much sex.
Yes, they do use it for medical reasons that don’t have a thing to do with sex. All the time. I just added the actual testimony Sandra Fluke gave. She didn’t say it cost HER $3,000. She said women like her paid $3,000. Not only that, but one of her examples was a married student. I guess Rush thinks she’s a prostitute and her husband is a john, too.
In my opinion, Limbaugh went way over the line with this one and should have some kind of consequence.
What is with all this criticism about a woman having sex? It’s rediculous. Sex is normal. (or is it only normal fr men?). Then again, breeding until your vagina falls out is also natural. Buy I think we all agree that’s too much. Don’t we?
You people are missing the point. Try to think things through for once instead of acting like drones taking marching orders from the DNC. Perhaps you can start by reading the Constitution.
Excuse me..democRAT..you are the one that is missing something. What does the constitution have to do with what I do in my bedroom..Teapublican. I think you are missing something..like a screw and another in your head.
The right wing deliberately “miss the point”!
What is being done to women by the right wing is abominable. I am fighting the urge to trash the right wing and that “man” named rushlimbaugh, for all he has done and said in service to hatespeak and outright slander-calumny-blasphemy-sacriledge.WOMEN ARE GOOD AND DESERVE TO BE RESPECTED FOR ALL THE BEAUTY IN THEIR SOULS AND HEARTS. AND WOMEN’S BODIES ARE AS SACRED AS THEIR HEARTS AND SOULS. AAAARRRRGGGGHHHH
The point is I don’t want to be stuck paying for the sexual activity of anyone. If you can’t afford to have safe sex then stop having it. Rush never used the team Slut. Listen to the broadcast.
If you don’t want to be stuck paying for the sexual activity of anyone, then you should absolutely support contraceptive coverage. If by some stretch of the imagination, you think it would be cheaper to cover prenatal exams, labor and delivery, postpartum care, well baby checkups and a child’s health needs through age 18 I’d suggest you guess again.
Placing absolute faith in condoms is a joke for any number of reasons, not the least of which is that it leaves men in control.
I’d also add that it’s a heck of a lot more consistent with the anti-abortion narrative to be taking birth control pills preventively than to have to pay for the Plan B option, which I do not believe is abortive. Still, others do. Preventing contraception with hormone therapy seems to be the best alternative.
Ask Sarah Palin how easy it is for parents to tell their kids “don’t have sex.” You don’t think Bristol is a slut, do you? Neither do I. She was a teenager. They think they’re exempt and immortal except they’re not. Why should Rush Limbaugh and anyone else have the right to judge her? And yes, he did use the term slut. Listen to yesterday’s three-hour rant.
So Mr Silent Majority – and yes I know your a man – obvious that no woman would write what you wrote. First thing to bring the hammer down on is that you need to be out in the streets protesting the insurance coverage of Viagra, vasectomy and erectile dysfunction penile implants. Then you won’t be paying for anyone’s sexual activity. By the way that’s not the issue here.
But the biggie that needs to be addressed is that you are a liar. I can say that because it is true and I have the evidence. Before I state the evidence I want to point out that your hero Rush is also a liar because Sandra did not say the things he claims she said. [that’s recorded also so I can say that]. Here’s the evidence. Rush is bragging about it and has transcribed his comments on the front page of his website. Here: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/03/01/left_freaks_out_over_my_fluke_remarks
Now I implore all of you clear thinking people to join me boycotting and letting know all the advertisers on Limbaugh’s show and on Clearchannel stations. That is mainly Fox. Whould a thunk that.
This women is already going to this school on a government program how much more does she want from the tax payers of this country.
She’s not asking anything of the taxpayers. She pays for health insurance. She wants contraceptives covered. She’s a customer here, not a leech. Geez.
I think the big issue is that Sandra Fluke is demanding that birth control be funded by all of us instead of her taking care of her own business. We could all start making similar arguements on just about any other topic. I’m waiting for tires to be put on my vehicle right now. Perhaps everybody else should pay for my tires since it’s a matter of my safety, the safety of others on the road around me, provides me the ability to be employed which in turn helps the economy when I spend my paycheck, etc.? It’s a matter of public interest! I don’t think too many of us would think that kind of thinking is anything but absurd. On top of that, she (we) shouldn’t be trying to force a Catholic university to support something that is against their belief. It’s not like Sandra Fluke has to attend that university; it’s not the only show in town. She may say she wants to go to that particular school because of a wonderful education. Well, then perhaps she should be concentrating on her education, privately dealing with things that should be of a personal nature, and simply be grateful for geting the edcation she desires.If we are going to be liberals, we really need to be liberal and be willing to accept other views which would include those of the religious groups too. I think there is something to be said for those who are promoting some self-responsibility within our society.
What about other prescriptions then? I think if you can’t get covered birth control, then why give out covered antibiotics? It’s a prescription drug. Even Steven. All employers must abide by employment law, even if they think they are special. Even Steven.
Churches are state sanctioned private clubs. They make up their own rules and get to decide who is good enough to be a member. Nothing different from a country club (equally snotty and holier than thou), except for the fact that they are tax exempt. That’s enough bias already. Tax them and make them follow employment law. Now that’s an idea.
But, these are private institutions that we are talking about. If you were running your own operation, whatever that might be, shouldn’t you retain control over what products or services you provide? For them, this a product they don’t believe in providing. If you had an animal rescue that you were running, it would probably not be very acceptable to you if somebody came in and started demanding that you must also run a slaughterhouse. You just might object. There is nothing here to suggest that they are breaking any kind of law, certainly not employment law. There is no law that mandates we all must believe in birth control. And they are not in any way singling out Sandra Fluke in terms of not providing birth control.
Churches are not in any way state-sanctioned, nor are they private clubs. They do have their own beliefs, and although it should be fully within their rights, they don’t choose who gets in or not. If I were to show up in a church telling them that they need to start running their church in a way that’s completely contradictory to their views, I would expect some resistance. There is zero question in my mind that I would be fully accepted if I truly wanted to attend any of the churches that are around me. However, it is not something I desire, I don’t share the same views, so I simply choose not to be at a church. I have also found the great majority of Christians to be very helpful, respectful and generally good-hearted people as well as a group of people that tend to promote self-responsibility and helping others. I don’t think any of them would refer to themselves as perfect, but at least they are for the most part making a conscious effort to be decent. I’m not saying that there aren’t people masquerading as Christians out there. In the past I have been extremely hard on religion as a whole, and would very likely have immediately agreed with everything you are saying. I also found that while looking in the mirror, I wasn’t always being that fair or objective.
Just like many other groups unrelated to religion, churches are indeed categorized as non-profits; nothing illegal there. It sounds like we are simply trying to penalize them for not bending to our views? BTW, the health care provider for Georgetown actually pays in the vicinity of a $100 million in taxes every year. That’s not too shabby of a contribution especially when you consider the hundreds of millions in charity work that they also provide.
I don’t think it matters whether people who go to chirches are decent people or not. (In the sense that they function to control the masses, I’m glad they are effective in encouraging “niceness”.). I think they do pick their members though, by designing their dogma. Those who subscribe can join. And you betcha they are allowed to exclude everyone else – those who don’t meet the entry criteria.
I think, and I think it’s been long known, that the catholic church is a real estate play. Kinda like McDonald’s. They killed a lot of folks to get those franchises around the globe.
I don’t see the slaughter house analogy. If our secular government determines what is best as a matter of public health, any employer needs to comply with that minimum standard. If a religion proclaimed the rape and enslavement of women as holy, that wouldn’t be allowed. Right? (or isn’t that what they already suggest?). You think God really made Mary pregnant? Homey don’t think so.