John Cole has a good analysis on the lies Rush Limbaugh had to tell before he could conclude that Sandra Fluke was a slut and a prostitute who should provide sex videos for the enjoyment of Rush and his audience.
1. Ms. Fluke was testifying about her sex life. No, she discusses a variety of reasons women might need contraceptives; prominently discussing the health needs of a friend of hers.
2. Birth control expenses were contingent on the amount of sex Ms. Fluke was having. This betrays a startling ignorance. Birth control pills have the same dosage whether you’re a virgin managing menorrhagia or Lisa Sparks having sex with 919 men in a day.
3. She wants taxpayers to pay for her birth control. In fact, the issue is about whether an individual’s insurance policy has to cover contraception.
4. Ms. Fluke wants to be paid to have sex. A repugnant spin-off of #3. Again, no, she wants an individual’s insurance policy to cover contraception.
5. This was an unfortunate word choice. No. Limbaugh spent three days hurling venom at a college student who wanted to testify about the need for women to have insurance coverage for their reproductive health.
Which brings us to Warner Todd Huston at Hoosier Access. He looks at all this and concludes, it’s hard to argue with Rush. What else do you call such a woman? [His broader point was that we should boycott Carbonite for boycotting Rush because liberal talk show host Ed Schultz called conservative talk show host Laura Ingraham a right-wing talk slut; and Carbonite didn’t boycott Schultz.]
I used to think left-wing feminist types were hyper-sensitive about seeing patriarchal slut shaming everywhere. I probably owe them an apology. Females having sex for enjoyment is apparently intolerable to more people than I thought; so intolerable, apparently, it’s acceptable that some women endure medical problems if necessary to limit other women from having sex for enjoyment.
“This is just about religious freedom.” “This is just about the proper role of government in the health care market.” No, this is about a lot of things. Judging from the commentary of America’s highest paid and most widely heard conservative commentator and his acolytes; a real problem with female sexuality is one of them.
Before foul is cried by conservatives over #3 because “we all end up paying for it anyway”:
Those of us paying for insurance end up paying for a _lot_ of things we wouldn’t normally want to be paying for. In this particular instance, i’d much rather pay for a few months of BIRTH CONTROL than to pay for a single BIRTH. I really wish people would REMEMBER that NOT providing birth control is NOT going to bring everybody’s morality up to where they think it should be and reduce the amount of sex being had.
Along the way, ladies with issues *other* than an active sex life (not an issue in my book, but I understand some people seem to take offense at the idea) get some help too.
Regarding #1, this ties into Charles Murray’s new book, where he shows how the elites of today (Ms. Fluke, a Cornell graduate, is a member of the elite) live traditional values, much as they did in the 1950s. Surveys of Ivy League women show that they are much more likely to be virgins than similarly aged women in the larger society.
Seeing picture of Ms. Fluke, I conclude that Rush is wrong. She is very unlikely to be a slut, and she was just talking about “people she knows”.
What is unfortunate is that, while the elites live very traditional lives, they do not preach what they practice.
As to the issue that Fluke, a professional activist (not an ordinary citizen), spoke of, again, it is a non-issue. There is no lack of access to contraception for women in America, no matter what their income.
If birth control is already dirt cheap and universally available, then this should not make any difference to anyone; certainly not worth calling anyone a whore over.
I agree. It shouldn’t make a difference. So let’s stop talking about this issue, let religious organizations do what they want, and focus on the real issues, like the economy and Obamacare.
Don’t people like you claim that insurance companies covering birth control IS integral to Obamacare?
When I explain to my clients who cannot their co-pays or get Medicaid that they are free, they don’t seem to be excited over their freedom to go without
I personally love comments that start off with “Don’t people like you….” It is sort of a big red sign that says “ignore.”
It’s also a sign that you can avoid the question will an hypocritical dodge (see, the irony is your comment complaining that I generalized you was itself a generalization….)
Well, not so fast on letting religious organizations do as they will. The HHS rules let religious organizations do what they want when it’s the part of the organization made up of and serving like-minded adherents. But, for the affiliated organizations that employ and/or serve members of the population that don’t share their religious belief, they’re treated like any other employer. I think this approach survives Constitutional scrutiny.
A funny cartoon on contraceptives.
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/cartoons/2012/March/Rep-Rx.aspx
I think Rush agrees with you, which is why he apologized.
He says he “chose the wrong words” in his analogy. That’s what he has for spending three days calling a woman a whore based on false premises?
He missed the point of what he did wrong then spent most of his “apology” bitching about personal responsibility. He’s doing as little as he thinks he can get away with and still stem the financial bleeding from his show’s sponsors.
Did you listen to him today?
I didn’t listen to him today. But, to be honest, I’m probably being unfair talking about the inadequacy of his apology. Nothing he says is likely to be good enough for me. The man has been getting filthy rich peddling half-truths and outrage for decades.
Buzz, why is it okay that insurance pays for VIAGRA, which is exclusively used to aid men in having sex, and nobody bats an eye or starts the name calling? And when we try to get insurance to cover birth control, which has a plethora of uses beyond the original intent, everyone freaks out.
You know why? Because its okay for men to have sex, but not okay for women to have sex. If this is the case, I don’t understand why gay sex is such a big deal to Republicans. Obviously they don’t want women having sex, so man on man should be just fine.
Because ED is an actual medical condition, and fertility is not. If birth control pills are used to treat some other condition, that is a different case. That is not what Ms. Fluke was advocating, she was advocating contraception for all, not just those with a medical condition that could be treated with birth control pills (although she did use that example).
I happened to hear the original rant that got Rush in trouble. In the context of the show, in the timeframe that it happened, it was clearly sarcastic, and the fact that Doug goes through it word by word analyzing it is kind of absurd.
Would you do the same thing to a politically oriented standup comedy routine? Would you do the same thing of a Saturday Night Live skit, or an excerpt of the Daily Show. No you wouldn’t.
I would if they were claiming they merely used the “wrong choice of words” or someone was comparing it to an unsustained flash-in-the-pan type of incident.
Pretty soon, I’m sure we’ll get back to the “libtards and feminazis can’t take a joke” gambit.
Buzz, your argument holds no merit. Catholic institutions DO NOT (there I go with the all caps again) have to provide birth control. EVER. They don’t. They have a choice. If they don’t like the way that the health insurance laws mandate coverage, then they can just stop providing health insurance to their employees. Why can’t these employees just go out and buy their own insurance like I do?
Why there is a big, giant issue is beyond me. Either do what the mandate says, which will save us all money in the long run since preventing birth is cheaper than birth, or else stop giving coverage to your employees and make them buy their own coverage.
See, easy peasy lemon squeazy.
On which of the three days did you hear it. I heard it on Wednesday and Friday. “poor word choice” and “sarcasm” which lasts for three days?
OK, seriously? Fertility is not a medical condition?!? It’s the MAIN medical condition 51% of the population will have to deal with in our lifetimes. Women still, frequently, die or have serious health issues due to pregnancies, taken to term or not, and you think those life-threatening circumstances are not “medical”, but the inability to get a hard-on after age 70 is?!?!
Frankly, buzz, when you say things like that you betray your true beliefs: that women are not as important as men, that women are somehow “less equal” than men are. Nothing you will say from here on will convince me that you don’t believe so.
Women’s reproductive health has become COMPLETELY politicized, which is why on the one hand I applaud the backlash of politicians offering legislation calling out sarcastically how unfair this is (required anal ultrasound before obtaining a Viagra scrip, for example – a totally unnecessary and invasive medical procedure that perfectly parallels Virginia’s ultrasound law; proof of marriage required before obtaining a Viagra scrip, etc.). They are funny, but sadly also a waste of taxpayer time, though minuscule in comparison to how many personhood bills, unnecessary slut-shaming bills, and other attacks on women have been funded by our dollars via our elected reps. We are wasting so much time and money and anger fighting about what amounts to a tiny cost and a personal medical choice, when by comparison monstrously expensive wars, a crappy yet costly educational system, and the failing infrastructure of our country are going to come home to roost very soon.
Remember what we are talking about here originally. Catholic institutions providing health insurance to their employees. I think that in the realm of Catholic theology, no, fertility is not a medical condition.
Did you notice in the list of $4 generics at Target, you can get one Levitra pill for $4, limit 10 per month. I guess ED medications are now in the realm of medications that should be paid for out of pocket, I did not know that they were so affordable.
Ms. Fluke’s testimony was primarily about the story of a friend whose ovary was removed because she couldn’t afford the medication, birth control, to treat ovarian cysts.
Your beef here appears to be the rationalization of a moral clause regarding a woman’s proper relationship with her body and sex — insurance coverage for birth control for sex is not okay, insurance coverage for other medical reasons is okay. (I’d love to see how this is enforced when it comes to actual medical policy. It worked so well for abortion law.) Curiously, you’ve carved out an exception for Viagra, which is solely about sex, and solely for men, which you’ve classified as “medical” while fertility is strangely “not medical”, which probably tells us where your interests lie.
Buzzcut is obviously among the men in the world who think women should not have, or enjoy, sex. And also, they shouldn’t be having it unless they are actively trying to reproduce.
I cannot believe you just put that out there. That erectile disfunction is a medical condition, but women’s reproduction is NOT?
ARE YOU FREAKING KIDDING ME?
Why not just try “not having sex” – isn’t that what Rush said? PROBLEM SOLVED! No need for “the taxpayer” to pay for your drugs.
Ok, I have to stop reading your comments. It makes my head want to explode. You have clearly so little understanding of women’s reproductive systems if you think getting a boner is more important than women being able to control when she has children.
That’s right, go back to watching Rachel Maddow. Don’t confront the reality that folks might not agree with your thinking, and by all means get angry and start using the caps lock.
Fertility is defined as a medical condition in the four medical dictionaries that I checked. I will check with a doc tommorrow to see what she says.
It is defined as the state of fertility or the ability to conceive. Infertility gets more press and dictionary space because that is the condition that many wish to treat.
You might want to use the intertoobz to look up this thing called Endometriosis. Get back to us if you discover if it’s a medical condition
And, right on schedule, female Ohio senator introduces erectile dysfunction legislation.
Right. I mean, an unmarried man shouldn’t need Viagra, right? A gay man shouldn’t need Viagra. Anyone beyond child bearing age should not need Viagra. We need to limit this potentially dangerous drug to only people who are actively trying to reproduce.
Both the confirmation of Rush’s choice of words and the argument to boycott Carbonite are terrible (although there is some truth to his point that Dropbox is better). Nevertheless, I am disappointed you linked to them, as I want those five minutes of my life back.
Buzzcut is always encouraging me to read alternate viewpoints!
Since when have you started listening to Buzzcut?
In all seriousness, I agree with timb.
@Buzzcut:
Yes, I want the decisions of Target as to what generics to carry for cheap to count for more than what a doctor decides is necessary. If the cheap generics don’t help with other issues that can be addressed by some birth control… well… too damn bad.
Also: “Seeing picture of Ms. Fluke, I conclude that Rush is wrong. She is very unlikely to be a slut”
Good job applying a google image search to your opinions of someone’s sexual habits and success. Because “sluts” dress like “sluts” and look like “sluts” while anyone that doesn’t dress or look like a “slut” isn’t one! Simplistic and misogynistic statement. The whole use of the word “slut” in this conversation is engaging in slut shaming, whether people realize it or not. How DARE any women enjoy sex and get as much sex as a MAN who enjoys sex. What sluts….
Good job applying a google image search to your opinions of someone’s sexual habits and success.
I base my analysis on a few things (Ivy League woman, now in a top 14 law school, her testimony, and yes, how she looks). She is very unlikely to be a slut, as commonly defined. Rush was wrong.
And in your rush to be offended you totally missed the larger point.
Yeah, and all those Catholic priests with their collars are all good hearted and pure, right? You can tell by looking at them.
Doug, you should always avoid Warner Todd Houston. He is frighteningly silly
You’ve found two loonies who think Fluke’s a slut on the basis Limbaugh said. Let’s abandon the silly side shows and get back to Obama’s high-handedness in telling employers they have to pay for stuff including Plan B and ella abortifacients.
If we can have agreement that the contraception stuff isn’t more problematic than, say, cholesterol medications; we could probably move on to the narrower issues of Plan B and whatnot.
I find it amazing that Limbaugh has used the term ‘feminazi’ for decades and the outrage was nil and the sponsors unconcerned, but when he called someone a slut, the backlash was harsh and constant, the sponsors saw the light.
Straw that broke the camel’s back maybe?
He called a young, intelligent, college girl a slut. This was a direct attack on a young woman’s character. Generalization of a group of people you disagree with is a lot different. I refer to Republicans in a variety of terms (my favorite is tea bagger) but it isn’t an outright attack on any individual person or their character.
Rush deliberately attacked a young lady, who has parents and a family who are going to hear what he said. It was completely out of bounds. His apology was a THINLY veiled attempt to stop the sponsor hemorrhage.
Doug:
If we are going to discuss politically active people behaving badly, you might want to check this out:
http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/liberals-celebrate-death-andrew-breitbart/403471
I’m sure you can find liberals behaving badly. But, first, Breitbart is not the guy you want to use in this manner. Andrew Breitbart on the occasion of Senator Kennedy’s death, called Kennedy a “villain”, a “duplicitous bastard”, a “prick” and “a special pile of human excrement”. Assuming Breitbart was observing the Golden Rule when Sen. Kennedy died; by extension anyone calling Mr. Breitbart names on his death were treating him as he wished to be treated.
Second, for equivalency, I think you need a liberal voice with comparable influence behaving badly. (If there is one – are there any liberals with an audience or compensation anywhere near Limbaugh’s?)
The closest person I can think of on the left is Rachel Maddow, who is smart, articulate, and has never stooped to the level of Limbaugh’s idiocy.
She is a true class act.
Bill Maher is probably a target rich media personality with some following and a huge misogynist streak.
I think those are the types of responses Breitbart was seeking when he conducted himself the way that he did. It’s how he grew his celebrity and paid his bills. He was not a careful and considered man when attacking others. Dying doesn’t improve my opinion of the man.
I think the reason this resonates so much on the left is not just because it’s a place where they can press a perceived advantage; though I’m sure that’s part of it. It’s also because it reinforces a strong suspicion that claims of piety are less about actual morality and more about preserving male dominance. Otherwise why are Biblical requirements having to do primarily with female sexuality a matter of such open throated importance while the Biblical messages about war and wealth are mostly matters of political indifference?
The problem with this comment is that it is like saying anyone that doesn’t like affirmative action is racist. While racists probably do not like affirmative action, the majority of people that do not like AA probably do so for non-prejudical reasons.
Also, re: the Ed Schultz equivalency; he doesn’t at all compare to what Rush was doing with respect to this law student. Rush’s “poor choice of words”:
1) “testifies she’s having so much sex she can’t afford her own birth control pills and she agrees that Obama should provide them, or the Pope”
2) “they’re having so much sex they can’t afford the birth control pills!”
3) “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.”
4) “Sandra Fluke. So much sex going on, they can’t afford birth control pills.”
March 1, 2012:
5) “You’d call ‘em a slut, a prostitute”
6) “she’s having so much sex”
7) “are having so much sex that they’re going broke”
8) “they want to have sex any time, as many times and as often as they want, with as many partners as they want”
9) “the sexual habits of female law students at Georgetown”
10) “are having so much sex that they’re going broke”
11) “having so much sex that it’s hard to make ends meet”
12) “four out of every ten co-eds are having so much sex that it’s hard to make ends meet”
13) “Now, what does that make her? She wants us to buy her sex.”
14) “to pay for these co-eds to have sex”
15) “she and her co-ed classmates are having sex nearly three times a day for three years straight, apparently these deadbeat boyfriends or random hookups that these babes are encountering here, having sex with nearly three times a day”
16) “Therefore we are paying her to have sex. Therefore we are paying her for having sex.”
17) “Have you ever heard of not having sex so often?”
18) “Ms. Fluke and the rest of you feminazis, here’s the deal: If we are going to pay for your contraceptives and thus pay for you to have sex, we want something for it. And I’ll tell you what it is. We want you to post the videos online so we can all watch.”
19) “we want something in return, Ms. Fluke: And that would be the videos of all this sex posted online so we can see what we are getting for our money.”
20) “’If we’re paying for this, it makes these women sluts, prostitutes.’ And what else could it be?”
21) “essentially says that she must be paid to have sex. What does that make her? It makes her a slut, right?”
22) “I’m having sex so damn much, I’m going broke.”
23) “She’s having so much sex that she’s going broke! There’s no question about her virtue.”
24) “having so much sex she’s going broke at Georgetown Law.”
25) “Here’s a woman exercising no self-control. The fact that she wants to have repeated, never-ending, as often as she wants it sex—given.”
26) “She’s having so much sex it’s amazing she can still walk, but she made it up there.”
27) “Maybe they’re sex addicts.”
28) “to pay for her to have sex all the time.”
29) “she wants the rest of us to pay for her sex.”
30) “She wants all the sex that she wants all the time paid for by the rest of us.”
31) “Here this babe goes before Congress and wants thousands of dollars to pay for her sex.”
32) “a woman who is happily presenting herself as an immoral, baseless, no-purpose-to-her-life woman.”
33) “She wants all the sex in the world, whenever she wants it, all the time.”
34) “If this woman wants to have sex ten times a day for three years, fine and dandy.”
35) “to provide women from Georgetown Law unlimited, no-consequences sex.”
36) “so she can have unlimited, no-consequences sex.”
37) “You want to have all the sex you want all day long, no consequences, no responsibility for your behavior”
38) “The woman wants unlimited, no-responsibility, no-consequences sex, and she wants it with contraceptives paid for by us.”
March 2, 2012:
39) “she’s having so much sex, she can’t afford her birth control pills anymore.”
40) “she’s having so much sex, she can’t pay for it—and we should.”
41) “She’s having so much sex, she can’t afford it.”
42) “this, frankly hilarious claim that she’s having so much sex (and her buddies with her) that she can’t afford it.”
43) “And not one person says, ‘Well, did you ever think about maybe backing off the amount of sex that you have?’”
44) “Does she have more boyfriends? Ha! They’re lined up around the block.”
45) “It was Sandra Fluke who said that she was having so much sex, she can’t afford it.”
46) “By her own admission, in her own words, Sandra Fluke is having so much sex that she can’t afford it.”
47) “they’re having a lot of sex for which they need a lot of contraception.”
48) “Her sex life is active and she’s having sex so frequently that she can’t afford all the birth control pills that she needs.”
49) “who admits to having so much sex that she can’t afford it anymore.”
50) “she’s having so much sex, she can’t pay for it.”
51) “As frequently as she has sex and to not be pregnant, she’s obviously succeeding in contraception.”
52) “Ms. Fluke, asserts her right to free contraceptive, to handle her sex life—and it’s, by her own admission, quite active.”
53) “Ms. Fluke, who bought your condoms in junior high? Who bought your condoms in the sixth grade, or your contraception?”
You are wise in your youth, Doug. I suspect that when Limbaugh says “feminazi” he wishes he could say “commie lesbian (Insert your own appellation here. I would guess and obscene gerund followed by a vulgar term for vagina.)
But if a few clients and customers drop me because of the above comment, I will issue a vindicitive screed that masquerades as an apology.
BTW, I started listening to Limbaugh in the early 1990s. I was a lot more conservative then, even voting for GHWB over Dukakis. In one show he made a glaringly incorrect statement about taxation treatment of capital gains in defined-benefit plans. Every accountant, most HR people, some attorneys, at least a million or two people in total, would know that Limbaugh was wrong. Yet the statement went uncorrected. And he has been all downhill since.
I remember a buddy of mine in college was cluing me into Limbaugh — the fact he called women “feminazis” was used as a selling point. I don’t suppose I was offended by that at the time. I was an aggrieved young, white male tired of hearing how bad everyone else had it with the implication being that it was somehow my fault.
I remember my sister, at one point, asking me what I was so angry about. I didn’t have a very good answer and, eventually, either I drifted left, or the world drifted right, and here I am.
In the 1990’s I taught in a high school where Limbaugh’s show was aired daily in two social studies classes. The first time I heard the term “feminazi” was when a sophmore student asked if I was one. His question was probably prompted by the rumor (true) going around that I had voiced my opinion to the principal that the “Hillary” sign hanging on the witch in the school library’s October window display was inappropriate. It could have also been the fact that I allowed a few Jewish students and two self-described atheists hang out in my classroom instead of attending a convocation featuring a Christian motivational speaker.
At the time I was a Republican and a Presbyterian. I’m still a Presbyterian. Limbaugh, the dittioheads and their ilk made me realize that the GOP’s big tent was no longer big enough to include me.
Doug, do 32 comments (or perhaps that many in a few days) set a new record? It’s interesting to note how this topic lights up the boards more than most others.
Oh, it’s just similar to conversations about how bad all teachers are — everyone has a valid “opinion” because everyone went to school and experienced “bad teaching” (I know, someone will correct me on this, so I’ll admit right now that there may be a few people who have never gone to school). In this case, everyone is either a man or a woman, therefore everyone’s “opinion” qualifies as informed.
I do not like either Rush or Sandra; my opinion is that they are both idiots. The original discussion, “should the government require health insurance to include birth control coverage?” has gotten into a morass of “It is a women’s health issue” , “Sex before marriage is wrong”, “women on the pill are promiscuous”,”the right wants to take away birth control”,”the left just wants everything to be free”, etc. And for those who want to put words in my mouth, I am not espousing any of those statements, just paraphrasing what I have seen on these forums.
Why do we even listen to people like Limbaugh or Fluke?
Josh Marshall has some good comments on why this issue was never going to stay confined to the religious liberty angle.
The sexual politics is inevitable when there is a “debate” on birth control but no one seems to care about, for example, requiring cholesterol screens or medications. Eating cheeseburgers and not exercising is a lifestyle choice; why should government get involved in that?
Look around the world and find a functional health care market that doesn’t involve a lot of government regulation? None? O.k., must be a reason for that. Let’ s assume government regulations. Has government gone too far by requiring cholesterol screens or medications?
If not, then why is birth control different? Because of our cultural squeamishness about sex. Or is there some culturally neutral medical reason for the distinction?
While that may be true, and it is difficult not to go on these tangents, as this thread proves, we still come back to the issue that started it all, can the Feds force Catholics to violate their religious beliefs?
At mass this week, my priest, who hasn’t said one word about the controversy until then, used his homily to discuss the topic. He said that the Bishops will go to jail before they give in. So when I ask “Can the Feds do this”, keep in mind that they can of course impose it, but they can’t make Catholics comply if they’re determined not to go along.
And I always come back to the most obvious question: why are they doing this? Access is not an issue. Using contraceptives for real medical conditions like cycsts is not an issue (I checked, Catholic health plans cover it, and Ms. Fluke is a liar, or her friend is just really stupid).
Why do this, and why do it now? I guess it must rev up the base, and they figure that Catholics who care are against them anyway.
I don’t think the Democrats picked this as a campaign issue. I think they were handling it relatively quietly when the Republicans picked it up as part of the national political conversation. So, whatever the Democrats were up to probably wasn’t revving up the base.
Sheila Kennedy has a post I thought was good that has some discussion of how we’ve traditionally thought of the balance between government and religion.
Don’t the bishops understand the current requirements to provide birth control under current law? Churches did not have to cover contraceptives now and the future. Religious related employers are generally required to prescribe it now and in the future.
Bishops going to jail? I would question their commitment when they put on the jumpsuit.
This is Santorum’s doing. And if the Catholics aren’t using birth control, what does it matter if it’s on their policy? They won’t use it, so it doesn’t matter. We pay for tons of shit we don’t need. If we are going to use “moral objection” as a grounds for not covering stuff on our insurance policies, then I demand we stop paying for testicular cancer, viagra, circumcision, and anything penis related. For crying out loud, I don’t even have a penis. I don’t want a penis. Why should I have to pay for someone else to get penis care?
Also, at what point during mass are the members of the church excommunicated for using birth control? As a heathen, I’ve never been to mass but seeing as how this is THE issue of the season, I really and truly hope these priests and bishops are putting their money where their mouth is. Round them up, test their blood for hormones, and anyone proved to be going against the church is going to be booted out. It’s the only way to prove how serious they are.
You make some great points, Amy. If Catholics do not use birth control (which polling demonstrates that they do), then what is the big deal?
My insurance dollars fund the plan at a public university where my wife works that I shall not name. But I am a sports fan of the other large public university and shudder that my premium payments fund the births of kids that are more likely to grow up to be fans of that other hated institution. It’s no GD fair.
Rounding up the flock and testing for unusual hormones in females is a great concept. You have a great gift for biting sarcasm and you can drink out of my canteen any day.
Why do we listen to people like Fluke? Typically we don’t. Most people have opinions we don’t listen to. Even citizens who testify to members of Congress — what percentage of those make their way into the public consciousness?
But, Rush. Now Rush is a different kettle of fish all together. Without doing any research, I’m going to say with some confidence that he’s the most widely distributed political commentator in history. He’s probably the most highly paid. His commentary is not incidental even if it ought to be. It’s probably appropriate to shine a big old spotlight on what he’s saying and who he’s speaking for and, where we disagree, not allow the commentary to go unscrutinized and, through lack of challenge, permit those who agree with him to hold those opinions without having the bother of defending them.
Who says that Rush’s every utterance is not recorded and analyzed? This controversy is proof otherwise.
A couple of things:
1) Rush doesn’t call women (generally speaking) “Feminazis.” It is a term he reserves for women who feel that females are not equal to men, but rather superior….women who loathe men. Women who choose flaccid, metrosexual male partners so that they may ride in dominance over them, and who feel that the government isn’t doing its job unless it suppresses testosterone and its acolytes to elevate “womynhood.”
2) As a regular Rush listener, I had occasion to hear most everything he said about Fluke over the last couple of weeks, and most of it was totally tongue-in-cheek. She was called in front of Congress as a “women’s reproductive rights expert,” with nothing in the way of credentials other than some hobby-level activism and armed with some anecdotes. The absurdity of Fluke even testifying was what set Rush off, especially after the minor dust-up that occurred when she was first denied the opportunity to do so, and then the subsequent “special panel” they convened to record her “testimony.”
This is truly some bush league shit, considering the actual problems our country has. It’s one great big neon distraction that we could all live without, politically speaking.
Regarding #2, I think that the “slut comment” specifically came out of the absurd statement she made that Georgetown students spent $3000 on birth control over the 3 years they’re at the law school. That’s where he got on the, “Who is this woman? A slut or a prostitute?” rant.
Of course, that rant has been logically deconstructed line by line by Doug, above. I’m sure that he does that with all jokes. He must be great at a comedy club. ;)
Remember, the 7 o’clock show is different from the 9:30 show. Don’t forget to tip your weight staff. Try the veal.
obviously neither you nor rush understand how birth control pills work. for them to be effective, you need to take them regularly, regardless of how much sex you’re having. the cost for the pills is the same for virgins and sluts alike.
Irrelevant. Birth control pills are absurdly cheap unless you want to dabble in the newest, most commitment-free versions (implants, etc.). Having this conversation on the public dime, on the other hand, is costing much in frivolously wasted time. Point blank: Congress has no business in the birth control or erectile disfunction debate. My wife and I had to pay cash for birth control pills for years before we got married (at which time she moved to my insurance). It really wasn’t a big deal, and it still isn’t. Our monthly bill went from $25 to $10. Hardly worth discussing.
StAllio, we know. Doug already made that abundantly clear. But it was a joke.
You are right, Congress should not be discussing birth control. The regulations under the ACA are enforceable and consistent with the 2000 EEOC reguirement to cover contraceptives and the numerous state mandates to cover contraception.
Ok Buzz I have a Catholic I can ask this of: When a man seeks his ED meds for his medical condition in one of these insurance plans is he required to provide proof that he is married? How often does this proof have to be updated and what testimony or paperwork is required? Does it include statements from his wife that all doses are used in conjugal sessions with her? Must they verify that they are NOT using birth control in accordance to church teachings?
Would they not have the same moral objections for men’s reproductive meds?