Rush Limbaugh and his ilk

 Rush Limbaugh and his ilk

Words cannot describe how dirty I feel when I hear bloated Rush Limbaugh pontificate from his moated Florida castle. Yesterday's slur of a law student, seeking to testify regarding contraceptive coverage brought my blood to a boil.

Since when is contraception the axis of a political divide?  Is the world safe, economy fixed?  What is this politicalization of women's health?  Again.  The sixties called, Rush- they want you to skim Our Bodies, Our Selves.

Where is the fervor over mens' party drugs?   I don't believe Viagrafied sex is essential to one's health, but it is generally covered by insurance,  without suggestions of moral turpitude. No one gets his shorts in a knot over funding for this fun.  I do not see my friends at the Roman Catholic church reprising their "reproduction only" crap for that moral dilemma. I do not see righteous indignation coming from any quarter, in fact.

Costs for the little blue pill are spread to me. I have a group policy and a self-funded policy at this time. I am helping to pay for the party in your pants, dudes, particularly since many users are on the Medicare rolls, and have "conditions" attached to the scripts. All of us pay for this.

We keep coming back to women and their particular health needs in the political coliseum. Rush is like the Emperor, setting his Gladiators in motion.  This is an absurd detour in the file marked PROBLEMS FACING AMERICA.  It is show filler, attention getting behavior. But is trivializes women, and the health issues they deal with in the continuum of their lives.

To excuse him by calling him an entertainer ignores the impact he exerts on the Right side of the Republican party.  He loves to dwell in political chaos.  Maybe the GOP should consider that he has more spit to share when they are OUT of office than IN, and the radicalization of the right serves to scare the moderates..you know- the core of both parties. Could this be an elaborate media conspiracy to give him causes to champion, more Democratic or Tea Party victims to cannibalize?  If so, he really is the King of media chaos.

But enough.

Women are sick of being treated in this ridiculous faux morality-based method by men. We are not the pleasure/reproduction pods of old.  We count.  We vote.  We need to speak up for ourselves.....and yet, when a young woman, smart enough to be a student at Georgetown Law, seeks to speak, an overstuffed bully is permitted to take liberties with her virtue.  This could be your wife, or your daughter.

Apart from the despicable implication that Rush imposed upon Sandra Fluke, there are reasons to fight to keep birth control coverage available to all.  If contraception is not a profit center for big pharmacy, they will stop spending and researching it. So women will have fewer options, or more dangerous ones. Or they will have to count on men to have and use condoms. We know how that goes.  I was shocked to find how costly this medication is..it's been awhile since I picked up a spinner for ten bucks.  (Bless me Father, for I have Sinned....and continue to, presumably,  since Steve was snipped) Those who can least afford a pregnancy will skip it.  The ongoing costs to this person, our culture, and unwanted children is beyond comprehension.

The bluster about religious beliefs is artifice.  Religion is not part of governance by Constitutional design.  You can vote your conscience, but we are tolerant and respectful of other faiths.  That is why we are different from religious oligarchies.  Practical considerations should encourage the Republicans and Rush to shut up.  Women are 51% of the electorate.  Even if we do not utilize certain services, like abortion and birth control, we realize that we are being reduced by this monologue. We are angry.

The fact is, many women DO use contraception for hormonal balance, relief from estrogen based cysts and acne, endometriosis pain. Or to regulate the timing and duration of cycles to prevent anemia. Or to control the ebb and flow of their own lives, which is irretrievably impacted by pregnancy, birth and the rearing of a child.  Don't we get to do this?  Isn't pregnancy the single most important medical event in a woman's life? The "who pays for birth control" side trip is a red herring.

The imputation that anyone using contraception is promiscuous is beyond ridiculous.  This moral apoplexy, being applied to women, reeks of paternalism and objectification.

Leading the morality brigade here is Rush.  Remember when Rush used to send his maid out to get his oxycontin?  Remember how Florida took care of him so his empire would remain in their state?   Remember his coded racial slurs?  That any ears would accept moral indignation or political observation from him amazes me. That people take time to defend him flummoxes me.

Look who he targeted.  Prototypically, he selected a person he believed he could ridicule with impunity: young, female, student.  I hardly think a Georgetown law student should be dragged through his vile thought process. Think of the people who have lost media jobs for far smaller mis-steps. He runs the Republicans from a far more profitable enclave, where he is free to say whatever,(racist, sexist comments, lies) do whatever (drugs) and smirk at everyone (Michele Obama is fat) without consequence or responsibility. He makes a king's fortune and does not have the accountability that ANY political candidate lives with. It is a sweet deal. 97% of us are too busy with our lives to care what this cartoon says, and so on he goes.

Today I DO care, because he stepped over a line.  Sandra Fluke is a private citizen exercising her free speech. She should not be called a harlot for making her case.  Perhaps women who take birth control, and are called sluts by extension, should unite to stop Rush's slander. A class action might redirect his zeal. Or scare advertisers. Or lead to some external imposition of conscience from his affiliates. He was adrift yesterday, morally and legally. His first best move would be to apologize, not to explain.  Rush does not do apologies.  SInce he specifically referenced her Mom and Dad, I would love for him to lower the drawbridge and look them in the face.  Cowards and bullies don't do that.  SO he will not.

I imagine that Limbaugh's stuttering attempt to explain and provide context for his blathering had more to do with his realization that she was not a public figure, and therefore was afforded greater free speech protection. .Or his legal eagles guided him to the realization that his words were actionable. Entertainer Rush can claim he was speaking in jest, hyperbolically- but there is an old adage I remember from law school days..."jest at your own peril." Perhaps Ms. Fluke's classmates at Georgetown will close ranks and put Rush in his place.  I suspect that their time is too valuable to waste on the class clown.

I always hope that Rush will bear consequences for his vile behavior.  He will not.

Rush is bunkered, and bunkered in style.  He will soon find a new victim, new issue, another 3 hours to blow hard in.  Maybe you won't care until it is your wife.  Or your daughter.  Or you.

Don't bother strafing me or defending Rush.  He is an ass.  He may be your ass.  And I get to say that, because he is a very public, obnoxious public figure.

Comments

Leave a comment
  • You, madame, are a rock star. Continue sinning.

  • AMEN. Tweeted and liked. Boom.

  • Sandra Fluke is an expert witness for "reproductive rights" and, when testifying before Congress it goes into the public record. If she can afford Georgetown, she can afford birth control. On her own dime.

    Ironic, your being indignant over what is said over the public airwaves, when so much of your household income for so many years was brought in by such outrageous attacks on private individuals.

    Want to take sex out of government? Take the government out of sex. Have people pay for their own blue pills and for the Pill. Oh, yeah, Walgreens has a great selection of condoms, too.

  • In reply to Richard Davis:

    Janet is holding Rush accountable for the stupid shit he said. You want to take exception to something Steve Dahl said over the airwaves, go write your own post about that.

    Rush said "They’re admitting before congressional committee that they’re having so much sex they can’t afford the birth control pills!” As if the amount of sex is at all relative to how many pills you take. Ignoramus.

    Also? “What does it say about the college co-ed Sandra Fluke...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."

    And "If we are going to pay for your contraceptives, and thus pay for you to have sex. We want something for it. We want you to post the videos online so we can all watch”

    You're defending that vomit?

  • In reply to autismarmymom:

    "As if the amount of sex is at all relative to how many pills you take. Ignoramus."

    He wasn't talking about pills, he was talking about condoms when using the slur. Go to his website and educate yourself with the facts instead of reading selective talking points.

  • In reply to autismarmymom:

    I'm amazed, autismarmymom, that's quite a projectile to hurl yourself. If Ms. Flukes sex is taxpayer funded, then there has to be accountability. That might be her angle anyway.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to autismarmymom:

    Well said!

  • In reply to Richard Davis:

    So interesting to read your words, as I wrote just this week about raising a son:

    "As his mom, it is my solemn and sworn duty to raise a man that is not a nickname for Richard. You get my anatomical drift?"

    Carry on, Ms. Dahl. I'll be reading and cheering you all the way. MTM.

  • In reply to Mary Tyler Mom:

    Thank you for stopping by MTM. I am honored to have you as a guest.

  • In reply to Janet Dahl:

    Yikes. I'm honored you even know who I am. Thanks, Janet. I always enjoy your posts. I read frequently, comment rarely. This topic has got me going, though. Good stuff. I've shared it on about 2-3 facebook threads today. You nailed it.

  • In reply to Mary Tyler Mom:

    Let's see MTM, I THINK I get your drift... You have lowered yourself to calling people slang names for sex organs. It's the start of a great but expected dialog. I hope you raise your son so as not to use the in-kind reference to women, which is known as the "C" word. With your mentoring I don't think this will be the case. Crude is as crude does.

    With so much honoring going on betwixt you two I'm hoping you don't crash heads with each bow of reverence for the accumulated blather. Falling face first in the muck isn't pleasant.

  • In reply to Richard Davis:

    Dude, is that all you have? The inane supposition that her college is bought and paid for, instead of financed on her future? So she can pay a hundred bucks a month for her script?

    Women wish to be in control of their futures. If they are willing to ingest hormones to secure control of their reproduction, it is a medical decision.

    Weighing in on the public record does not lose Sandra Fluke her status as a private citizen. She is not a public figure. As such, Rush is liable for slander per se. It is old school, but implying promiscuity or prostitution is regarded as an exception to the rules of evidence, even for a private person. He stepped in it, legally speaking.

    And speaking of legailty- my husband NEVER impugned the morality of a 20 something law student to fan the flames of political acrimony. In fact, Steve remained constantly, and sometimes irritatingly apolitical, because he never wanted the clatter of rage and hostility to get in the way of fun. Rush does not want fun or truth to get in the way of his clatter. All that paralyzes us and keeps us from moving forward begins from this bullying energy. Women aren't in this discussion to demand free birth control- they are in it to say that powerful men should not still be micromanaging women's lives by narrowing their options.

  • In reply to Janet Dahl:

    http://www.dancingwithlawyers.com/freeinfo/libel-slander-per-se.shtml

  • In reply to Janet Dahl:

    I'll let your husband's actions and words speak for itself. You are hardly the person to have righteous indignation over what is said over the air. Or to take offense over misogynous statements made by "radio personalities". It is almost laughable.

    If you do not like what Rush says, fine. Turn the dial. Don't be so petty as to even bring up how much money he makes doing what he does. You have freedom of choice. Don't listen. Period. Especially if Mr. Rush is an entertainer, what he says is easily forgotten. I do remember quite well when Steve Dahl was the devil incarnate, and people ranted about his statements.

    You are letting powerful men control your choices by insisting that government arbitrate decisions. If you let government make your choices, then you will always be under the rule of "men".

    As you well know, this used to be a nation of laws; now it is a nation of "men", taking decisions for the whole.

    You really need to breathe deeply and relax.

  • In reply to Richard Davis:

    How about taking old white guys and their opinions out of women's vaginas?

  • In reply to Richard Davis:

    As a father who raised two daughters mostly on his own, I have a dream that someday man will be strong enough to realize females are equals. Obviously I might have to point out to some lesser thinking men that they may never be physically equal (Thank god). There will always be small men that will find some race, sex, or less fortunate to keep down. I'm sure it was in their upbringing or cultural traditions that they inherit the controlling power. The good news is generations getting better education all the time will treat all humans with dignity and respect. Although, I sometimes I feel like were going backwards, look at the men and sometimes even women that attack the most sensible rights moving forward and you can understand why the world is so messed up.

  • In reply to keeptrying:

    keeptrying...keep trying! You are not even aware of what is being discussed. I am fighting the fight to keep government (men) out of the process of birth control distribution and CONTROL, while illustrating the misplaced outrage of those who will accept slurs and insults by one air personality but not by another.

    Keep on keeping on trying. You are dreaming, whilst those among us understand that women are, in fact equal, and therefore do not need Big Daddy Government doling out free birth control. Women are not little girls, to be doted over by Daddy Obama, but can take educated choices and pay for what they want.

    Ms. Fluke is a thirty year old woman. She needs to be weaned off the government teat. If not now, when?

  • In reply to Richard Davis:

    Davis, "I'm not aware of what's being discussed"? Nice attack, and you must be a good Limbaugh follower.Just the fact that you equate men and government together pretty much sums up the way you want to beat women down.You say educated choices to pay for what they want. That's precisely what their doing. Choosing not to have a kid until their ready so they don't have to have the alternative of having it aborted or born only to have taxpayers pay 100 times as much for the baby's well being.

  • In reply to Richard Davis:

    Gonna guess Richard is single.

  • My girl is a Georgetown alum. Don't underestimate the sexual freakyness of Georgetown women.

  • In reply to gwill:

    Like. Must be the Catholic school affiliation...

  • Very well put Janet! I completely agree with every word you wrote.

  • I am curious... what WOULD you call a woman that wants everyone else to pay for her education as well as pay her to have sex all day? Wouldn't you call that woman a prostitute? If now, why not? As a man I find it hilarious that some half wit chick thinks I should pay for her to have sex all day yet I can't even get a taste of what I'm paying for.

  • In reply to publiusforum:

    Georgetown Law and she is a "half-wit chick?" Wow. And you openly state your perverted wish to watch said "half-wit chick" have sex with some entitled equally perverted sense of being owed that? Wow.

    Do you have a daughter? A sister? A mother?

    Do you have any shame, sir?

  • In reply to publiusforum:

    Awww...trying to make sure your hero Andrew Breitbart isn't missed huh? How cute. I hope you two are reunited real soon.

  • In reply to autismarmymom:

    Public Forum, stick to what you do best... pissing and moaning about having to pay taxes.

  • In reply to publiusforum:

    Publius, there's a reason that insurance companies didn't cry foul over shifting the cost to them in the compromise. It's because it's in their interest to pay for the contraception, that allows this woman to learn a useful career, and have kids when she's ready, rather than have her get pregnant, which is a whole lot more expensive for them, and all the other people on the insurance plan. BTW, if you're anti-abortion, then keep in mind that abortion rates are intimately connected with the availablility of contraception. More contraception, fewer abortions.

    And picking up on Janet's point about viagra, are all the men who get discounted viagra through their insurance, and thus spread the cost to the rest of us, prostitutes too? We're paying for them to have sex all day too. And in the case of the elderly, often unprotected sex, that leads to them having ever more STDs, which we also pay for.

    The whole point of insurance is to pool risk. And if this woman wants to spare us the economic and social cost of her having babies while in law schoool, it's a fair thing.

    And how is everyone else financing her education? She goes to a private school, and law school financial aid is generally loans, which means she will pay for the education with interest in the end.

  • In reply to publiusforum:

    Seriously? Half wit chick? Pay for her sex all day? Not get a taste? There are too many critical lapses of rationality and decorum to respond to.

  • In reply to publiusforum:

    "All day"? You're an idiot.

  • In reply to publiusforum:

    Just so you are a bit more educated. "Although they are most commonly prescribed to prevent pregnancy, birth control pills are also used to treat a variety of menstrual disorders including amenorrhea (absence of menstruation), dysmenorrhea (abnormally painful menstruation) and hypermenorrhea (abnormally Menstruation is the periodic shedding of the lining of the uterus, causing bloody vaginal discharge.heavy menstrual bleeding). They may also be prescribed to treat a number of other conditions, including polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS), hirsutism (abnormal hair growth) and endometriosis. In addition, birth control pills may be taken to regulate irregular menstrual cycles and to help in the transitional period prior to menopause.

    In addition to preventing pregnancy and treating various medical conditions, birth control pills also offer women a number of significant health benefits, including a decreased risk of colorectal, ovarian and endometrial cancers."

    Viagra is for one thing only, sex. The medical condition is erectile dysfunction. And the only reason men need a cure for this is well, sex.

  • In reply to publiusforum:

    Rush Limbaugh's name makes me throwup in my mouth. Any person defending him is ignorant. Nice 'stache, though.

  • You go, girl!

  • Janet, I totally agree!! what a jerk! enough said.

  • Oh, gosh, I almost missed the ad hominem: "bloated". Now that IS truly funny. Excuse my initial observation that there was no humor in your post. No slurs, insults or attacks ever came from another appetite-enhanced radio personality, right-o? Clue as to who is a Rush listener and who just echos platitudes: Rush is now fairly slim. Next time, it has to be "former-bloated entertainer", Rush....

    Relax, right near the condom selections at Walgreens are some B-vitamins, which are known for their calming effect.

  • In reply to Richard Davis:

    Love the Latin, sir. Makes you seem so sophisticated. However, the bloat referred to his hyperbolic expression. And I liked the rhyme with moat. I was not referencing his size. I have no idea if skinny oxy Rush or fluffy Rush was casting aspersions upon a young woman. Besides, as you so cleverly allude, I like a little mass in my men. Listen to Rush? Nope. Never. I certainly would not sacrifice my time listening to a hatemongering windbag like Rush. Life is short.

    I do not need to annex myself to Steve or defend him here. Last time I checked, my name was atop the blog.

    Thanks for the medical referral. The paternalistic condescension you use to direct me to Vitamin B is offensive, and it is what reverberates when a clan of Congressmen opine about the morality of underwriting birth control. This from a government body that subsidizes tobacco without any compunction.

    Women are perfectly able to take care of themselves. When someone speaks out to keep options open, she should not be called a slut. By anyone. Ever. I cannot fathom why you got into the ring to fight that notion.

  • In reply to Janet Dahl:

    LOL. You are something. "Bloat" refers to his "hyperbolic" expression. Right. And "hyperbolic" --talk about using them fancy words. Sorry, you can't walk that one back, just as you make light of people with dependency issues: "oxy Rush". With your background with people with dependencies I would have thought you a bit more sensitive. Guess tolerance ends with ideology. I suppose you will now claim "oxy" meant orthodoxy?

    So... if you don't listen to the Evil Rush, you are what? Reading talking points? Hearing from friends who wish to shield your aura from the harm of Rush's words? Or is it osmosis that got Rush's words through to you? It's not clear. Enlighten us.

    And, oh, dear Janet, honey, I am not being paternalistic. I am just concerned that such a heightened state of rage will cause you to stroke out, then we lose your verbosity and vapid comments. Sorry, for using a few obscure or "big" words. Don't want to seem all that sophisticated when I ain't.

    Your name may be on the blog, but it certainly isn't there because of the entertainment or informative value.

    Don't underestimate meditation and those B-Vitamins. It will help with the state of offensiveness that one seems to always find oneself.

  • In reply to Richard Davis:

    The clips of Rush spewing his despicable bile were all over every media outlet. You don't have to be a regular listener to have heard about it or seen them. When you say "reading talking points", are you implying that he's been taken out of context? You continue to make this about Janet rather than the sum and substance of what Rush said, which is what this post is about. I've copied in the exact quotes above. Do you support what he said or not? Do you think that any woman who uses birth control is a prostitute and that you should be able to watch video of her having sex?

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Richard Davis:

    Stunning, patronizing and obnoxious....

  • In reply to Richard Davis:

    His clips were available everywhere. Decried everywhere. Boehner, Santorum, Romney- all are skittering away. Sponsors are canceling...because men, even men in disagreement with the contraception provision, have daughters and wives who might be on birth control, and are offended that their contraception now is associated with promiscuity. The least attractive man in the room, or on the radio, is the one who tries to crush a college girl with sexual imputation and ridicule.

    This is just a blog- in fact, Richard, Chicago Now offers the opportunity to host blogs for a broad spectrum of voices. I had a blog before I moved it here, and I suppose I would continue if the Trib ended this experiment. I taught English, went to law school, raised a family, held a few local public offices- it is a small life, but like all lives, it has its universal moments. I use this space to share. I do not fancy myself Jane Austen or Gloria Steinem. Just a rather typical person who ignored the slop that Rush spews until he went too far. At some point, we have to say ENOUGH is ENOUGH.

    Maybe your voice is one that needs to be heard. Get your views out there to like minded folks. Because you have worn out your welcome here.

  • In reply to Richard Davis:

    Richard-I am wondering why anyone with sense would defend Limbaugh's use of language when talking about any woman? Leave out any Steve Dahl (whom I like) inferences and stay on point with Limbaugh--what is the attraction to his "message" and why do FAR right conservatives bow to him? I am a conservative and I have no idea where the hero worship of Limbaugh comes from?

  • In reply to MaroonWildcat:

    MaroonWildcat...Rush is free to say what he wishes. He does not need me to defend him, I am sure.

    I find it hypocritical and a tad ironic that a person who so benefited for so many years from a family member saying whatever he pleased about whomever, should be soooo offended. I happen to like Steve Dahl, too. I thought he was funny and crude and obnoxious in the 70's and 80's and beyond.

    Secondly, for someone who so treasures what an individual can do with their body, why in the heck does she feel that the government must suddenly be in charge of providing birth control? What the government gives the government takes away. If somebody wants to go out and buy all the birth control they want, fine. Why should a third party have to pay for it. Especially when you consider that Ms. Fluke had exceptionally high birth control costs?

    As far a hero worship of Rush? Hardly. The same question can be asked of those who drink the Obama Kool-Aid, but it is NEVER asked. I do admire anybody who can challenge the status quo (sorry Janet about the use of Latin. I know it's only reserved for officers of the court and old priests). The old hippies of the 60's are the establishment. They don't question authority; they worship it.

  • I believe the government should force the insurance companies do the following:

    -provide motorcycle and bicycle riders with helmets to reduce their head trauma in case of an accident.

    -provide us with winter jackets (preferably Northface or Columbia), so that it may reduce our risk of getting sick.

    -provide everyone with 2 ply toilet paper, to reduce the risk of getting hemorrhoids (this can be a very expensive surgery).

    -provide everyone with manicures and pedicures to reduce the chances of getting an ingrown nail. They should also include waxing and laser hair removal, we dont want to risk cutting ourselves and getting an infection (beauty is painful)

    -provide us comfortable shoes so that we may reduce the risk of getting bunions (ladies you know what I'm talking about!)

    I'm sure you all can figure out some more demands, so that we can continue to reach our goal of becoming a complete nanny state.

  • I stopped reading at Viagra being covered by most insurances. I am not aware of Viagra being covered by very many federally funded insurances. Couldn't accept the credibility of this article, when the facts were not presented.

  • I can't believe it was in 1999 when Al Franken published his book, "Rush Limbaugh Is a Big Fat Idiot." Here we are, 13 years later and nothing has changed. Aside from the pure bile spewed by Rush Limbaugh, the fact of the matter is that Sandra Fluke's testimony was to enforce the fact that birth control is used for medical reasons beyond contraception. Most women are aware of this. As indicated by Limbaugh's rant and the postings here, many men are not. Ms. Fluke was not asking to be paid to have sex all day. The cost of birth control pills remains the same whether you have sex fifteen times a day -- as in Mr. Limbaugh's fantasies -- or once a week. And finally, @ milanpopovic1, just because you're not aware of it, doesn't make it so.

  • In 1976 at the advice of an OB-GYN (no exam involved), I was put on birth control pills. At the time, at 18 years old, I was not yet sexually active. My monthly cycles were so debilitating that I could not walk, attend school or handle the pain. They lasted 8-10 days and were a nightmare.

    The "pill" literally saved me. It regulated everything, cut the pain to almost nothing and I remained celibate for several more years. I did not have sex at all, let alone "all day".

    My daughters have both been prescribed oral contraceptives for their skin. At the time, neither were sexually active. It helped their issues with acne tremendously.

    Janet, bravo for a great commentary on this blowhard. The negative commenters on this blog have nothing better to do with their time than berate you for your opinion. I have learned it doesn't pay to exert any energy responding, as their miserable lives and opinions will not change no matter what you say.

    Tweeted, liked and shared. You rock.

  • I just love your passion and bravery to address the ignorance snorted by the hog that is Rush. If he had an ounce of tolerance and compassion in that big, bloated blowhard body of his, maybe he would occasionally attempt to address an issue as a human being instead of a cash register working for Satan.

    I loved this blog like I love being able to control what I carry in my uterus. WELL DONE as usual, Ms. Janet.

  • In reply to Nicole Knepper:

    "that big, bloated blowhard body of his, maybe he would occasionally attempt to address an issue as a human being instead of a cash register working for Satan. "

    Well apparently he can't go to you for lessons on "tolerance".

    How ironic....

  • How did that $3000 come up? Did you actually stop to think about that? It can't be birth control pills, since that's $50 a month for women with no insurance. $50 a month for 36 months is $1800. (Planned Parenthood's own price) So all the debate of the "pill" and reproductive health is irrelevant, Rush wasn't talking about that. If you had actually heard Rush talk about this, you would know that's exactly what he was referring to. Rush was talking about CONDOMS. You are substituting the pill for condoms, and blasting him on that, which is intellectually dishonest. So at $1 per tryst, to get to $3000, Which means having sex 3,000 times in 3 years. Not quite 3x a day everyday. She never mentioned a steady boyfriend, fiancee, or husband. (Rush made this point, which you dishonestly didn't quote directly from his webpage which is transcripted)

    What would YOU call that level of sexual activity? That was Rush's point.
    Seriously. Having sex 3,000 times in 3 years. 3x a day every day. What would you call that?

    You may not agree with what he said, but don't make things up and only give half the story to make your point. It's intellectually dishonest.

  • sorry miss dahl but there are Conservative women who AGREE with Rush and NOT with you!!

    From Georgetown student Angela Morabito, "Sandra Fluke doesn’t speak for me. Or for Georgetown. She doesn’t speak for those of us who worked hard to be able to choose to come to a great institution with a great tradition of faith and scholarship. She certainly can’t speak for the Jesuits who dedicated their lives to God and Education with a long established set of rules. There are only ten of them, and Ms. Fluke would do well to give them a quick read.
    If she wants a more liberal sex life, she can go to Syracuse. (Syracuse, I must apologize – but we are in March and basketball matters – sorry you got caught up in this.)

    Sandra doesn’t even speak for all skanks! She only speaks for the skanks who don’t want to take responsibility for their choices. That’s a tiny group of people. Hey Sandra! How about next Saturday night, you come hang out with me and my gay boyfriends! Your hair will look fabulous and you’ll get to see great musical theatre! Oh, and odds of you getting pregnant? Zero percent.
    Even the oh-so-left HuffPo called Sandra out on her media sluttery: ”Fluke got the stage all to herself and was hailed as a hero by the crowd and Democratic lawmakers on the panel, all of whom rushed to appear on camera with her at the end. “Excuse me. I’d love to get a picture with our star,” Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) said as she pushed her way through the packed room to Fluke.”

    Star of what? Star of the bedroom sex tape? When did Georgetown Law start admitting Kardashians?

    Sandra, we might be on the same campus, but we are not on the same planet.

    Sandra told some sob stories about how contraception isn’t covered by the Jesuit institution we attend. (Maybe they don’t cover it because, you know, they’re a Jesuit institution. Religious freedom? Anyone? Bueller?)

    A student group called Plan A H*yas for Choice staged a demonstration against the university health plan last year, duct taping their mouths and chaining themselves to the statue of Georgetown’s founder on the university’s front lawn. Then, a funny thing happened – nothing. We left them there. Now Sandra has chained herself to the sinking ship of Pelosi Liberalism. She will always be remembered as a Welfare Condom Queen.

    Let’s talk priorities here. It costs over $23,000 for a year at Georgetown Law. Sandra, are you telling us that you can afford that but cannot afford your own contraception? Really? Math was never my strong suit, but something about Sandra’s accounting just doesn’t seem right.

    No one forced Sandra to come to Georgetown. And now that she has, Sandra does not have to depend on the university health plan. She could walk down the street to CVS and get some contraception herself. Or, go to an off-campus, non-university doctor and pay for it out of pocket. (Or, you know…maybe not have so much sex that it puts her in financial peril?)

    Funny how the same side that cries “Get your rosaries off my ovaries” is the same side saying, “on second thought…please pay for me to have all the sex I want!” The people who espouse “pro-choice” “values” are the same people who say religious institutions have no right to choose."

    You want birth control, PAY FOR IT YOURSELF!!!!

  • In reply to zack66:

    Georgetown's president has supported his student in an eloquent and impressive manner. Read it here: http://www.georgetown.edu/message-civility-public-discourse.html
    He has decried the rabid verbiage that has been directed at her by Rush Limbaugh, and deplored the hateful polarization in dialogue.

    Your choice to hurl the epithet skank reduces the chance that there will be points worth considering from you.

  • I just hope Republicons continue making statements like this and expose the true antidemocratic, totalitarian, racist, sexist ideology that lies at the party's core.

  • Maybe I've completely missed the point. Not the one that Rush is an idiot, that's rather obvious. The point, in my opinion, is that the government has no right to demand that a religious institution provide funding for services that are in direct conflict with the ideology of said religious institution. Plain and simple, this is a separation of church and state issue. No one's denying that the vast majority of practicing Catholics (or lax Catholics for that matter) use some form of birth control or engage in premarital sex. That's not the point. The point is Georgetown University is a Catholic institution and should abide by the doctrines of the Catholic Church. She's free to go to Planned Parenthood or other Women's Health Centers. Would it be acceptable if the government decreed that orthodox Jews were no longer allowed to cover their heads? How is that any different?

    Either way you look at it Rush is still an ass. That's obvious.

  • "when a young woman ... seeks to speak, an overstuffed bully is permitted to take liberties with her virtue. This could be your wife, or your daughter.

    I think you mean when this useful idiot agreed to be a stooge for the Democrats. But, anyway, when she agreed to inject herself in the political arena, she agreed to expose herself to differing opinions. Gosh, some of those opinions might even be critical. Guess she found that out.

    And, if one is to take her testimony as honest, it seems that she's already taken liberties with her virtue. Being a mattress bag for the guys in the dorm destroyed her virtue infinitely more than Rush Limbaugh did.

  • In reply to CoolRich59:

    Pardon me? Mattress bag? Did you read her testimony? You are far off her point.

    I repeat: the use of contraception does not in any way imply promiscuity. Responsibility, perhaps.

  • Only a very small, insecure man would speak about women the way that Rush Limbaugh does. Something about strong, intelligent, women emasculates Rush. How many ex-wives has he had? How much longer will the current one stay? If she has any sense of decency she will leave him too.

  • Why do people take what Limbaugh says so literally? People need to pay for their own healthcare and stop begging others. Condoms are very cheap. Ask the man to chip in and help. This woman and others can afford an overpriced degree but can't afford their own contraception. They should have went to a cheaper school. Why don't their parents pitch in , why do I have to pay for them. I'm a young married woman who pays for my own contraception and healthcare. I knows thats an absurb idea among my fellow women and youthful peers, not expecting others to pay you way, taking responsibility for your selves.

  • In reply to carmelcutie:

    They are taking Limbaugh literally because what he said was literally heinous and slanderous. Taking birth control does not make a person a slut or a prostitute. People who wish to express an opinion should not be blasphemed. Ultimately, if a dissident viewpoint results in a figurative stoning- no one will speak up. This will allow bullies to victimize others with impunity. It is precisely Rush's methodology that is most offensive here.

    And-no one is begging. Proponents of the health care act are urging a non-dicriminatory, non-faith based provision for contraception in health insurance. You are right, condoms should probably be used in addition to contraceptive pills due to the prevalence of HPV. But a wise woman will not leave her protection to chance. Condoms break. Or men do not have them. Or they think you are a slut for providing them, like Rush would. See what a twisted road this is? At the minimum, this woman deserved respect and civility.

    Also-YOU are not paying for them- the insurance company will absorb the costs of birth control for organizations with dispensations due to religious affiliations. This is a good choice for them in terms of long term efficiency.

  • I don't believe this woman birth control isn't that expensive. I know Depovera (most reliable) is less than $1000 a year. Its cheaper when you pay yourself.So not only I'm supposed to pay for her education, I'm supposed to pay for this too, should I have to pay for her first apartment too. The sense of entiltlemnt among people is terrible. People there isn't such a thing as being free.

  • In reply to carmelcutie:

    Private school, no subsidy. You are not to pay for a thing- The point is that health insurance will include contraception. If there is a religious dispensation, the insurance company absorbs the costs. No government funding.

    My rage was at Rush and his cruelty. The health insurance issue seems to be widely misunderstood. Probably because Rush muddies and bloodies the water with his tasteless slander.

  • Below is an insightful, explanation of the Catholic Church's teaching on the issue of contraception.

    Personally, I think the Church's teaching on marriage, sexuality and the family is incredibly beautiful, dignified, and uplifting.

    Whether one agrees or disagrees, this short essay provides a succinct and powerful explanation of the teaching, while leaving the open-minded reader with a lot of food for thought.

    http://allhands-ondeck.blogspot.com/2012/02/contraception-and-catholicism-what.html

  • Viagra restores physical function that has been lost due to illness or disease and thus is covered by heath insurance.

    Contraceptives inhibit healthy function and therefore are not properly classified as health care. After all, pregnancy is neither an illness nor a disease. Instead, contraceptive use is a lifestyle choice and thus should not be covered by insurance.

  • You people so little open mind... Ha! Libtrard, libtard, libtard. You people always fail to see reality. Only when reality strikes with truth, then you throw the flames of blame in another direction. Rush is correct, this wack job who the WH has so rightly called in pronunciation , FLUCK, is only out for attention. And as I look at her, I don't think she needs that much protection as she is clearly an inny to inny kind of girl. LOL! Go ahead you tirds, lay it on me.... :) I'm waiting.

  • In reply to dard:

    The level of discourse in your post is at a level that makes a response difficult.
    Libtard?
    Wack job looking for attention?
    inny to inny?
    Almost every Republican candidate as well as the Speaker of the House have decried the remarks that Rush Limbaugh made.
    To cannibalize a young woman with a contrary opinion is perverse. The fact that line up with Rush, while others create a distance puts you in a very narrow minority.

  • But you've already laid it on yourself so perfectly.

  • Limbaugh is a hate monger.

  • It is just rather tiring have to hear from a rich white woman, thirty years of age, who wants somebody else --insurance company or taxpayers-- mandated to pay her birth control costs.

    It is also tiring to hear of the indignation of those who are upset over what another "entertainer" says, when not a peep was voiced over women of a polar ideology --i.e., Sarah Palin -- being called the "c" word by another entertainer, Bill Maher. The double standard is glaring, and the hypocrisy overwhelming.

    When something controversial is posted, the person has to be expected to take the slings and arrows. It may be shocking to some posters who have an ideological view and circulate amongst people who mostly nod and agree and pander to them, that some will have the audacity to disagree. Sorry, but Walter Cronkite is dead and the new media --so far-- allows for many voices and viewpoints and freedoms and approaches. And you know what? In Chicago, a lot of the openness is thanks to a "shock jock" who blew up disco records in 1979, Steve Dahl.

  • "Sandra Fluke is a private citizen exercising her free speech." The moment she inserted herself on to the public stage she no longer can be described as a private citizen. Oh, BTW, the hussy is actually a 30 yr old women's rights activist and it was all staged... another lib scam wasting our time http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/03/stunner-georgetown-coed-sandra-fluke-is-a-30-year-old-womens-rights-activist/ . Remember the good old days when people would actually fact check articles before publishing them? Dahl you're an ideologue who chooses to forward any BS that supports your beliefs, no matter if they are factual or not. I don't listen to Rush, but I used to listen to your BLOATED husband.

  • Rush Limbaugh is an ass and he has long served to create a horribly stigmatic impression of people who trend Republican or seek a more fiscally conservative government. I am that type of Republican and until we stop allowing people like Limbaugh to serve as our unofficial mouthpiece, Democrats have an easy argument for why Republican candidates are not right for the country. All Democrats have to do now is get people like Limbaugh or Hannity to make stupid public comments about a controversial issue and they get instant mass support.

  • I contend that Miss Fluke has an excellent shot at a slander suit. Someone needs to take this fathead down a notch or two or three ... Also where is the FCC in all this? Steve Dahl's satire was one thing - mostly hilarious - but no harm intended. This is serious, calling a non-public figure these names. I hope she goes for his throat.

  • In Nov 2012, we will vote. Single women, more than 50% of the population, will vote OVERWHELMINGLY against the anti-woman, anti-man, anti-human agenda of the Repukeliscum. A mighty whirlwind is coming, Repukeliscum, and you will be swept away.

  • Check the biographies of Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Glenn Beck. None are college graduates. Why did the Republican Party abdicate their public voice to a trio of hate-mongering, ignorant, loudmouths? Those three remind me of Jesse Jackson. It is in their financial interest to NOT have harmony. With Jesse it's racial harmony, the other three political harmony. As long as there is no harmony, the money keeps rolling in for the four of them. It's possible to be a financial "slut" on both ends of the political spectrum.

  • Rush Limbaugh is a "hate monger" and that is demonstrated in the above litanies.

  • HOLY WOMANHOOD!!!! HE ACTUALLY " APOLOGIZED"!!!!

  • I wonder if Bill Maher will ever apologize to Sarah Palin for calling her the "c-word?"

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to siblingless:

    Thank you. I agree. Where did all the outrage come from where Rush is concerned? And the massive media coverage? Rush does talk about the equality of women on every level, and when that will be possible to attain (you need to actually listen to his show people). I don't think that he meant to bring her to that insulted level that he did. However, where is the outrage over Bill Maher and all the ill will and derogatory comments that have been cast over the entire Palin family? The hypocrisy is sickening. I don't care what birth control is used for, but I do care about equality of coverage of blowhard male talking heads. Thanks siblingless for pointing this out!

  • fb_avatar

    Am I missing something here? I was under the impression that Ms. Fluke was asking Congress to make sure that birth control was included in policies BY INSURANCE COMPANIES. How does everyone get "I'm paying for your birth control" from that? You're not paying for anything, she does when she pays her monthly insurance premium. Every person, man or woman has specific needs. Insulin, (which isn't needed with proper diet) Ambien for sleepless nights, etc...I watched Ms. Flukes' appeal to a room full of middle aged white republican MEN, at no point, did she ask the government to pay for her birth control. But hey, go ahead, take birth control out of insurance policies, us good liitle gals will just stay home and pop out kids 1 after1 after 6....That's all we're good for right? Just make sure all you big opinionated Men can support these children because we're to busy being pregnant and raising little children to go back to work.

Leave a comment