Rush Limbaugh and Sandra Fluke Controversy

[Tarheel]

I'm actually a little surprised that nothing has been posted on this yet but I thought that I'd weigh-in on it.  For those who aren't aware Rush used some choice words to describe the promiscuous sexual proclivities of a supposed college student (she's a 30 year old activist) who recently spoke before a Congressional Hearing demanding that FedGov pay for her contraceptives.  Rush spoke on it last week and described her activities accurately in my opinion.

He later released the following statement:

For over 20 years, I have illustrated the absurd with absurdity, three hours a day, five days a week. In this instance, I chose the wrong words in my analogy of the situation. I did not mean a personal attack on Ms. Fluke.

I think it is absolutely absurd that during these very serious political times, we are discussing personal sexual recreational activities before members of Congress. I personally do not agree that American citizens should pay for these social activities. What happened to personal responsibility and accountability? Where do we draw the line? If this is accepted as the norm, what will follow? Will we be debating if taxpayers should pay for new sneakers for all students that are interested in running to keep fit? In my monologue, I posited that it is not our business whatsoever to know what is going on in anyone's bedroom nor do I think it is a topic that should reach a Presidential level.

My choice of words was not the best, and in the attempt to be humorous, I created a national stir. I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for the insulting word choices.

My advice to Rush in this situation comes in the form of a quote that I recall from the 1949 John Wayne movie "She Wore a Yellow Ribbon"; John Wayne's character, Capt. Nathan Brittles, says at one point "Never apologize.  It's a sign of weakness."

Of course the moonbat, left are still foaming at the mouth about the situation and several of Rush's long-time advertisers have left his program.

Source, and more from the lunatic left:
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201203030004

[AUJarhead]

I could care less who she sleeps with, what she does with that person.

Her choices are either to fork over a few bucks every month for the pill, make her boyfriend buy condoms, or just keep her damn legs closed.  Either way, why should I pay for it.

[Snaggletiger]

I heard one commentator say what Rush said was not only offensive to Ms. Fluke, but to women everywhere. Really? I'm sure there was a collective gasp among all the women who were so deeply offended when they heard of Limbaugh's comments.  How will they ever recover?  I think restitution is definitely in order.   

I know this is not directly related to the intent of Heel's thread.  But, I'm so sick of all the mamby-pamby correctness where certain people choose to be offended when it suits their needs.  If Rush Limbaugh wants to call someone a whore, who cares? Anyone recall who said this?

 "Imagine having to take the 7-train to (Shea Stadium) looking like you're riding through Beirut, next to some kid with purple hair, next to some queer with AIDS, right next to some dude who just got out of jail for the fourth time, right next to some 20-year-old mom with four kids. It's depressing."

Ding Ding Ding....yep, John Rocker.  He became the most villified, racist man in America for this quote.  Why?  It instantly became almost fashionable to try and be more outraged than the last commentator in pointing out the untold number of people hurt by Rocker's comments.  What?  Who was hurt?  Name one person.  Nobody lost money...no one lost a minutes sleep....not one soul was "hurt" by what he said.  You call him an idiot and move on.  But he has every right to say it, baseball player or not.  And Rush has every right to call someone a slut.  If you want to listen to him...fine...if not, change the damn channel.  Has Howard Stern ever called anyone a slut?  Hmm? 

[Townhallsavoy]

It's the typical "Hey look over here!" tactic that every politician uses come election time. 

No one wants people - especially educated, active people - discussing the state of the economy, foreign affairs, the housing market, taxes, and the future right before the polls open.

[CCTAU]

So this chick wants all women to be able go out, bang whoever they want for fun, and I am supposed to pay to make sure they don't get pregnant while having their preferred orgasm? I'm sure there are some common names for this type of woman, but I guess we aren't allowed to say them out loud.

In my younger days, I would have thanked the rest of you for making sure my ho didn't get knocked up.

[GH2001]

So this chick wants all women to be able go out, bang whoever they want for fun, and I am supposed to pay to make sure they don't get pregnant while having their preferred orgasm? I'm sure there are some common names for this type of woman, but I guess we aren't allowed to say them out loud.

In my younger days, I would have thanked the rest of you for making sure my ho didn't get knocked up.

I think that's pretty much what Rush meant by his statement - he just used poor and moreso blunt words. She wants to be able to whore around on MY DIME? Yeah, thats my business then.

[Townhallsavoy]

I'm having a hard time finding exactly what she said.  Anyone have a transcript or article?

[JR4AU]

So this chick wants all women to be able go out, bang whoever they want for fun, and I am supposed to pay to make sure they don't get pregnant while having their preferred orgasm? I'm sure there are some common names for this type of woman, but I guess we aren't allowed to say them out loud.

In my younger days, I would have thanked the rest of you for making sure my ho didn't get knocked up.

You, like Rush, apparently didn't actually listen to, or read a transcript of her testimony.

Yes, she was, IMHO, shilling for insurance to pay for contraception.  At least that's my take.  It was done under the guise of using the pill as hormone therapy for things like preventing, or managing ovarian polycystic fibrosis.  That can't be done with condoms. 

The way it was presented was not "I and my horny friends want to go fuck everybody, and can't afford our personal choice of contraception".   It was presented as:  "certain women need this for healthcare reasons outside of contraception, but our Catholic and Jesuit school health plans won't currently pay for something that is considered contraception."

At no time did she even mention her own sexual orientation or practices, or her own healthcare needs.  Her 11 minute testimony was purely hearsay and anecdotal.  It wasn't even allowed before the entire congress, only a dem committee.  Bottom line: Rush was way stupid in his words, and in doing what he did, he took what was essentially meaningless testimony, and has made their agenda, and Fluke front page news, and gotten Fluke face time the morning show circuit to further advance their agenda, which is, IMHO, insurance mandate by the gubment to cover contraception. 

[JR4AU]

I'm having a hard time finding exactly what she said.  Anyone have a transcript or article?

Here's the transcript, from the Washington Examiner  http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/what-did-sandra-fluke-really-say/408191

My name is Sandra Fluke, and I’m a third-year student at Georgetown Law School. I’m also a past-president of Georgetown Law Students for Reproductive Justice or LSRJ. And I’d like to acknowledge my fellow LSRJ members and allies and all of the student activists with us and thank them so much for being here today.

(Applause)

We, as Georgetown LSRJ, are here today because we’re so grateful that this regulation implements the non-partisan medical advice of the Institute of Medicine.

I attend a Jesuit law school that does not provide contraceptive coverage in its student health plan. And just as we students have faced financial, emotional, and medical burdens as a result, employees at religiously-affiliated hospitals and institutions and universities across the country have suffered similar burdens.

We are all grateful for the new regulation that will meet the critical health care needs of so many women.

Simultaneously, the recently announced adjustment addresses any potential conflict with the religious identity of Catholic or Jesuit institutions.

When I look around my campus, I see the faces of the women affected by this lack of contraceptive coverage.

And especially in the last week, I have heard more and more of their stories. On a daily basis, I hear yet from another woman from Georgetown or from another school or who works for a religiously-affiliated employer, and they tell me that they have suffered financially and emotionally and medically because of this lack of coverage.

And so, I’m here today to share their voices, and I want to thank you for allowing them – not me – to be heard.

Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, 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. 40% of the female students at Georgetown Law reported to us that they struggle financially as a result of this policy.

One told us about how embarrassed and just powerless she felt when she was standing at the pharmacy counter and learned for the first time that contraception was not covered on her insurance and she had to turn and walk away because she couldn’t afford that prescription. Women like her have no choice but to go without contraception.

Just last week, a married female student told me that she had to stop using contraception because she and her husband just couldn’t fit it into their budget anymore. Women employed in low-wage jobs without contraceptive coverage face the same choice.

And some might respond that contraception is accessible in lots of other ways. Unfortunately, that’s just not true.

Women’s health clinic provide a vital medical service, but as the Guttmacher Institute has definitely documented, these clinics are unable to meet the crushing demand for these services. Clinics are closing, and women are being forced to go without the medical care they need.

How can Congress consider the [Rep. Jeff] Fortenberry (R-Neb.), [Sen. Marco] Rubio (R-Fla.) and [Sen. Roy] Blunt (R-Mo.) legislation to allow even more employers and institutions to refuse contraception coverage and then respond that the non-profit clinics should step up to take care of the resulting medical crisis, particularly when so many legislators are attempting to de-fund those very same clinics?

These denial of contraceptive coverage impact real people.

In the worst cases, women who need these medications for other medical conditions suffer very dire consequences.

A friend of mine, for example, has polycystic ovarian syndrome, and she has to take prescription birth control to stop cysts from growing on her ovaries. Her prescription is technically covered by Georgetown’s insurance because it’s not intended to prevent pregnancy.

Unfortunately, under many religious institutions and insurance plans, it wouldn’t be. There would be no exception for other medical needs. And under Sen. Blunt’s amendment, Sen. Rubio’s bill or Rep. Fortenberry’s bill there’s no requirement that such an exception be made for these medical needs.

When this exception does exist, these exceptions don’t accomplish their well-intended goals because when you let university administrators or other employers rather than women and their doctors dictate whose medical needs are legitimate and whose are not, women’s health takes a back seat to a bureaucracy focused on policing her body.

In 65% of the cases at our school, our female students were interrogated by insurance representatives and university medical staff about why they needed prescription and whether they were lying about their symptoms.

For my friend and 20% of the women in her situation, she never got the insurance company to cover her prescription. Despite verifications of her illness from her doctor, her claim was denied repeatedly on the assumption that she really wanted birth control to prevent pregnancy. She’s gay. So clearly polycystic ovarian syndrome was a much more urgent concern than accidental pregnancy for her.

After months paying over $100 out-of-pocket, she just couldn’t afford her medication anymore, and she had to stop taking it.

I learned about all of this when I walked out of a test and got a message from her that in the middle of the night in her final exam period she’d been in the emergency room. She’d been there all night in just terrible, excruciating pain. She wrote to me, ‘It was so painful I’d woke up thinking I’ve been shot.’

Without her taking the birth control, a massive cyst the size of a tennis ball had grown on her ovary. She had to have surgery to remove her entire ovary as a result.

On the morning I was originally scheduled to give this testimony, she was sitting in a doctor’s office, trying to cope with the consequences of this medical catastrophe.

Since last year’s surgery, she’s been experiencing night sweats and weight gain and other symptoms of early menopause as a result of the removal of her ovary. She’s 32-years-old.

As she put it, ‘If my body indeed does enter early menopause, no fertility specialist in the world will be able to help me have my own children. I will have no choice at giving my mother her desperately desired grandbabies simply because the insurance policy that I paid for, totally unsubsidized by my school, wouldn’t cover my prescription for birth control when I needed it.’

Now, in addition to potentially facing the health complications that come with having menopause at such an early age – increased risk of cancer, heart disease, osteoporosis – she may never be able to conceive a child.

Some may say that my friend’s tragic story is rare. It’s not. I wish it were

One woman told us doctors believe she has endometriosis, but that can’t be proven without surgery. So the insurance has not been willing to cover her medication – the contraception she needs to treat her endometriosis.

Recently, another woman told me that she also has polycystic ovarian syndrome and she’s struggling to pay for her medication and is terrified to not have access to it.

Due to the barriers erected by Georgetown’s policy, she hasn’t been reimbursed for her medications since last August.

I sincerely pray that we don’t have to wait until she loses an ovary or is diagnosed with cancer before her needs and the needs of all of these women are taken seriously.

Because this is the message that not requiring coverage of contraception sends: A woman’s reproductive health care isn’t a necessity, isn’t a priority.

One woman told us that she knew birth control wasn’t covered on the insurance and she assumed that that’s how Georgetown’s insurance handle all of women’s reproductive and sexual health care. So when she was raped, she didn’t go to the doctor, even to be examined or tested for sexually transmitted infections, because she thought insurance wasn’t going to cover something like that – something that was related to a woman’s reproductive health.

As one other student put it: ‘This policy communicates to female students that our school doesn’t understand our needs.’

These are not feelings that male fellow student experience and they’re not burdens that male students must shoulder.

In the media lately, some conservative Catholic organizations have been asking what did we expect when we enroll in a Catholic school?

We can only answer that we expected women to be treated equally, to not have our school create untenable burdens that impede our academic success.

We expected that our schools would live up to the Jesuit creed of ‘cura personalis‘ – to care for the whole person – by meeting all of our medical needs.

We expected that when we told our universities of the problem this policy created for us as students, they would help us.

We expected that when 94% of students oppose the policy the university would respect our choices regarding insurance students pay for – completely unsubsidized by the university.

We did not expect that women would be told in the national media that we should have gone to school elsewhere.

And even if that meant going to a less prestigious university, we refuse to pick between a quality education and our health. And we resent that in the 21st century, anyone think it’s acceptable to ask us to make this choice simply because we are women.

Many of the women whose stories I’ve shared today are Catholic women. So ours is not a war against the church. It is a struggle for the access to the health care we need.

The President of the Association of Jesuit Colleges has shared that Jesuit colleges and the universities appreciate the modifications to the rule announced recently. Religious concerns are addressed and women get the health care they need. And I sincerely hope that that is something we can all agree upon.

Thank you very much.

[Townhallsavoy]

Yeah after reading that, I have no idea why anyone is against what she is saying.  Unless I missed the part where she claims to have so much sex that she can't afford it anymore. 

But I do question this part of her story, and this seems to be rather crucial:

friend of mine, for example, has polycystic ovarian syndrome, and she has to take prescription birth control to stop cysts from growing on her ovaries. Her prescription is technically covered by Georgetown’s insurance because it’s not intended to prevent pregnancy.

Unfortunately, under many religious institutions and insurance plans, it wouldn’t be.

So does Georgetown cover birth control and contraceptives or not?  If they do for medical reasons, then what's the big deal?  A lot of insurance companies don't for sexual reasons.  BC/BS in Alabama (at least Peehip for teachers) only covers birth control for a medical reason. 

[GH2001]

You, like Rush, apparently didn't actually listen to, or read a transcript of her testimony.

Yes, she was, IMHO, shilling for insurance to pay for contraception.  At least that's my take.  It was done under the guise of using the pill as hormone therapy for things like preventing, or managing ovarian polycystic fibrosis.  That can't be done with condoms. 

The way it was presented was not "I and my horny friends want to go fuck everybody, and can't afford our personal choice of contraception".   It was presented as:  "certain women need this for healthcare reasons outside of contraception, but our Catholic and Jesuit school health plans won't currently pay for something that is considered contraception."

At no time did she even mention her own sexual orientation or practices, or her own healthcare needs.  Her 11 minute testimony was purely hearsay and anecdotal.  It wasn't even allowed before the entire congress, only a dem committee.  Bottom line: Rush was way stupid in his words, and in doing what he did, he took what was essentially meaningless testimony, and has made their agenda, and Fluke front page news, and gotten Fluke face time the morning show circuit to further advance their agenda, which is, IMHO, insurance mandate by the gubment to cover contraception.

The general premise of CCT and Rush remains valid though. She is lobbying for it to be FREE! I have a right to inquire if my tax dollars are being lobbied to pay for a free service. Just like with anything else.  I really really think this is a HUGE red herring that the media and others are throwing out there to distract from economic numbers and gas prices. Rush made the mistake of biting on this. So have most of the GOP. They need to let the churches deal with the Free Contraception Mandate in court and let them do the dirty work. The GOP and people like Rush need to be focusing on Obama as a dismal failure in general, "true" jobless numbers and how gas is about to go through the roof as well as the Keystone rejection.

[GH2001]

Yeah after reading that, I have no idea why anyone is against what she is saying.  Unless I missed the part where she claims to have so much sex that she can't afford it anymore. 

But I do question this part of her story, and this seems to be rather crucial:

So does Georgetown cover birth control and contraceptives or not?  If they do for medical reasons, then what's the big deal?  A lot of insurance companies don't for sexual reasons.  BC/BS in Alabama (at least Peehip for teachers) only covers birth control for a medical reason.

Except you are missing the part where the mandate provides it FREE. Many have an issue with this.
Plus, freedom of religion > her need to get birth control for free.

They are a Religious Organization, a 501c - they don't have to provide anything that goes against their conscience. Before Obamacare happened, no employer even had to provide ANY insurance.

[Townhallsavoy]

Except you are missing the part where the mandate provides it FREE. Many have an issue with this.
Plus, freedom of religion > her need to get birth control for free.

How is it free?  Does she not pay for insurance through her tuition?  Or am I missing the quote where she says that it should be a government service?

[JR4AU]

Yeah after reading that, I have no idea why anyone is against what she is saying.  Unless I missed the part where she claims to have so much sex that she can't afford it anymore. 

But I do question this part of her story, and this seems to be rather crucial:

So does Georgetown cover birth control and contraceptives or not?  If they do for medical reasons, then what's the big deal?  A lot of insurance companies don't for sexual reasons.  BC/BS in Alabama (at least Peehip for teachers) only covers birth control for a medical reason.

No, they don't cover it as birth control.  They do cover some forms of hormone therapy for certain non-sexual related reasons. 

BTW, your comment about "so much sex, she can't afford it" is just the type of ignorant statements that drive folks like Rush.  You take the pill once a day, whether you fuck 100 guys a day, or fuck your boyfriend once a month.  Cost remains the same no matter how much sex your having.   

Like GH said, and I said, it's being presented as a women's health issue, but it's really shilling for free contraception.   If you have a real hormonal issue, your insurance will pay for managing it. 

[GH2001]

How is it free?  Does she not pay for insurance through her tuition?  Or am I missing the quote where she says that it should be a government service?

Sounds like you have some reading to do.

Here ya go....in a nutshell anyway.

On January 20th, Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius issued a mandate requiring that employers provide female workers access to free preventive care services, including contraceptives.

The rule includes an exemption for churches and houses of worship, but not religious institutions such as hospitals, universities and charities that may carry the church's name or carry out its mission.

The mandate implements provisions of the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, and Republican and church leaders are speaking out against the mandate.

The administration's theory is that birth control is less expensive than an unplanned pregnancy or an abortion. They claim that the cost will be approximately $30 per month, per employee, a figure which seems low.

[GH2001]

No, they don't cover it as birth control.  They do cover some forms of hormone therapy for certain non-sexual related reasons. 

BTW, your comment about "so much sex, she can't afford it" is just the type of ignorant statements that drive folks like Rush.  You take the pill once a day, whether you fuck 100 guys a day, or fuck your boyfriend once a month.  Cost remains the same no matter how much sex your having.   

Like GH said, and I said, it's being presented as a women's health issue, but it's really shilling for free contraception.   If you have a real hormonal issue, your insurance will pay for managing it.

This is a two pronged issue:

1. The Free aspect. Someone will have to pay for this - and those "someones" are not happy about it.

2. The Mandate - sorry, but aside from a few exceptions, the gov't has no authority to MANDATE a private insurance company to cover certain things that they see fit. This is gov't overreach. This part is nothing new and people have been raising hell over the Unconstitutional nature of this since it was voted into Law.

[Townhallsavoy]

I wish everyone would stop using the word free unless we're referring to energy from the sun.  Someone is paying for it.  "Employers provide access to preventative care services as paid for by __________." 

Did she give a reason why religious institutions have to provide the services but not the church?

[JR4AU]

This is a two pronged issue:

1. The Free aspect. Someone will have to pay for this - and those "someones" are not happy about it.

2. The Mandate - sorry, but aside from a few exceptions, the gov't has no authority to MANDATE a private insurance company to cover certain things that they see fit. This is gov't overreach. This part is nothing new and people have been raising hell over the Unconstitutional nature of this since it was voted into Law.

Unless I miss something, mandating it to be covered under insurance, isn't the same as being free.  And, who pays for it, it would seem, would be those that have that coverage. 

I agree it's unconstitutional, and if they force it on the religious 501c's, then I expect it will be brought before the SC by the church(es).

[CCTAU]

BTW, your comment about "so much sex, she can't afford it" is just the type of ignorant statements that drive folks like Rush.  You take the pill once a day, whether you fuck 100 guys a day, or fuck your boyfriend once a month.  Cost remains the same no matter how much sex your having.   

That is fine. Let her be whore on her own dime and not force institutions with a moral compass to bow down to whoredom.

Not that I am against whoredom. I just don't want to pay for it. If I pay for it, I want to know exactly what I am getting. I don't want to pay for it so others can enjoy it.

[GH2001]

I wish everyone would stop using the word free unless we're referring to energy from the sun.  Someone is paying for it.  "Employers provide access to preventative care services as paid for by __________." 

Did she give a reason why religious institutions have to provide the services but not the church?

It used very tongue and cheek because to most of the recepients of free services in the US, it really is "free". If BCBS is made to pay for this so that people like Fluke get it free, the first thing they will do is raise premiums across the board on everyone to "pay" for it. They sure as hell are not going to come out of pocket for it.

On the 2nd part - you really don't want my full answer, other than this administration is a bunch of "totalitarian freaks" as Breitbart called them. BUT, even with that mentality of wanting to run people's lives, they knew if they made churches and places of worship do this as well, there would be a shitstorm of momumental proportions. Remember, this President is the guy who said most White Americans "are bitter, and cling to their guns and religion".

Unless I miss something, mandating it to be covered under insurance, isn't the same as being free.  And, who pays for it, it would seem, would be those that have that coverage.

Yes, those are 2 different things. But with contraception, it is mandated and mandated to be free per the Sec of HHS (see above). And unless the Insurance Company just wants to be nice or is subsidized to do so, the "free service" will be paid for with a premium increase for everyone - including someone like me who will never use that "free service". Im not exactly keen on paying for this girl's birth control.