Rush Limbaugh's "Slut" Comment Is a Red Herring

There are a lot of questions in the contraception debate that go right to the heart of ObamaCare. Instead we're talking about Rush.

The press and President Obama have been all over Rush Limbaugh for the words he used to criticize a Georgetown Law student, Sandra Fluke, who spoke on February 23 at a meeting of the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee.

There’s been less attention paid, alas, to the details of Ms. Fluke’s testimony, which, when you get into them, help explain why Mr. Limbaugh was worked up about the issue.

Here is some of what Ms. Fluke said:

Without insurance coverage, contraception can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school. For a lot of students who, like me, are on public interest scholarships, that’s practically an entire summer’s salary. Forty percent of female students at Georgetown Law report struggling financially as a result of this policy.

For feminists, the Georgetown chapter of Law Students for Reproductive Justice sure have a non-egalitarian view of who should pay for birth control.

Here are a few ways Ms. Fluke and her friends might get their contraceptive costs down below that $3,000 level:

  • They could have men pay half. Modern men do half the parenting work or pay at least half the child support. Why shouldn’t men pay for half of the contraceptive costs?
  • Ms. Fluke and her friends could use condoms instead of prescription birth control pills. One Georgetown student group reportedlyhanded out 4,500 “free” condoms during one recent semester. Or the law students could buy condoms online at $40.25 for a package of 100. At about 40 cents a condom, the Georgetown students could have sex twice a day, 365 days a year, for all three years of law school, for just $881 dollars.
  • Ms. Fluke and her friends could go to Walmart or Target, whose lists of inexpensive drugs include the oral contraceptive Tri-Sprintec priced at $4 for a 28-day supply. Total cost, assuming continuous use for three full years (including the summer after graduating law school or before starting): about $150.

Under ObamaCare, though, if you have health insurance, contraceptives have to be not just inexpensive, but free. That’s right, as President Obama himself explained it on February 10: “As part of the health care reform law that I signed last year, all insurance plans are required to cover preventive care at no cost….We also accepted a recommendation from the experts at the Institute of Medicine that when it comes to women, preventive care should include coverage of contraceptive services such as birth control.  … we know that the overall cost of health care is lower when women have access to contraceptive services… we decided to follow the judgment of the nation’s leading medical experts and make sure that free preventive care includes access to free contraceptive care.”

This idea that something that costs money to make can really be “free” to taxpayers or to anyone else is a deeply held left-wing belief. The New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd over the weekend faulted Mr. Limbaugh for saying that insuring contraception would represent another “welfare entitlement.” That, Ms. Dowd insisted, “is wrong — tax dollars would not provide the benefit, employers and insurance companies would.”

Yet Ms. Dowd’s own newspaper reports that ObamaCare “seeks to extend insurance to more than 30 million people, primarily by expanding Medicaid and providing federal subsidies to help lower- and middle-income Americans buy private coverage,” at a cost of “about $938 billion over 10 years, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.” If Ms. Dowd is correct and “tax dollars would not provide the benefit,” what’s the need for those “federal subsidies”? And if Mr. Obama is correct and dispensing “free” contraceptives really reduces health care costs, why is it even necessary for the government to step in and force insurers to do something that will save them money?

To some degree, the tax-funded contraceptive horse is already out of the barn. A study conducted in 2007 and 2008 by the Kaiser Family Foundation and George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services found that at least 39 states and the District of Columbia covered oral contraceptives under Medicaid, the health care program for the poor whose costs are split between state and federal governments. That was back during the George W. Bush administration, which is something to remember the next time a Democrat claims that once Republicans come into office they are going to take away access to birth control pills.

Another interesting aspect of Ms. Fluke’s testimony is that so much of it — about a third — concerned the use of birth control pills not as contraception but as a treatment for polycystic ovarian syndrome. The Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome Association lists birth control pills as one treatment for PCOS, but it lists a lot of other treatments, too, including in-vitro fertilization, anti-androgens, and insulin sensitizers. The birth control pills are the only treatment for the syndrome that the government wants to make free to consumers, or that Ms. Fluke emphasized in her testimony. It’s not clear why that treatment should get preference over other ones.

There are a lot of questions here that go right to the heart of ObamaCare. Why is the president getting involved in setting prices for prescription drugs in the first place? Where in the Constitution does he get that power? Why should people past reproductive age who are paying copayments for their heart or arthritis medication be paying taxes to subsidize free prescription contraceptives for law students?

No wonder a lot of people would prefer, instead, to discuss Rush Limbaugh’s word choices.

Ira Stoll is editor of FutureOfCapitalism.com and author of Samuel Adams: A Life.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • wareagle||

    We're supposed to take Ms Fluke seriously when she goes to a school RUN BY THE JESUITS and wants contraceptives on their dime. But, it's law school, so no reason to expect her to 1) dial down the sexual activity a bit, 2) buy her own condom stash if she cannot count on her partners, 3) otherwise act in a manner where her view might have some legitimacy.

    Calling her a slut was not smart, but calling her out was necessary. Hells bells, when Rush needed Viagra, he bought his own.

  • o3||

    ms fluke was describing PRIVATE insurance offered by georgetown to faculity, staff, & students. Assuming rush isnt enrolled, he's subsidizing nothing of her ~$3k annual premiums.

    swing and a miss

  • NotSure||

    Um she was testifying in front of government about how the government needs to force the private institution to give her free stuff. Which does mean taxpayer money is being spent to do this. So yes he would be subsidising her "free" stuff.

  • Almanian||

    You'll have to forgive Urine. He's a fucking moron.

  • NotSure||

    Actually I don't forgive him, yes he is a moron, that still does not give him the right to take my money to impose his moral viewpoints on me.

  • Eric||

    Then you should rightly be bitching about every time the government spends money. Becuase every cent is spent without your consent and, I suppose using your definition above, is imposing a moral viewpoint on you. We just selectively get sand in our vaginas about different things. In this case, you and other Righty's get wadded up about sex and sex related issues. I get pissed when my tax dollars are used to bomb people who've done nothing to me or my country. I'm not a fucking warmonger and I don't want my money being used for that kind of shit. But that fat fucking pig Rush (and the whole cabal of Team Red) isn't intellectually honest enough to see the similarities.

  • ||

    And that fat ass Michelle O does?

    Or that cankled fat ass hillary does?

  • NotSure||

    Buffoons like you basically argue that: "you do that, so we can do that", that is not an argument, it is infantile 5 year cry babying.

    I am against countries being bombed as well, you can easily observe this in all the war articles here, but since you are a clueless moron and see the world as only having to modes of thinking, I am not surprised by this ridiculous line of argument.

  • Eric||

    "Buffoons like you basically argue that: "you do that, so we can do that", that is not an argument, it is infantile 5 year cry babying."

    I didn't argue that at all, and my point was that our outrage is very selective dependent upon our point of view.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Hey, Eric... learn the difference between a "Righty" and most of the posters on here.

    Or, die in a fire.

  • ||

    My god, was this Eric's first visit to Reason.com? The overwhelmingly prevailing view here is anti-war and non-intervention. He just saw an article that WASN'T calling on Rush Limbaugh to be hauled before a firing squad and just assumed we love him and support all the neocons.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Eric has the psychic stench of Occupy about him.

  • Jeffersonian||

    Eric has the psychic stench of Occupy about him.

    There's nothing "psychic" about the stench surrounding the Occutards.

  • Eric||

    You have nothing to offer FIFY. This is my first and last response to your vacuous commentary.

  • ||

    ooooooooooooo, i guess you win!
    ad hominus erectus wins again.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Ooooh! We have someone who found "vacuous" in the dictionary!

    Hey, Eric, let's see how good you are with words:

    Define "racist".

    Correctly.

  • Justin||

    We fucking do, asshat. You must be new here, so I'll bring you up to speed - we bitch about most things the government spends their money on and don't want to bomb other countries either.

  • Eric||

    You know Justin I really want to believe you, but based upon the disgusting Team Red collusion I generally see on these boards, I suspect that you had to briefly release your kung fu grip upon the collective 'R' erection in order to write that post. Am I wrong?

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    Yes, you're wrong...and a fuckface to boot.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Go fuck yourself, Eric. Just because we're not Team Blue, doesn't mean we're Team Red.

    Unless YOU define it that way, which is vacuous.

  • The Pointer-Outer||

    This Eric person is an intellectual coward, it would seem.

  • Eric||

    I'm not the one hiding safely within the confines of my own board. Project much do we?

  • The Pointer-Outer||

    How do you know we don't post elsewhere?

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    I get pissed when my tax dollars are used to bomb people who've done nothing to me or my country.

    I guess you missed quite a bit of commentary on here regarding Obama's use of military force. Apparently, the stultifying effects of your partisan mind rendered you incapable of using the search function.

  • Eric||

    If you read my original post I made no attack upon Libertarians. My comments were directed at Limbaugh and Team Red. But you all so identify with the R's that you took it as a knock against you.

  • JM||

    Is joe back?

  • ||

    In this case, you and other Righty's get wadded up about sex and sex related issues.

    You guys really don't get that we can grab your words and throw them in your face.

  • ||

    Classy response as usual from the libs. It is manifestly false that these students cannot afford their own birth control. And the point is not a moral one. Why should the Am. taxpayer be dunned for anyone's birth control. Your argument about war is a non sequitur. It does nothing to show that contraceptives should be paid for by taxpayers. If I want my car paid for by taxpayers, is that reasonable? Surely a car is a greater necessity for most of us than contraceptives, and surely is less affordable. Spleen venting, as you've done here, never convinces anyone, and makes you sound like a thoughtless fool. Think before you post.

  • ||

    Someone who's going to law school can't afford their own contraception? Is your date too cheap for dinner at McDonalds, too?

    Why are ugly, stinky, fat, old or the otherwise 'eww' compelled to subsidize your good time?

    In light of the prevention argument, it's a good investment that future lawyers like the slut in question are given a subsidy to not reproduce. They should be given weekly free skydiving tickets and chutes packed by unionized handicapped umm, chute-packers.

    Since we're on the progressive spin, I think it's wholly unfair that good looking, sexually active people pay the same for birth control as us ugly fuckers. They should pay more, like a luxury tax.

    In fact, I think these people should be compelled to prove they're not reselling said product by documenting the use (and pregnancy risking behavior) on red tube, as a form of means testing.

  • ||

    "Then you should rightly be bitching about every time the government spends money."

    We're libertarians, what else DO we do?

  • o3||

    nope, her testimony, which i watched, correctly stated that georgetown's insurance was private insurance. and someone should tell sex-starved rush that women take the pill once a month.

    it tries moar harder

  • ||

    Who pays the government folk forcing georgetown to provide baby killling drugs?

    Are you so stupid that you can't understand that Rush and many of us here have to pay for the regulators stealing georgetown's property?

    BIG SWING AND A MISS!

    Moreover, you can't be so stupid as to not recognize that federal subsidies of higher education costs have caused tuitions to increase several times the rate of inflation for decades, you dopey douche?

    Thus, more federal money means more financial burden for aspiring statists like ms. flake who see law school as suitable training for a wannabe totalitarian.

    Thus, this fabian fluke has less money for condoms.

  • NotSure||

    Hey clown, I will repeat, she was testifying in front of government, that was discussing forcing private insurers to pay for her. To force a private institution to provide something for free against their will does need taxpayer money, no matter how much you want to ignore the utterly obvious.

    This is not a private matter, she was testifying for government, I repeat government !

  • wareagle||

    you keep forgetting who runs Georgetown. There should be no expectation of such an institution providing things it has problems with. Perhaps she should have considered a law school not run by the Jesuits.

  • thirtyandseven||

    she should have considered

    See, that's where you lost her.

  • ||

    someone should tell sex-starved rush that women take the pill once a month.

    Well, women who get pregnant might. If you want to take the pill and not get pregnant, I understand its more of a daily thing.

  • Anacreon||

    Last I heard most birth control pills are taken daily, some on a cycle of 21 days meds, 7 days placebo. When did this change to "one pill a month?"

  • Amakudari||

    There are once-a-month options, and there are also birth control pills that don't have placebo periods for a year or so (i.e. completely suppressing menstruation). AFAICT, though, most women use the 3 weeks on/1 week off deal you're talking about.

  • The Pointer-Outer||

    Miss Fluke had no credentials going in to a Congressional hearing. She should never have been allowed there.

  • ||

    But she's a thirty year old third year law staudent at Georgetown!

    Don't you know who SHE IS?

  • ||

    Who's been paying for her contraceptives until now?

  • Almanian Bot||

    Who run Barter Town?

    Who run Georgetown?

    Embargo lifted....

  • AlmightyJB||

    Since she didn't ask for free tampons or toothpaste can we assume she uses neither? If so, that's gross.

  • Passé Fist||

    Don't you know who SHE IS?

    Yes, I do. Rush was wrong to call her a slut, that being defined as an overenthusiastic amateur. By her own testimony she demands someone pay for her to have sex with someone else. She has lost her amateur status and gone pro. That defines her as a third-party whore.

  • *||

    Newsflash: it wasn't a congressional hearing. It was a press conference arranged by Dems, staged to look like an official hearing. If it were an actual committee hearing, the head honcho conducting it wouldn't have been Nancy Pelosi (D).

  • Mr. FIFY||

    I agree with the Pointer: Even if it wasn't an official hearing, the woman in question had no credentials to speak, period.

    And the Admiral was right... it WAS a trap.

  • EMp||

    SWISH! And that's the game!!!

  • Con MD||

    Yes, but if Obama's royal and unconstitutional edict goes through, ALL insurance plans must offer contraception, even for homosexuals, even for post-menopausal women or men or women who have had sterilization procedures. So yes, Rush's premiums and everyone elses would go up.

    Your's was the swing and miss.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: O3,

    ms fluke was describing PRIVATE insurance offered by georgetown to faculity, staff, & students. Assuming rush isnt enrolled, he's subsidizing nothing of her ~$3k annual premiums.


    He meant the taxpayers will be paying for her contraception, which will be the ultimate result of Obamacare mandating freebies to the privately insured.

    Swing, missed, and then the catcher lets it go because he's new at this stuff.

  • ||

    Bullshit.

    Anyone who chooses not to use birth control pills is necessarily subsidizing someone who does. Despite the fact that it's pretty easy to predict in advance if your going to use birth control, and as such it wouldn't even be an insurable event except in the bizarro land of ObamaCare.

  • ||

    You forgot anal. She could just do anal.

  • shrike||

    Rush Limbaugh does anal. He is a fucking pedophile. I stay in Casa de Campo (DR) where he chickens little boys in the ass on his vacations.

    He is your typical GOP cocksucker/toe tapper.

  • Joe||

    Nice mouth on you. Do you blow your father with that mouth?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Someone downthread asked shrike for proof of Limbaugh's pedophilia, and while I would be fine and dandy with Limbaugh dying in a fire... it's decidedly uncool to accuse people of fucking children without any proof of such acts.

    Then again, shrike IS a liberal... and they do shit like accusing people of having sex with children, without proof. It's one of their tools of the trade.

  • shrike||

    Rush and I don't need proof. We have lawyers.

  • shrike||

    I resent Limpbowels moving in on my territory!

    OOps, did i just write what i was thinking?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Ooookay... have the LAWYERS present the proof, then.

    Not that I care, IF Limbaugh is guilty, he should hang for it.

    IF he's guilty.

  • sunny black||

    shrike...you've shown that you have one thing in common with Rush -- a particularly lame and boring sense of humor.

  • Jeffersonian||

    Nice comment, shriek. Nice, libelous comment.

  • horace||

    "She could just do anal."

    Why would she do anal? She's a lesbian. Why do you think she was so clueless about what contraception costs?

  • I Get The Joke||

    Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic.

    Hahahahahahaha!

  • JM||

    Thanks, IGTJ, I missed that first time around. That's marvelous.

  • ||

    Tabooter|3.6.12 @ 12:14PM|#

    What about the fact that we now have two generations of educated women who think that sex and money are more important than reproducing? That wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that we are consequently forced to flood our country with immigrants who have minimal job skills, minimal education, high birth rates, and are taught in America's public schools to vote Democratic and harbor antipathy for white men? Such a wonderfully self-reinforcing demographic and cultural catastrophe we have created, all so women like Ms. Fluke can aspire to more sex and money. Maybe Fluke, and the entire generation of self-genocidal cultural suicide mavens she represents, is a slut.

  • Liberty||

    Thank the Lord. I was worried the libertarians wouldn't run cover for Rush on that. (whew!)

  • Almanian||

    I blame Bush

  • ||

    I blame her bush.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    I prefer a nice trim bush.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    No bush for me, please. I'm a member of The Clean Plate Club.

    Nope, not even a landing strip. I likes mine smooooooooth, yo.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    No bush? That doesn't make any sense. I thought we were discussing horticulture and landscaping.

  • ||

    No, we are discussing parking lots.

  • ||

    Prior to paving paradise?

  • White Idiot||

    You called?

  • ||

    ^this^

  • HermanLame||

    According to shrike, so does Rush the paedophile.

  • Almanian||

    Rush Limbaugh's "Slut" Comment Is a Red Herring

    And now he's forced to cut down the largest tree in the forest with it. Live by the Red Herring...

  • DarrenM.||

    How about we just go to forced sterilization of undesirables and quit beating around the bush. (Pun intended.)

  • ||

    Calling her a 'slut' was nigh-on retarded. It gave the statists the straw-man they needed.

    Until counter-arguments for this kind of statist shit are separated from a certain loud-mouth blowhard drug addict with no moral authority to stand on these arguments will continue to be lost.

  • ||

    Of course liberals call women worse than that nearly daily and never are the worse for it.

  • ||

    Sure, but that's sadly not the point or the rules here.

  • ||

    From the public relations standpoint, don't forget that Rush is far more likeable than ANY wannabe hilary / nancy p. / madeline albright harridan control freak misanthrope.

    By no means could any reasonable person asseverate that Rush is misanthropic. Simply put, in a personality contest, he just kicks the shit out of big government coercive cunts.

  • ||

    You know, maybe Rush is. But if you put yourself in another's shoes Rush is aberrant creature. When I think of this nameless demographic I think of the classy-dressed college cutie who lives below me. She doesn't think about politics much either way I can tell when I talk to her.

    But on general feminine instinct her very genes know Rush the Hutt is from Tatooine. We need her vote so to speak and Rush ain't the way here.

  • ||

    Its not that I love Rush, its just that I think some of the peeps are blinded to Rush's ENORMOUS success and the reasons for it.

    He has succeeded far beyond any other talk master in the history of radio. Who else can even come close? Some sports broadcasters perhaps, like Vin Scully of the Dodgers (62 years), Gil Santos for the Patriots (around 30), Pat Summerall, Dick Enberg.

    Why has Rush succeeded so spectacularly?

    Do you think its because his personality is like Ms. flute's?

  • ||

    I think Rush's audience is something like 20 million people. That market is his armor and lucre both. That is less than 5% of the population of this country.

    I guarantee you run that guy in a poll of 'eligible voters' on most anything you can cook up - likability, who you'd have a beer with, etc. against Hillary and Rush does not win. Maybe against Pelosi, but my God that is a Pyrrhic victory beating Nancy Pelosi.

    Fact of the matter is, conservatives honestly suffer from Old Fat White guy problem debating these issues. Its either them or you trot out the Fundies and that's non-starter as well.

    Creatures like Pelosi get to hang back from limelight here, and let Flukes of the world bait Rush the Hutt into neutralizing himself, leaving nobody politically remaining to stop the oncoming gravy-train they socialists ride. Seriously its a problem in Culture Wars.

  • ||

    Do you think that Hillary could sustain an audience of 20 million for over 20 years?

    Not. in. our. lifetimes.

    Besides, a fair, though not necessary, inference of your post is that most of the rest of the 280 million people who do not regularly listen to Rush would vote to rather have a beer with Hillary than Rush. I just can't buy that.

    In order to sustain the 20 million listening audience, you have to be at least somewhat likeable, something that hillary and michell o lack.

  • ||

    Z-don't get me wrong. I readily concede that there are millions who loathe rush. If put to the test, however, I doubt that most of them could credibly articulate why they so loathed him. IOW, they would not have their facts straight and would suffer in an intellecutal contest between themselves and those who do like rush.

  • ||

    Do you think that Hillary could sustain an audience of 20 million for over 20 years?

    I think at this point, you kinda could say she already has. The Hillbilly spawned Rush the Hutt after all...there is an ugly, fetid symbiosis deep down there somewhere.

  • ||

    Ah, Rush is the protagonist and hillary is just one of a cast of hundreds of antagonists.

    Sure, her role has been a recurring one, I'll grant you that.

  • ||

    Without HillyBilly, there could have been no Rush. There's something to note about politimedia and their 'icons' - they are made opposing the government, not licking their buddies' boots.

    This applies to Lefties, too. Olbermann made his mark making a mockery of Bush. His swan-song was blithering like an idiot defending Obama.

    These personalities win converts just like politicians on the make - picking up the disillusioned hating whatever face is the status-quo.

    Star Wars IV doesn't get a sequel with no Darth Vader.

  • Jeffersonian||

    Without HillyBilly, there could have been no Rush.

    Rush was big before Billary and I distinctly recall the Left cackling that Clinton's election meant the end of him.

    Oops.

  • ||

    Your point is taken, it is a good one. However I would contend Rush was Mark Levine, Mikey Savage, one of those types with a Following but of no mainstream impact.

    Fact is, the Left might delight in a Levine's demise but they don't give a shit what he says. Nobody quotes him, no NYT op-eds waste their time with him. I'm sure he goes off the handle a lot - and nobody cares.

    Everyone cares what Rush the Hutt says to some extent - here we are talking about him - and that phenomena distinctly has origins in dawn of Hill-Billy.

  • Don Coyote||

    The Hillbilly spawned Rush the Hutt after all...there is an ugly, fetid symbiosis deep down there somewhere.

    Rush was on the radio nationwide in 1988.
    Bill Clinton wasn't president until 1993.

  • Jonathan||

    "No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public." H L Menken (as to size of Limbaugh's audience)

  • ||

    "No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public." H L Menken (as to size of Limbaugh's audience)

    That is horribly ignorant quote by an arrogant ass. There's people who listen to Rush Limbaugh ten times smart as you, me or Mencken.

    There's also some gay dude right now rocking out to Grace Jones in his speedos and roller-skates watching Rachel Maddow - which from my POV is nigh-on retarded - who's a veritable genius in some field worth being a genius in.

    Only fools thinking themselves clever judge a book based on not its cover, but by the single page they land on when opening it.

  • ||

    i thought Owebama said that...

  • emperor wears no clothes||

    Why has Rush succeeded so spectacularly?

    Because at least half of America is comprised of retards.

  • ||

    ad hom. WINNING!

  • The Pointer-Outer||

    ...and the other half of the retards vote Democrat, emperor.

  • o3||

    et tu brutus?

  • Jeffersonian||

    Brute...get your Latin right.

  • Zeb||

    What did you have in mind, John? (Seriously, I'm not sure what you mean).

  • ||

    See the morning links

    Here is a good list. The same people having the vapors over Limbaugh think this stuff is okay

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/a.....-suit.html

  • Zeb||

    Oh yeah. I have happily managed to avoid hearing much of anything from those people for some years now. Not having cable/satellite TV is nice in many ways. Black conservatives/libertarians get similar (though perhaps slightly more subtle.)

  • ||

    He's referring all the names Palin, Coulter, Michelle Malkin, etc. have been called, with little feminist outcry.

  • ||

    referring *to*

  • wareagle||

    come on...you know the rules only flow one way. Besides, those women listed; I mean; they're conservatives.

  • emperor wears no clothes||

    He's referring all the names Palin, Coulter, Michelle Malkin, etc. have been called, with little feminist outcry.

    You mean, "Skank," "Man," and "Who?"

  • ||

    nice, clever much?

  • Eric||

    Examples please...

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Why bother, Eric? You'll just presume we're all Republicans here.

    DemocraticUnderground is over < thataway.

  • Liberal Kirsten Powers||

  • ||

    It was retarded.

    Because much as I disagree with her political views, and I would probably utterly dislike her as a person, I think sluts are great.

  • thirtyandseven||

    Calling her a 'slut' was nigh-on retarded. It gave the statists the straw-man they needed.

    +1

    If I didn't know better, I'd assume Limbaugh couldn't give a rats ass about what happens to the country, so long as he can generate controversy and get attention, like a child acting out to get noticed.

    Oh wait, I don't know better.

  • ||

    Wanna bet that this flake thinks that he who forges his birth certificate really cares about her?

  • Steven W.||

    Why does a lesbian need $3K of birth control?

  • ||

    Strap-ons with sperm dispensers?

  • X||

    just because she will be a lesbian 10 years from now, doesn't mean she doesn't need it now.

  • NotSure||

    Actually dead serious question, would lesbians also be allowed to get free contraceptives ? Or would the government have to check whether one is a lesbian or not, if if they did, how would one do this officially ?

  • ||

    And where can I apply for a job in that department?

  • NotSure||

    I know that people won't take the question seriously, but think about it, if the government is all about saving health costs, it would have to be considered.

  • ||

    It would be discriminatory to give $3000 worth of free stuff to straight people but not gay people.

    Of course, $3000 is a pretty high price. One could just go in for an abortion every three months and only have to pay what, about $1200 a year? Or have they gone up lately?

  • ||

    that's some expensive coat hangars.

  • Brandon||

    Why would it have to be considered? Do you think that a significant percentage of lesbians would want birth control?

  • NotSure||

    If people were offered free stuff, although they would never use it, they probably would take it and sell it, so yes they would want that free birth control.

    And like it has been mentioned already, since one cannot discriminate everyone should get it for free.

  • AlmightyJB||

    What about people with tubes tied and vasectomys? Wheres their cut? We're all paying for it anyways. Why doesn't everyone just send the government $4000 and they can send us all back checks for $3000 for birth control or whatever we want to use it for and use the $1000 to pay the beauracrcy that manages all of that. That's basically all that's happening here anyways.

  • ||

    And really, what about the people who just like anal?

  • ||

    Yes. But maybe you don't know the lesbians I know.

  • Hand Outs for Lesbians||

    Since us lesbians do not need birth control pills, we demand our $3000 that these hetero bitches get. This is what democracy looks like.............

  • Rrabbit||

    Why does a lesbian need $3K of birth control?

    Basically, because of beneficial non-contraceptive side effects.

    There is the obvious - much less pain related to the menstrual cycle. The less obvious - it helps prevent certain types of cancer, such as ovarian cancer. The unexpected - certain brands of the pill significantly reduce acne and some other dermatological problems.

  • Jeffersonian||

    Sounds great, so great in fact that it would be well worth it to spend $10 a month on the benefits of taking it. So why doesn't Ms. Fluke make that economic calculation and do so?

  • Skip||

    Yay on topic:

    As I was driving home from the office at the 3 o'clock hour, I made the mistake of turning my radio onto MSNBC. Apparently they have given Martin Bashir his own show. Previously the only way I heard of this guy was due to his sycophantic interview with Michael Jackson where he pretended that he asked hard hitting questions.

    He was discussing Limbaugh's Slutgate with a bunch of other like-minded Dem idiots with not even a slight opposition viewpoint being put forth. Twenty minutes later, when I got back from doing my grocery shopping, he was still at it!

    So I am asking, is this guy the new Olbermann for MSNBC being groomed to be their top conservative hater?

  • ||

    Given MSNBC had to give their last wunderkind >$20 million to leave (Olbermann did it for the �) there track-record sucks.

  • R||

    Olbermann did it for the black diamond with a question mark in it?

  • omnibot||

    He needed the moguls practice.

  • ||

    For some reason ninety-nine percent as numeral renders funny character in this code.

  • ||

    He's got to whack "Dutch" Schultz first.

  • Skip||

    Even lefties can't pretend Schultz is anything but dumb. And while Olbermann only had his Cornell Agricultural degree to make himself look smart, I think Bashir will have more success with just his English accent.

  • ||

    My point is don't you think the others, Ed, Rachael et al, want to be top conservative hater?

  • Ed Schultz||

    I'm gonna torch the fuckin' place!

  • wareagle||

    the others would win some points for intellectual honesty if they say, "okay, Rush was a dick re: word choice, but what about Fluke's sentiment..." Of course, they won't do that.

  • Bill Maher||

    Sarah Palin is STILL a cunt.

    And we need stronger hate-speech laws.

  • shrike||

    The Christ-fags will never go for more hate-speech laws.

  • ||

    Which I applaud, since I give a shit about the First Amendment.

    And you should, since you probably don't want to go to jail.

  • wareagle||

    by listening, you increased the audience size by 33%.

  • Jake Westbrook||

    Oh snap!

  • Anonymous Coward||

    No one on MSNBC's roster, pound-for-pound, can match the drooling vitriol of Olbermann.

  • AuH20||

    I think the MSNBC wunderkind is Maddow, if the liberal blogs are to be believed.

  • ||

    He's really gone downhill since leaving DS9.

  • Skett||

    HA!

  • Bill Maher||

    That cunt Palin could use some birth control!

  • o3||

    which one?

  • Dan||

    @o3 Good one!

  • Mr. FIFY||

    stOOOpid never fires off a "good one".

  • shrike||

    He fired off a good on in my ass.

  • Jake Westbrook||

    Do you need contraception for that?

  • WWNGD?||

    I caught about two minutes of Rush's show today, he made the comment that the democrats are ahead of this topic and the republicans have no idea what hit them or what to do. He also said the democrats frame the conversation so that anybody that is against paying for birth control is against birth control in general and naturally against women.
    I didn't hear anything before that, he went to commercial break and the show ended after that.

  • Eric||

    "He also said the democrats frame the conversation so that anybody that is against paying for birth control is against birth control in general and naturally against women."

    Would Rush admit that he does the same thing:

    Anyone who seeks to trim the military budget hates the troops.

    Anyone who questions our Israeli policy is an anti-semite.

  • WWNGD?||

    Lighten up Francis. I am not trying to compare two unrelated topics, I just happened to listen to the show for about two minutes this afternoon and I am paraphrasing what I heard.

  • Ed Schultz||

    Your check's in the mail, Eric.

  • Jeffersonian||

    I watched your lips move as you wrote it, Ed.

  • Ed Schultz's Wife||

    I was on Rachel Maddow tonight!

  • Eric||

    Didn't mean to attack the messanger. Just pointing out the very big stone in Limbaugh's eye.

  • The Pointer-Outer||

    Given your anti-everyone-but-liberals rant upthread, Eric, your contriteness doesn't seem all that sincere now.

  • Jeffersonian||

    Eric: What does the Constitution say about the military and who can run one?

  • Eric||

    You're trying to change the subject Jeffersionian. I won't fall for it.

  • ||

    just answer the question and leave prevarication to our fearless leader...

  • ||

    trick question: what does the Constitution say about providing free contraception...

  • Jeffersonian||

    No, this is the essence of the argument. The military is, by necessity, a public good in that it cannot be funded individually or even by individual states of the union. It is an inherently federal function and unleashed only (ideally) when Congress approves.

    Contrast this with contraception, which is easily individualized both on the procurement and consumption sides. There is absolutely no reason for the federal government to be involved in either side of the transaction, and certainly no Constitutional authorization to do so.

  • Eric||

    No argument whatsoever Jeffersonian.

    My point was that Limbaugh was being a hypocrite by whining about the same kinds of false argument that he and others on the Right also utilize.

  • Jeffersonian||

    It's not a false argument. There is only one military and one mechanism for funding it in America. Constitutionally so. If the military isn't funded through federal taxes appropriated by Congress, it isn't funded at all, so there is some merit in saying that cuts to military spending harms our military capability.

    This is in glaring contrast to contraception, which is funded myriad ways, and primarily privately, as it should be. States can, of course, do so, but the federal government has no role to play here.

    No hypocrisy, just logic.

  • Eric||

    I don't think anyone is questioning that the funding of the military is a federal (legislative) responsiblity sanctioned by the Constitution.

    But it is a false argument, and dirty tactic to paint anyone who advocates for a DoD budget re-evaluation as "anti-military". That is unless you think every singl DoD expense allocation is absolutely critical.

  • Jeffersonian||

    I'd agree with that.

    Would you agree that cutting federal funding for contraception to $0 is not "anti-woman?"

  • Eric||

    No argument. Both sides engage in false arguments because the offer red meat for the troops, and feed unfair narratives for both team red and team blue.

  • Jeffersonian||

    [sigh]

  • Mr. FIFY||

    "Both sides"

    Now who's engaging in false arguments? You're obviously Team Blue, so don't bother pretending.

    And, for the record, if both Teams died in a fire, I'd be dancing a jig.

  • The Pointer-Outer||

    He's definitely not a fan of anything right-of-center.

  • Eric||

    "He's definitely not a fan of anything right-of-center."

    Bingo. And what's so messed up is that you all immediately equate that with being a liberal.
    You all really need to rethink your knee-jerk attacks on anyone to the left of Ghengis-Khan. I'm guessing that there is a very large group of lurkers on these boards with moderate, or even left-libertarian inclinations who remain silent because of the inevitable gang-rape.
    I get it...You really fucking hate liberals. But aside from Tony (who admirably attempts to engage and articulate despite constant derision) most of the other "trolls" lean significantly toward your side. But you deride them too. Free Minds my ass...

  • ||

    Actually many of us openly admit to being left-libertarians. I advocate naturally progressive land value taxes as the sole basis for gov't funding, ending state incorporation/limited liability, and legal preference towards the aggreived in conflicts of rights (ex. the right to pollute stops where the neighbor's yard starts).

    Tony is certainly not a libertarian or even close. He's a statist technocrat.

  • ||

    There is no such thing as a 'left-libertarian'. The spectra are mutually exclusive.

    Liberals who pay lip service to ideas that promote individual liberty and freedom are doing so falsely as their motivations are based in collectivism.

  • ||

    Ask the Nolan Chart about that.

  • ||

    And besides, who says motivation by collectivism is the same as motivation by coercion/control? Voluntary collectivism is completely compatible with libertarianism, as long as it remains voluntary.

    I know that's a dirty word amongst Objectivists, but then again, Objectivism isn't necessarily libertarianism either, as indicated by Rand's justification for Howard Roark's destruction of another's property in "The Fountainhead."

  • Jake Westbrook||

    I'd join in on the dance, if it were up to me most all of our politicians would swing.

  • ||

    Big deal, if the chick likes sex so be it, I mean a slut is anyone who has more than 6 different partners a year. She wasnt that much of a dog, so I am sure she got some drunks to boink here when she went out and about..especially if she isn't smart enough to know you can get BC pills at wal-mart and any discount pharmacy. she is that smart.. so she will end up as a public defender.

  • Fluke is a Dyke...||

    and she shops at Maddow's store and goes to his haridresser

  • ||

    Umm, isn't it possible both that the "free contraception" argument has flaws that deserve to be pointed out in a rational manner AND that Limbaugh was way out of line in his entire ad hominem attack on the young lady? The merits of the argument need to be called out, but so do Limbaugh's comments.

  • ||

    ""The merits of the argument need to be called out, but so do Limbaugh's comments.""

    Right, and if Rush's comments overshadow the real debate, which it has IMO, it's on him.

  • Zeb||

    Yeah, this. There is no defense of what he said (beyond that he has a right to say whatever he wants to). It was inaccurate and unnecessarily insulting and hateful. Sorry, personally insulting your political opponents is not a good approach and just makes you look like an asshole with no good arguments.

  • Sudden||

    It was inaccurate

    Source? Do we have any definitive idea on how many sexual partners Ms. Fluke engages in a typical year?

  • nicole||

    I haven't seen any evidence in either direction. Are we supposed to assume a 50/50 chance that any woman on birth control is a slut?

  • shrike||

    we can only hope...

  • ||

    That's like hitting on pregnant chicks, firm in the knowledge that A) they put out and B)they're not getting any MORE pregnant.

  • Zeb||

    I was thinking of "prostitute" more than slut. I very much doubt she is a prostitute. "Slut" is pretty subjective. She may or may not be a slut by Limbaugh's standards. I happen to think that women should fuck whomever they want.

  • WWNGD?||

    That is fine, it is none of my business but me paying for her activities it becomes my business.

  • ||

    Which is an entirely different discussion. And that's the point. Let's rehash an old argument here: why is it that sexually active women are denigrated while sexually active men are not. Remember, too, that Viagra is provided by some government-funded plans and nothing but a few good-ol'-boy chuckles were heard about it.

  • Brandon||

    "Sorry, personally insulting your political opponents is not a good approach and just makes you look like an asshole with no good arguments."

    Maher, Olbermann, Maddow, Hannity, Schultz, Beck, etc., would probably disagree.

  • Zeb||

    And?

  • ||

    On the other hand, so what? He's not in government, and his comment has jackshit to do with pushing a ridiculous policy.

  • Zeb||

    I don't care what he says. But if I am going to hear about it whether I want to or not, I'll mention my personal opinion on it.

  • Sudden||

    that Limbaugh was way out of line in his entire ad hominem attack on the young lady?

    She testified before congress on how she needs the govt to force Georgetown to give her free contraception, not on the basis of her having any ovarian cyst, but rather on the basis that she uses it an it costs more money than she can afford.

    If you are going to testify (willingly, not under subpeona) to congress about your urgent need for free birth control, you're opening your sex life up to public scrutiny.

  • ||

    I think that some of you have got it wrong.

    Sudden, exactly.

    Moreover, its not like this cunt can match Rush in likeability. She came across as a an entitled, do goooder, totalitarian wannabe wanting free stuff.

    Any perosn who demands that they get to take your stuff, by force, is, by definition, a piece of trash and deserves to be harshly criticized.

  • ||

    I have to agree.

    Rush did something stupid. I don't care what anyone calls her, though.

  • The Derider||

    Great argument!

    But you lose by calling her a misogynistic slur.

  • ||

    Really?

    Is it misandry to call Rush Limbaugh a dick?

  • The Derider||

    Yes. Cunt clearly has a more severe meaning, however. There isn't an analogous male slur.

  • Ryan||

    It doesn't have a more severe meaning. People just assume women are sensitive and some women use that to their advantage to satisfy their personal vendetta against their perception of unfair treatment.

  • Feministing||

    Misandry is fine with us. Men are the devil incarnate, and deserve to have their throats slit.

  • Skett||

    This is a two way street you're traveling on, Derider. Just because there isn't an analgous male slur around, doesn't mean it's okay to call them a dick, or a cocksucker, or what have you.

    Cunt is only so "taboo" because of how much the feminists got up in arms over it. They're just words, and you're starting a petty argument over nothing.

  • Bill Maher the Derider||

    Did I mention Sarah Palin is a cunt?

  • Feministing||

    We overlooked that, because you're on our Team.

    But don't ever think any of us will ever fuck you, Maher.

  • Eric||

    "Any perosn who demands that they get to take your stuff, by force, is, by definition, a piece of trash and deserves to be harshly criticized."

    I don't think that she realizes that she is trying to take anything by force. Libertarians would get much more traction regarding thier philosophy by engaging people in why they are wrong rather than name calling.

    Don't add to the whole "political party for those on the autism spectrum"
    thing please.

  • Jeffersonian||

    I don't think that she realizes that she is trying to take anything by force.

    Then why didn't she run to the local 4-H club to demand it? Salvation Army post? What is different about government at any level from those organizations but its ability to use force?

    If Fluke, as an L3 G-town ambulance-chaser doesn't know that, she's been spending too much time fucking and not enough time studying.

  • Eric||

    As a former political science major, I can say that while it is acknowledged that the study of politics == the study of the use of force in society, very rarely do liberal poli sci profs direct that microscope upon themselves.
    I mean it when I say that most lefty's haven't equated their philosophy with the term "force". In the vacuum of acedemia they are more focused on issues of inequality, egalitarianism, and how to redress these types of issues.

    Most liberals (not necessarily Democrats)are intelligent, but often lack perspective...in order to make inroads they need their points of view challenged - not ridiculed.

  • Jeffersonian||

    I think they need both.

  • Eric||

    The problem is when you ridicule someone who thinks they are right, they immediately seek to prove you wrong, and you're in an argument. It may feel good on these boards to bitch about liberals, but the net effect is mostly intellectual incest. If you really want to help the cause, try evangelizing. But you have to engage people as nominal equals to do so.

  • The Pointer-Outer||

    And yet, here you are, Eric, feeling good on these boards bitching about non-liberals.

  • Tony||

    We should totally hang, Eric.

    Do you like to watch Bravo?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    You came here and immediately started bitching, Eric, so don't pretend you're a kindred spirit.

    A healthy dose of hatred for BOTH Teams is required here. Right now, Team Blue has all the Cards of Power, so they get an extra dollop of Hate Gravy; if/when Team Red regains The Oval Throne, they'll get the extra hate.

    That's called "bipartisanship".

  • nicole||

    but rather on the basis that she uses it an it costs more money than she can afford

    This is wrong--if you take her at her own word, it's actually worse than that. This is about her right to free medical care--that is, her right to be a slaver. And that's what she is.

    You know what? That's worse than being a slut. And saying that instead doesn't paint every woman on the pill as a whore, which is a pretty good bonus.

  • Zeb||

    Yes. This is what is so irritating about all of this. Instead of making the real point which has to do with the proper role of government, Limbaugh just make extra sure that it will just devolve into more culture war bullshit. He's giving the people arguing that this is about women's health or reproductive rights a big stick to beat their opponents with.
    There are real reasons to attack Fluke, and her sexual habits are not among them.

  • BigT||

    Rush shot himself in the knee with an arrow - and we ALL have to suffer.

  • Brandon||

    "The merits of the argument need to be called out, but so do Limbaugh's comments."

    Michael, did you not read this article? It says exactly that.

  • Jordan||

    People get called sluts everyday. So fucking what? Compared to this piece of shit law, getting called a slut doesn't even register.

  • Ryan||

    I think the fact that it's a simple and common issue makes it easier to discuss.

    Critical thinking is kinda hard.

  • WWNGD?||

    Ms. Fluke and her friends could go to Walmart

    A liberal go to a Walmart store? ARE YOU MAD?!?!?!!

  • GrizzlyAdam||

    Feminist Georgetown Law students only use organic, free-trade, non-GMO, gluten-free, vegan contraception. Can't get that at Wal-Mart!

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Are corn cobs gluten-free?

  • AuH20||

    They may be Genetically Modified. By a CORPORATION!

  • D.D. Driver||

    But is it local?

  • wareagle||

    good grief...she would go abstinent first.

  • ||

    The fallacy committed isn't a red herring. If Rush didn't decide to appeal to personal attack, we wouldn't be talking about this.

  • Zeb||

    Is the reaction to this overblown? Absolutely. Who didn't already know that he is a deliberately offensive asshole?

    But it was a fucking asshole thing to say and I hope it hurts him. All of Rush's listeners can't be such enormous assholes that they won't punish him for it, can they?

    This whole debate has been pure stupid on both sides and Rush's idiotic comment and the overreaction to it are just making it stupider.

  • ||

    I was disappointed by the lede of this. Proposing to "explain why Mr. Limbaugh was worked up about the issue" comes across as though the writer is defending him - a position that will certainly gain us no converts. I think it would be much better to roundly condemn him, and then move on to hold Ms. Fluke's testimony to the same scrutiny.

    Limbaugh is an embarrassment to anyone who holds even remotely conservative views, and a liability to that movement. It's boorish and obnoxious to call someone a "slut" during political debate. Libertarians who want to make inroads with the left (or just want to promote decent behavior) should distance themselves from the guy.

  • wareagle||

    I think it would be much better to roundly condemn him, and then move on to hold Ms. Fluke's testimony to the same scrutiny.
    -----------------------
    speaking of burying the lede -- her testimony will NEVER be scrutinized because the same left that vilifies Rush for a foolish characterization agrees with Fluke's contention that govt should be buying her pills.

    Rush is an easy target and his comments were off-base, but calling out Fluke's viewpoint was on target. Yet that part of the discussion, well, it's not really discussed beyond these quarters.

  • squarooticus||

    +1. Limbaugh is a dumbass and a hypocrite. Leaving him out of any serious discussion is almost certainly the best option. Anyone who takes him seriously is unlikely to respond to actual facts or logic, anyway, at least not until they grow tired of his shtick.

  • Sudden||

    I agree with your assessment of Limbaugh, and I'll agree that his comments were counter-productive to delineating the conservative/libertarian position on the issue at hand, but I don't think his entire statement was repulsive, in poor taste, or uncalled for.

    A woman with no medical need for the birth control pill aside from her own desire to have unprotected sex without fear of pregnancy testified before congress asking congress to force her university to provide such free of charge. She is making her sexual habits the domain of public debate, and ergo, if one wants to crassly speculate that she may be a slut, they have as much merit in stating that as she does in petitioning the govt to compel subsidy of her particular sexual predilections.

  • ||

    But what about the more fundamental point, i.e., she has repeatedly, in public, called for more vilence to be done to the property of others so that she not account for her actions?

    any person who does that is fair game.

    Again, she is checkmated by Rush in a personality contest as she is a misanthrope and there is no way one can classify Rush as the same.

  • Sudden||

    You have a point insofar as anyone who seeks to use the power of the state to compel certain activities of another party can fairly be called a "slut" in the loosest (no pun intended) meaning of the term.

    I don't share your belief in Rush's personal favorables Mike, but that's not a factor in my defense of his words as perfectly appropriate in the current case.

  • ||

    As an anarchist, my worldview necessarily differs from Rush.

    There have been countless times in which I have argued / screamed at Rush while listening to him on the radio or seeing him as a guest of Greta Von Sustren*.

    However, he is, as he himself will tell you, first and foremost, an entertainer. Who, in the history of radio, has been more successful?

    Sure, some, like Vin Scully, have had more longevity. But Scully does play by play for the Dodgers.

    Who has enjoyed Rush's level of success in the talk show format?

    Do you think that his success was, at least in part, due to his personality and that he is basically likeable?

    Listen, I bash Reagan every so often around here, but, I would be a complete nitwir to not recognize that reagan's personality accounted for the lion's hsare of his likeability. Reagan was far more likeable than Jimmy carter.

  • Sudden||

    Rush is likable, but only within the narrow band of people that already agree with him. He is highly unfavorable among people who generally disagree with him.

  • ||

    That narrow band of people is a whole lot bigger than Ms. Fluke or Michelle Obama or Bill Clinton or Hillary Clinton or George Bush or John McCain or Madline Albright or George Stephanopolous or Al Gore or Robert Reicccccccccccssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh or Ted Kenedy.

    But not Alf.

  • ||

    Rush is a large fellow, but not that big Liberty Mike.

  • ||

    Well, what about Alf?

    Gosh, I luv me sum Alf.

  • ||

    The only two that I can think of are Howard Stern and possibly Jim Rome.

  • wareagle||

    what is Rush's hypocrisy? He didn't ask you to buy his Oxycotin or anything else. You bought the liberal straw man, that this is about a radio guy's phraseology. Curiously, you also failed to take your own warning about responding to actual facts.

    Fluke thinks her law school should be forced to give her birth control at no cost to her. One more leech, and training to be a lawyer at that.

  • kenny||

    It's about the language he's using and that he's attacking the person and *not* the position. It's disgusting no matter what you view is on the subject.

  • ||

    +1 and an amen

  • Bill Maher||

    Sarah Palin is a cunt.

    Oh, and we need hate-speech laws.

  • shrike||

    Every Christ-fag deserves to be hated, but you're right... we DO need hate-speech laws, but only if it applies against right-wingers.

  • wareagle||

    shrike's going to be pissed. Nice spoof.

  • The Poiner-Outer||

    How can you tell spoof from reality, in this case? It looks really convincing.

  • ||

    I'm sure shriek doesn't believe in hate-speech laws...

  • wareagle||

    he's a liberal. Isn't support of hate speech laws in the manual? It's just after the rights to nice housing, nutritious food, and a good car.

  • shrike||

    I absolutely do NOT believe in hate speech law or Affirmative action - or any law based on race.

    (good spoof though)

  • NotSure||

    You should believe in affirmative action, how else would a loser like you get ahead in life ?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    You call yourself a liberal, shrike. Therefore, you just lied.

  • D.D. Driver||

    Someone should start a Kickstarter campaign to raise the $150 she needs for birth control.

  • Brandon||

    I'll throw in a Jackson to stop her from breeding.

  • Ryan||

    Fastest fundraiser ever.

  • Alan Vanneman||

    These are good points. Too bad that El Rushbo basically attacked the girl for "wanting to have sex whenever she wants it," as though it were wrong for a woman to desire to have sex the way a guy does. I mean, I want to have sex whenever I feel like it, and I suspect El Rushbo does too. But somehow a woman who thinks like a man is a whore, but a guy, not so much. Rush simply revealed himself to be a he-man woman-hater of the old school, looking like a pathetic old fool, and then the leaders of the Republican Party made themselves look like fools by backing him up. Nicely played, fat ass.

  • Biology||

    were wrong for a woman to desire to have sex the way a guy does.

    Hi there, Anal. My name is biology and I don't work the way you think I do.

  • wareagle||

    epic wrong, alan. Rush did not attack her for wanting to have sex; he attacked her for wanting to have sex but sticking US with the bill of preventing one of the potential consequences of sex. Fluke can screw the entire law school for all I care, but I will insist that she take some responsibility for her behavior and buy her own pills.

    Nice job, though, of creating a new straw man; goes right along with the one about Rush's intemperate remarks.

  • Alan Vanneman||

    Hmmm, who's apologizing, Obama or El Rushbo? And who's losing advertisers? Check out Will Saletan for what Rush really said:

    http://www.slate.com/articles/.....slut_.html

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Alan Vanneman,

    Hmmm, who's apologizing, Obama or El Rushbo?


    Being a petty dictator means never having to say "I'm sorry"...

  • nicole||

    I can tell you exactly how many times Limbaugh used the phrase “so much sex” during his three days of attacking Fluke. The number is 23, and it rises above 30 if you include related phrases such as "sex-crazed coeds,” “sex-addict frequency,” “having sex so often,” “having sex so damn much,” “repeated, never-ending, as-often-as-she-wants-it sex,” and “sex anytime, as many times and as often as they want, with as many partners as they want.”

    a “woman [who] wants unlimited, no-responsibility, no-consequences sex.”

    Disgusting--and insulting to millions of women.

    He could have just called her a slaver. That would have been insulting to millions too--but they would have been the right millions to insult.

  • ||

    People do realize a lot of it is shtick right? It's the impression I get listening to him all these years. I even giggled at the list of phrases mentioned by Nicole. It's so outrageous it's funny.

    Why does Stern get away with it?

  • ||

    It's no worse than what men are called on a regular basis, especially regarding sex.

    the new feminist rant "My body, My choice, someone else's responsibility"

  • ||

    ""Rush did not attack her for wanting to have sex; he attacked her for wanting to have sex but sticking US with the bill of preventing one of the potential consequences of sex. ""

    That's outright wrong. Slut or prostitute has noting to do with taxpayer money. If Rush wanted to stick to the issue, he should have. But instead Rush wanted to try to demonize the woman instead of staying on point. Rush created the strawman by appealing to personal attack, and some of his sponsers are not happy with it.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Alan Vanneman,

    as though it were wrong for a woman to desire to have sex the way a guy does.


    As long as she pays for her birth control herself, I am fine with a woman acting like a slut. I like sluts.

  • ||

    Guys who play and don't pay are mooches. Women who play and don't pay are whores.

    Its not the sex-part, its how you handle the consequences where you start figuring out what people really are about really fast.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Women who play and don't pay are whores.

    Point of fact:

    Whores have the good sense to get compensation for the sex act (if you can't sell it, sit on it). Sluts, skanks, trollops, hoes, rats, slatterns, etc., give away the goods for free to anyone they deem worthy.

    Thankfully, their sense of worth tends to be pretty low.

  • ||

    +1

  • Regan Hines||

    If you are tired of the ridiculous arguments in media and want to read about some real discussions of important issues check out http://conservativesolutions.co/.

  • ||

    Red herring?

    Red SNAPPER!

  • ||

    I KNEW I smelt fish!

  • Xenocles||

    By all means liberals, let's keep talking about what an entertainer said last week. I'm sure it's not important at all for you that a female graduate student at an elite university - no less than the leader of an activist group on the subject - apparently doesn't know about the myriad Planned Parenthood clinics in her area or what services they offer.

  • Sudden||

    apparently doesn't know about the myriad Planned Parenthood clinics in her area or what services they offer

    After Ron Paul's adverts that mention Santorum's votes for PP funding, she might've been under the misconception that PP only covered anal-sex related issues.

  • STEVE SMITH||

    STEVE SMITH HAVE SOLUTION FOR ANAL-SEX ISSUES... JUST EAT VICTIM AFTER RAPE. NO ISSUES THEN.

  • Xenocles||

    I never would have guessed STEVE SMITH to be a felcher.

  • Sanjuro Tsubaki||

    The left advances its agenda one red herring at a time.

  • Rhywun||

    Just curious... WTF is a "public interest scholarship"? Was I too self-interested to score some of that?

  • Jeffersonian||

    No idea, but my wallet just yelped.

  • Chuck Rudd||

    how far removed is this from China's one-child policy? yes, the explictly-stated goals are different, but when it's discussed in this consequentialist manner - that we have to mandate free birth control to limit future costs to the system - i fail to see much of a difference.

  • ||

    Me neither.

    And I am curious to know whether the people who run the numbers for the SS administration cringed at the idea of reducing future births...

  • Xenocles||

    Since it's voluntary to take the birth control, whereas in China they strap you to the table and hoover the baby out, I'd say pretty far removed.

  • Planned Parenthood||

    WE ought to be getting more taxpayer money so WE can start hoovering out more of those worthless parasites you breeders call "babies".

  • ||

    Sandra Fluke is going to make a very poor lawyer.Why? Georgetown Law costs $23,432.50 per semester and the cheapest accomodations are $5,140, so that's $57,145 per year plus additional fees, so call it a cool $60K! There are 10 Planned Parenthood facilities within close proximity of Georgetown and Planned Parenthood's website says birth control pills cost between $15 and $50 per month. Let's take the most expensive @ $50/month x 12 months = $600. Well, $600 is just 1% of $60,000. Is Sandra Fluke really saying that she and other "friends" could not band together and provide just $600 to a "friend" when that friend is in desperate need of birth control pills? If you're paying $60k per year can't you get together with three other friends and chip in $150 each which is just .25% of the cost of your schooling that year? What kind of a friend is Sandra Fluke anyway?

  • NotSure||

    She is lawyer that will enter politics, which means tedious things like numbers not adding up do not matter.

  • Jeffersonian||

    Indeed, that's a feature, not a bug.

  • Anna||

    Or for that matter, going to a secular school rather than a Catholic school.

    Nope, she has to enroll at a Catholic school and then complain that they operate based on Catholic ideals.

  • ||

    The Georgetown Student Health Center website includes all kinds of information, including that they provide ob-gyn services/exams, but contains ZERO information as to costs for services or birth control. I bet they are free or nearly so.

  • wareagle||

    first, seems unbelievable that Georgetown's ownership would hand out birth control. Second, if your claim is true, then Fluke isn't just a statist and looter, she is a liar. Good thing she's in law school.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Why does Reason hate whores?

  • Sanjuro Tsubaki||

    They're called sex workers, and Reason is just fine with them.

  • ||

    They're "Persons of negotiable affection"

  • Sanjuro Tsubaki||

    ...so that's a red herring as well as a lie.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Actually it was sarcasm. Fairly obvious at that.

  • Dan||

    Are you talking about politicians or sex workers... because we seem to like sex workers well enough.

  • shrike||

    As much as I hate Pig-Boy I can stay out of this one......

    (I posted once upthread on AA)

  • ||

    Have men pay half? What if she isn't monogamous? What if she wants to be prepared in the event she is raped? What if she uses the pill for other medical reasons?

    You are the reason men should not write about this issue.

  • ||

    Have men pay half? What if she isn't monogamous?

    Then she'll show a profit.

    What if she wants to be prepared in the event she is raped?

    That's part of the standard post-rape package at any hospital. Seriously, it is.

    What if she uses the pill for other medical reasons?

    She's pretty clear that she wants it so she can bareback with catching a parasite.

  • ||

    She's pretty clear that she wants it so she can bareback with catching a parasite.

    A Fluke gets a fluke?

  • redefiler||

    That bitch ain't getting laid at all. Anybody getting sex in college isn't spending their free time on political causes. If she were attractive and had figured out how to use her own vagina, she wouldn't be asking the government to draw up a manual.

    I'm also guessing that Obama ain't exactly attracting the hotties if he's gotta try and court fugly lumpy 30 year old legal students. It's amazing how bad Democrats are at sex, every time they attempt penetration, Congress has to get involved.

  • AlmightyJB||

    It's a routine expense. Insurance is not for routine expenses. That is why your auto insurance does not cover gasoline or oil changes and your homeowners insurance doesn't cover lawncare. If they did you would end up paying more for those things through your insurance agency than if you bought them on your own because they have to make a profit. Dooes health insurance cover toothpaste, tampons, or aspirin?

  • Tony||

    That was sexist, JB. Typical for people like you.

  • ||

    Then you agree insurance should cover tampons?

  • AlmightyJB||

    Real Tony or spoof Tony? I can't tell anymore.

  • Sanjuro Tsubaki||

    Rape? I would confidently guess that Fluke is an anti-gun activist as well.

  • Sevo||

    Nathan|3.5.12 @ 5:52PM|#
    ..."You are the reason men should not write about this issue."

    Right.
    And only those who have had cancer can write about it.

  • BigT||

    And only the dead can write about death. And only pre-born can write about abortion.

  • Chris ||

    Your equating being a women with cancer death and abortion. Poor analogy. This thread is a sausagefest one has to wonder if any of you have gotton your tiny probiscus close to a vagina and the ayan rand real doll does not count.

  • ||

    DUDE! I want an Ayn Rand Real Doll!

    and I can really freak out objectivists when I use it to get in the HOV lane

  • Anna||

    Sausage-fest my ass.

    This vagina-bearer thinks that Fluke is an idiot.

  • Lurker||

    If it's rape she's worried about, a gun would be much cheaper (in the long run) and more effective deterrent.

  • Lurking Pedant||

    You're missing an article.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    She's a liberal. Very few liberals believe it's okay to defend yourself with a gun.

  • Nancy Pelosi||

    That's why I have men with guns around me.

  • Tony||

    Rush blamed liberals, of course, for his lunatic tirade.

    What do you get when you combine morbid obesity, opiate addiction, serial marriages, and an inability to admit a single mistake that wasn't ultimately some other phantom group's fault? King of Republicans.

  • Shorter Tony||

    I will completely ignore the article and simply regurgitate what my masters have told me to say.

  • wareagle||

    ever the alert straw-man fighter, tony shows up to defend 1) a wanna-be lawyer who thinks Jesuits, or the taxpayer, should finance her sex life, and 2) to hope no one notices the Dem hit parade led by the all-time clubhouse leader, Teddy from MA.

    Tell you what; when you find a Repub who is alcohol-bloated, loves waitress sandwiches, lives off a trust fund but wants to spend your money instead, AND left a woman to die, you holler back.

    Rush should not have called Fluke a slut; calling her a liberal would have the point well enough.

  • ||

    We all know that obese or not, it would be Rush having to give Tony at least 6 or 7 shots in addition to having to pick up the greens fees.

  • Tony||

    Things genitals do is not the only component of morality, although that seems to be the overwhelming preoccupation of morons like you. I don't like my tax dollars paying for wars based on lies. Where's my fucking personal morality exemption for that?

    I want you ridiculous people to continue hurling sexist slurs in defense of 19th century religious morality, or what you call economic liberty. It means you will lose elections.

  • Sevo||

    Tony|3.5.12 @ 7:02PM|#
    "Things genitals do is not the only component of morality, although that seems to be the overwhelming preoccupation of morons like you."

    Shithead proves once again that Shithead cannot post without a strawman or a lie.

  • Bill Maher||

    You're absolutely right, Tony.

    By the way... Sarah Palin is STILL a cunt.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Why do you care about government-meddled contraception, Tony? YOU'LL never need it.

  • Tony||

    Unlike libertarian sociopaths, how things affect me personally is not the only lens through which I see public policy.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Prove the sociopathy, you stupid bitch.

  • The Pointer-Outer||

    You're not a liberal... therefore, if I'm reading Tony right, you MUST be a sociopath.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    I think you genuinely care about the poor and disadvantaged, Tony (though probably you care more about LIBERAL poor and disadvantaged people than any others in those economic categories), but for the most part your Team Members in Congress only care about such people when they can be used as a means to get elected/re-elected.

    Yeah, I'm doubting their altruism again... and I believe the theory to be correct. You can gripe all you want, but deep down I'd bet a quarter even you have your doubts.

    And an issue like the underlying one here - who pays for birth control - is tailor-made for people who want more and more stuff on the food trolley rolling down the aisles of the Welfare Train.

    Means to an end, but not a cure for poverty or misery in sight. Your Team NEEDS there to never be a cure; otherwise, who would vote for Democrats?

  • The Pointer-Outer||

    If he truly cared about the downtrodden, why does he want them on government subsistence?

    Wait... I know the answer. Scratch that.

  • Tony||

    There is nothing wrong with naughty words, even the ones Limbaugh used, when used in an appropriate context (i.e., by liberal comedians).

    You guys demonstrate over and over that your heads are so far up your asses that you can't grasp simple concepts like humor vs. manners. It's why there are no funny conservatives. You're all just mad that you can't say nigger anymore. Become a liberal comedian and you can use these words, assuming you appreciate the nuanced line between OK and hurtful. That does take educating yourself. Just like table manners.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Fuck you, asshole. I've NEVER liked the word "ni----", and refuse to type it out.

    Go preach to Bill Maher about word usage.

  • Shorter Tony||

    It's only okay to call women sluts and cunts when it's our people doing so.

  • The Pointer-Outer||

    "(i.e., by liberal comedians)"

    So, it's *only* okay when "liberal comedians" say those words?

    Or do they HAVE to be comedians?

  • Tony||

    I'm saying it takes some amount of knowledge and skill to know when using taboo language is OK. Liberal comedians are trained. Some regular people are also not complete fucking morons who live in caves.

  • The Pointer-Outer||

    Taboo language should NEVER be "okay".

    Not illegal... just not okay.

  • Skip||

    I can't tell if this is a spoof or real. I think lefties do actually think of it like this.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Who trains them, Tony? Is there a grant program? Where are the Liberal Comedy Workshops? Are they in the various welfare offices around the country?

  • Jeffersonian||

    Who trains them, Tony? Is there a grant program?

    It's not the comedians that are trained, but those who selectively manufacture the outrage afterward that are.

  • ||

    What the fu...

    *Drops cigarette resting from lips*

  • Liberal Comedian||

    I just follow the scripts Axelrod faxes me.

    Watch for my show at a Hardee's near you!

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tiny,

    I don't like my tax dollars paying for wars based on lies. Where's my fucking personal morality exemption for that?


    Your derision towards libertarians belies that sentiment.

    I want you ridiculous people to continue hurling sexist slurs in defense of 19th century religious morality, or what you call economic liberty.


    Since both concepts are totally different from each other, I would be amazed a single person, let alone a libertarian, would equivocate in such manner. You are engaging in intellectual dishonesty, Tiny. Or you're a fucking liar, to be more succinct.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    We know what Tony calls "economic liberty"... we call it "utter bullshit", though, which is much easier than paragraphs of Tony's egalitarian spoo.

  • NotSure||

    Tony argument: I don't like paying for war, therefore you must pay for birth control pills.

    Last time I check that woman was the one who raised what people do with their genitals and how much it costs others.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Personally, I'd like to NOT pay for either war OR birth control.

    Even then, Tony will bitch about what I just typed. Wait and see... he'll find a reason.

  • Tony||

    I don't like you using up my oxygen, therefore I get to kill you?

    You live among other human beings. Children learn to compromise by necessity, why can't you?

    This argument is entirely about whether a specific sect of sky-grandpa worshipers gets an exemption from the basic principle that laws apply equally precisely because they believe in stupid magic bullshit. If we start handing out morality waivers for every law, what's to stop Pastafarians from discovering a moral objection to going to jail for stealing? The original Pastafarians were pirates for Christ's sake.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    See? I *knew* he'd find fault with it.

  • Tony on compromise||

    Do what I and my fellow liberals say. That, is "compromise".

    Nothing else will do.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    "Your" oxygen, Tony?

    I see what you did, there. Just can't pass up a reason to communitize everything, can you?

  • Communitarianism Central||

    Everything belongs to everyone.

    Or it will, when Team Blue finally gets complete power.

  • Jeffersonian||

    I don't like my tax dollars paying for wars based on lies. Where's my fucking personal morality exemption for that?

    Unfortunately, the use of military is one of thoser things that can't be individualized, nor can the taxes that go to fund it. That's not the case with birth control.

    Plus, there's no constitutional power or reason for the federal government to be wrapped up in contraception anyway.

  • Maxxx||

    I don't like my tax dollars paying for wars based on lies. Unless it's a lying donkey that starts them. Then it's ok

    FIFY

  • shrike||

    wareagle - you are not defending a known pedophile like Rush Limbaugh, are you?

    Come on!

  • The Pointer-Outer||

    "known pedophile"

    Proof?

  • NotSure||

    One would think that if he were a pedophile the people would be going after him because of that, not because he called somebody a bad word.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    If he were a pedophile, I'd volunteer to strap him to the table and put the needle in the vein.

    But that should only happen to REAL pedophiles, as it is too easy to just accuse people of such without proof.

    That said, I'd dance a happy jig if Rush WERE guilty of pedophilia... but only with proof.

  • Xenocles||

    You'd dance a jig if a child were molested?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    No, but I'd do so if a child MOLESTER got justice served pipin' hot.

    Geez, did it sound like that, Xenocles? I thought people knew me better... I fucking DESPISE child molesters.

    I also despise people who falsely accuse others of child molestation.

  • Xenocles||

    No, I just think there's a better way to have formed your thought.

  • Xenoclez||

    Fucking stupid pedant. Dats me.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Well, it WOULD require a child actually being molested, for there to be a child molestER... yeah, I didn't phrase that at all well. My bad.

  • Old Mexican||

    There are a lot of questions here that go right to the heart of ObamaCare. Why is the president getting involved in setting prices for prescription drugs in the first place?


    Stoopidity? The affliction of many a leftist.

    Where in the Constitution does he get that power?


    Right here: "The President shall sit down in his chair and dispense graces to all under his magnanimous cover."

    At least, that is what every single president since forever have read.

  • Mr. Hilter||

    Being Supreme Lawgiver ain't all what it's cracked up to be.

  • Dan||

    I dunno, I could see how Rush could be confused. She was standing next to all the whores/prostitutes/gigolos in Congress when she made those statements.

  • Old Mexican||

    Ms. Fluke and her friends could go to Walmart or Target, whose lists of inexpensive drugs include the oral contraceptive Tri-Sprintec priced at $4 for a 28-day supply. Total cost, assuming continuous use for three full years (including the summer after graduating law school or before starting): about $150.


    So she lied, so what? It's not like she was testifying in front of Congress under oath or something...

  • ||

    Nothing Sandra Fluke testified to is based in reality. Have any of you ever met a female lawyer? They are not having a lot of sex. They are frigid, cold, and socially awkward creatures. Fluke herself is a man-hating, mannish looking, self-described feminist. This ruse is nothing more than an attempt to push Obama's massive healthcare overhaul onto the American public.

  • ||

    Oh noes! Rush is being criticized for the stupid shit he said.

    Now what will we do?

  • MJ||

    Hopefully get around to crticizing the stupid shit Fluke said which the Democrats think justify their diktats.

  • ||

    I don't blame Fluke for ObamaCare. I blame Obama for ObamaCare.

    If people have lost sight of that because of the stupid shit Rush said? Then I blame Rush for that.

    Seriously, it is possible to be against ObamaCare, against violating the First Amendment rights of Catholics--and against the stupid shit Rush Limbaugh saud--all at the same time.

    Hell, I'm doin' it myself, right now!

  • Mr. FIFY||

    I still have a dream scenario where Limbaugh and Michael Moore are dropped in a pit, and forced to fight until the dead one is then forced to eat the flesh of the fallen.

    Then... shoot the survivor.

    The pay-per-view haul would be sweeeet.

  • ||

    Best. Comment. Ever. I would be willing to pay for PPV on that one.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    If that comment doesn't put me on the SPLC Domestic Terrorist List, I don't know what will.

  • Ryan||

    If people have lost sight of that because of the stupid shit Rush said? Then I blame Rush for that.

    Your logic is flawed. That isn't Rush's responsibility; it's the people's responsibility. You're acting like Rush is a representative for people.

    Adults should be responsible for their own behavior. You need to understand that to understand libertarianism. Whining about the fact that a popular guy said stuff to which people reacted negatively is just further obscuring the important points, such as that Rush had every right to say what he did, and that while you complain about it our freedoms are being stripped by us from real criminals. Furthermore, there's pervasive ignorance of Economics and reality in general within the U.S. populace which enables this shit. Either of these issues is worthy of complaint and action.

  • fucking character limit||

    I dunno, but it seems like you're giving too much credit to Rush and too little to the general public. Rush isn't a good spokesman for libertarianism so I don't see the point in concerning yourself with what he says.

  • ||

    That isn't Rush's responsibility; it's the people's responsibility. You're acting like Rush is a representative for people.

    Progressives and Liberals stay up late every night listening to everything people like Rush say in the hope that they can use it to undermine Republican policy goals and further their own agenda...

    Rush knows that. ...especially considering that he stays up late every night listening to everything Progressives and Liberals say in the hope that he can use it to undermine Democrat policy goals and further his own agenda.

    Yeah, everybody's responsible for what they do, and Rush is responsible for what he says. It's so bad that nine of his sponsors have dropped their advertising from his show for fear of being associated with him. It's so bad that Rush actually apologized!

    And I'm supposed to think it's the general public's fault?

  • ||

    In my business, I have to sell stuff for the price that the market will give me. If I try to sell it for more than the market will bear? I'm gonna lose that battle every time. I'm completely limited by what the market will bear. I can cry about how it's the market's fault that I lost money, but blaming the market for the choices I made isn't gonna impress my investors.

    We need to take whatever the market of ideas will give us. If the market of ideas WILL NOT accept Ron Paul's newsletters or WILL NOT accept Rush Limbaugh's stupid misogyny? Then the blame for that doesn't belong to the market of ideas.

    I wish the market were better, but we gotta sell the market we've got. Not the one we wish we had.

  • Old Mexican||

    The New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd over the weekend faulted Mr. Limbaugh for saying that insuring contraception would represent another "welfare entitlement." That, Ms. Dowd insisted, "is wrong — tax dollars would not provide the benefit, employers and insurance companies would."


    The stupid cunt does not realize that it does not matter who is forced out of it, in BOTH instances (paid through taxation or directly paid by mandate) you're taking someone else's money to give it to another. So Rush is right in this case.

  • ||

    "The stupid cunt..."

    Wow, keep up the good work, and maybe someday you'll sound as smart as Rush Limbaugh!

    ...and isn't that something to aspire to?

  • Shorter Ken Schultz||

    It's shouldn't be allowed!!

  • ||

    Still haven't seen where I said that.

    Feel free to link it. I'd love to see it.

  • ||

    I'm afraid we will see a spike in the use of the word "cunt" to the point it will lose all meaning!

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Ken Shultz,

    Wow, keep up the good work, and maybe someday you'll sound as smart as Rush Limbaugh!


    I was aiming at sounding as smart as Bill Maher, but I guess your world only holds Rush.

  • ||

    Unfortunate that we can't have a real conversation about the issue without resorting to use of the pejorative.

    Rush's comment was just plain dumb, and for the exact reasons pointed out in the article, it allowed the debate to be shifted to Rush's idiocy and not the problems with Obamacare.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Team Blue sets the traps, and Team Red gets their ankles snapped like dry twigs.

    Every time.

    Too bad it doesn't happen more often to Team Blue...

  • ||

    I agree. I had no idea what Rush Limbaugh was saying about this...just like everything else.

    Yet now if I end up talking to peeps about this very subject I transform into Rush the fucking Hutt.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Shit, Zeit, all it takes is disagreeing with liberals. You don't even have to sound remotely like Rush, to draw their ire and catcalls of "hatemongering".

    But, as Maher showed us, it's "okay" to call a woman a cunt now and then.

  • Bill Maher||

    Do I have to say it again?

  • Lost in AZ||

    We have created a system where the insurance companies can get drugs from the manufacturers for 10 times less than you can as an individual. This may not be the right system, and I agree that we should change the system. But, under the current system, if you're purchasing your drugs outside the insurance route, you're getting screwed.

  • shrike||

    Sandra Fluke is kicking redneck cocksucker Limbaugh's fucking ass - just saw her on ABC News.

    Rush is a fucking scumbag who deserves it.

  • The Pointer-Outer||

    "Cocksucker" is considered hate-speech detrimental to gay men, shrike. You should exercise more of that liberal kindness and aversion to name-calling and stereotyping your kind go on about all the time, when they're not calling Sarah Palin a "cunt".

  • Team Blue||

    We overlook such speech when it benefits the greater good.

  • shrike||

    Oh please. Rush is a flatback cocksucker who couldn't muster up a fight against this angry Irish bastard.

    I would kick his sordid little meat-hole all over a Court of Law.

    SUE ME YOU FUCKING PEDOPHILE!

  • The Pointer-Outer||

    Proof, shrike?

    And I notice you're into violence. No good liberal would espouse that.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Dude, liberals LOVE violence, if it's for The Cause.

    And... they'll call some women "cunts" and not even blush, again for The Cause.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Liberals also love lawsuits, apparently.

  • The Pointer-Outer||

    If someone falsely accused me of having sex with children, I would be out for blood.

  • Tony||

    Whereas you profess no concern for "political correctness" or manners, so you're morally superior.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Given some of your posts, Tony, you should re-read what you wrote and ask yourself if you measure up to your own standards.

    Especially the "superior" part.

  • NotSure||

    No, he is pointing out the very obvious fact that complaining about people being rude and calling people names and then doing it yourself is contradictory.

    You don't have put political correctness in quotes, it is a very real thing.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Apparently, it's "humorous" when Maher does it... must be a liberal loophole.

  • Tony||

    I doubt he finds the use of cocksucker objectionable. What's wadding his panties is liberals being hypocrites as the priggish speech police strawman they are made out to be.

    There is a different standard for public figures like Palin and Limbaugh. But all of this is beside the point. Nobody's questioning Rush's first amendment rights. They're questioning his (and by extension the GOP's) attachment to modern reality and basic decency. And you guys are crying about them getting called out on it.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    "made out to be"

    Fuck, Tony.., which side of the left/right divide calls for, say, campus speech codes?

  • Tony||

    The left, and I'm against them on that count. Which side wants to establish the Christian taliban?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Finally, you admit a failing of your own philosophy. That's encouraging, but I doubt you'll continue to admit the rest of the failings.

    Neither you nor I want a "Christian taliban", but I go further in not wanting a full-bore left-wing dictatorship. Why can't you see the logic in the latter?

  • ||

    The left, and I'm against them on that count. Which side wants to establish the Christian taliban?

    That's the problem, Tony.

    On the right, they don't really believe in the separation of church and state. They want the Church to more or less control the state.

    ...but as Obama's decision to violate the rights of Catholics so clearly demonstrates, the left doesn't believe in the separation of church and state either.

    It's just that instead of the church telling the government what to do, the left wants the government to tell the churches what to do.

    Neither one believes in the separation of church and state, though, not really.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Team Blue drags out the Bible when it suits them - Barry using "my brother's keeper" to justify welfare spending, for instance.

    Either we have separation of church and state - at ALL levels, ALL the time - or we don't. Can't be quarter-assed about it, Dems. Makes you hypocritical to call for such a wall, but not when it means bribing more poor people for their votes.

    Jesus would not approve of such tactics, from what I understand.

  • ||

    Yeah, it's just that the left refuses to recognize that the government controlling the churches isn't separation of church and state, either.

    The state forcing people to do things against their religious convictions is not the separation of church and state. Somehow they imagine that the only part of that equation is the establishment clause.

  • Tony||

    If the Left believes that churches ought not to be exempt from laws specifically because they believe in nonsense, then I'm with the Left. That's too dangerous a precedent.

    Accommodation is the proper role of government. Let the Amish do their thing. If Catholics don't want to pay to provide birth control to Catholic employees, fine, the Obama compromise seems to be fair.

    But just because you call yourself a church doesn't mean you get to exempt yourself from any rule you choose.

    I am not for government endorsing or encouraging religion. Lost in all this manufactured political bullshit is the question of why supposedly nonsexual old men whose views on birth control coincide with about 2% of the population and the year 1835 are even relevant to the debate.

  • Jeffersonian||

    If Catholics don't want to pay to provide birth control to Catholic employees, fine, the Obama compromise seems to be fair.

    Of course it does, for two simple reasons:

    1) It was no different from the original rule anyway, and

    2) The original rule is getting written into the regs.

    Hey, does homoerotic anal sex affect interstate commerce?

  • ||

    If the Left believes that churches ought not to be exempt from laws specifically because they believe in nonsense, then I'm with the Left. That's too dangerous a precedent.

    The First Amendment is a dangerous precedent?

    ObamaCare undermining 200 years of religious freedom isn't a dangerous precedent--no--the free exercise clause is a dangerous precedent?!

    LOL

  • Jeffersonian||

    The First Amendment is a dangerous precedent?

    When it gets in the way of the Left's political projects, most definitely.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Then separate church and state at all times, and on all levels, Tony.

    And tell that president you elected, to stop quoting scripture on the campaign trail.

  • The Pointer-Outer||

    So, Tony... who does the deciding as to which churches are legitimate? Bureaucrats in a far-away city near the east coast, perhaps?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Don't give those fuckers any ideas. They love bureaucracy and the power of the "APPROVED" stamp.

  • ||

    You wish Rush was a cocksucker.

  • Jeffersonian||

    Shriek is "pro-choice" across the board. As long as that choice conforms to Obama policy.

  • Lost in AZ||

    Do you know anybody that prefers sex with condoms all other things equal? Seems awfully condescending to say that if you're uninsured, then you're restricted to having sex with a condom, but if your employer provides insurance, then you get to have the significantly more stimulating condom-free sex.

  • ||

    Insurance doesn't pick up LASIK. Don't you think the poor should have a shot at seeing good as the rich?

    What about Gramps and his cockpump? Not for Gramps, but for Granny...after all if you took a poll chicks prefer hard dicks, all other things being equal as you say.

    Such bullshit arguments like this can go on and on and on and on.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Liberal women bitch about Gramps getting cut-rate Viagara, so I'll half-way agree with them if we cut out that AND cut-rate birth-control at taxpayer expense.

    In theory, that would be called "bipartisan", but liberals don't really believe in that shit.

  • ||

    Insurance companies should be allowed to not charge women for Viagra coverage.

    How about that for a solution?

  • ||

    Where's my pills, abortion and condom coupon?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    How about NO ONE gets charged, Hazel?

  • ||

    How about we just allow insurance companies to sell policies to whoever they do or don't want to, including whatever coverage the customer and the insurance company agree upon, and let them charge what the market will bear.

  • The Pointer-Outer||

    That's not what Obama is doing, Hazel.

  • Xenocles||

    "...took a poll..."

    I see what you did there.

  • Llama||

    Oh, fuck you.

    You're not restricted to anything. You can opt to pay for the Pill yourself, you can opt not to use condoms and run the risk of getting knocked up, or you can just NOT FUCK. You have choices.

    Seriously, I guarantee that I can find you $600 a year for pills in your budget. What's more important to you? Not getting knocked up or premium cable? Not getting knocked up or going out to dinner? Not getting knocked up or venti lattes? Not getting knocked up or only eating expensive organic foods? Not getting knocked up or having an iPhone with all the associated costs?

    It's a false fucking choice. Just because some broad thinks she should get to have EVERYTHING SHE WANTS WHENEVER SHE WANTS IT and not have to make the choices people with limited means have to make, the rest of us are going to get stuck footing the bill.

  • Random Liberal ||

    How DARE you deny her the joys of a venti latte and cable television!

    Both of those should be subsidized, by the way.

  • Jeffersonian||

    Seems awfully condescending to say that if you're uninsured, then you're restricted to having sex with a condom, but if your employer provides insurance, then you get to have the significantly more stimulating condom-free sex.

    Except no one here is saying that.

  • ||

    If you are uninsured, you can buy birth control pills out of pocket. It's not that expensive.

  • ||

    Seems awfully condescending to say that if you're uninsured, then you're restricted to having sex with a condom, but if your employer provides insurance, then you get to have the significantly more stimulating condom-free sex.

    And the government should provide microbrews for poor people because it's not fair they have to drink Miller because that's all they can afford!

    What the fuck CAN"T you justify once you go down this road?

  • nicole||

    That's why it's...the road to...well, you know.

  • Tony||

    When the day comes that people have so little to complain about that a disparity in beer quality is capable of political traction, libertarians might actually be useful.

  • Suffragette ||

    When the day comes that all we have to complain about is the cost of contraceptives, I'll go into retirement.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Maybe Congress should start subsidizing beer for poor people. Fuck, they subsidize pretty much everything else.

  • Jeffersonian||

    It's really just a matter of time, Tony. There's no reason for the State to be providing quality beer to anyone anymore than there is contraception, but that won't keep the totalitarian Left from doing so if political hay can be made from it. Power lust is the name of the game.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    We're talking about government here, Jeff. They'd wind up making Milwaukee's Best the official welfare beer.

    *shudder*

  • Nadine||

    I'm an educated, independent woman.
    Or to Rush, a Slut

  • shrike||

    I might get sued by Rush for less.

    Bring it on!

    The jury selection would be epic.

  • Llama||

    Do they give refunds on education that didn't take? You should ask.

  • imhotep||

    That bitch is one dispicable fucking cunt. The fucking prostitute slut.

  • ||

    I can count to potato.

  • ||

    While you are correct in the larger sense, it is inexcusable for Mr. Limbaugh to stoop to gutter talk. He is losing people's respect that would have translated to greater impact.

  • Bill Maher||

    You're right, William.

    But Sarah Palin is STILL a cunt.

    BTW, I'm still smarting over this one, even though I meant it:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gyg31Wf18yc

  • Tony||

    But Maher went to liberal comedian school, so it's okay.

  • omnibot||

    plus, she kind of is.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Shit, I *could* use the word "cunt" to accurately describe my ex... but I don't. Hell, I don't even call Hillary Clinton that word.

    Not out of PC-ness, either; I find it a repulsive term, akin to "ni----" (which I flat refuse to spell out, for similar reasons).

    I just find it odd that liberals don't self-ban those words. Then again, they demand total, unwavering respect for any of their Team, which is kinda fuckin' hypocritical.

  • ||

    Where the hell were you people when I was decrying the use of the term!

    Hell, you'd a thought I was the only one.

  • ||

    Ditto!

  • Tony||

    It's all about context, and grownups know this. Nobody wants to be banned from saying certain words. It's just that grownups know when it's OK to use them and when it's not.

    The Rush Limbaugh sheep of the world think the world's greatest oppression is their not being able to be bigoted jerks to people. Nobody is banning words. Some of us are just exasperated that a large portion of the voting public was never taught manners.

  • Mr FIFY||

    Ni....

    Nincompoop
    Nightingale
    Ninny
    Nitwit
    Nip
    Niggardly
    Nihilist
    Nigger

    Oops!

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Nice try, but I don't post that way.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    ...says the fuckhead who looks down on people who didn't go to college, uses terms like "redneck", and hates straight people...

  • The Pointer-Outer||

    Wasn't there a fool who thought "niggardly" was a racist term? It seems like it happened not that long ago...

  • Mr. FIFY||

    That post just above, starting with ..., was in response to Tony. Damn comment limitations.

    Yeah, there was some manufactured outrage over the word "niggardly", and another instance where using the term "black hole" was incorrectly construed to be racist.

    People like Tony think that way.

  • Gadianton||

  • Justin||

    I'm sure you'll apply the same standard to Mr. Maher. Or maybe not.

  • ||

    They are indeed repulsive words. And there are some repulsive people that match them. Cunts like Hillary Clinton, for example.

    And sorry, if someone is fucking so much, they think they need federal intervention, then they are probably a slut. But a slut isn't a bad thing. Asking for the money is.

  • nicole||

    Troy, why do you think you have any idea how much she is fucking, or how many different people (relevant also to the "slut" moniker)?

  • ||

    I found Rush's comments definitely ill-advised, and I am a big opponent of ObamaCare. But, I have to say that many of the male commenters on this site and on other political sites I visit often comment on the physical attributes, or lack thereof, of various female public figures. I think it shows bias and and attitude of objectification of women.

  • Feministing||

    What is your gender, Tyche? We could use someone like you on our website, but not if you're one of those *puke* men.

  • ||

    We need more idiots like Rush Limbaugh.

    That will ensure Obama's success at the polls.

    Obama rocks and Obamacare is the best piece of legislation since the Magna Charta.

  • DemocraticUnderground||

    We could use someone like you on staff, Homo.

  • Ghost of Lenin||

    I would have killed him last, had he lived in MY time.

  • Black guy||

    We don't like condoms. that's why we are many and ever growing.

  • ||

    The ask is not for "free" birth control. The ask is that it be covered by insurance, subject to co-pays, as other medications are. Can I say my religion is against cancer treatments and insist my insurance shouldn't pay for it?

    The other medications you mention for PCOS are not substitutes for the hormonal treatment provided by birth control, any more than Pepto Bismol is a substitute for Tylenol. Each medication or treatment you listed alleviates a different aspect of PCOS.

  • Jeffersonian||

    Can I say my religion is against cancer treatments and insist my insurance shouldn't pay for it?

    Yes. Why not?

  • ||

    Can I say my religion is against cancer treatments and insist my insurance shouldn't pay for it?

    Can you compare life-saving anything to lifestyle medication...religious or not? Why do I - as a secular taxpayer - have to work for a cult before I have any rights deciding my moral reservations prohibit me subsidizing someone else's fuck?

    Do I have to believe in a golden cow or whatever to have such political rights? Its a bullshit question you ask before religion comes into it.

  • Jeffersonian||

    It helps to have a credible threat of head-chopping or skyscraper-toppling to get a little deference from the White House.

  • ||

    Actually, no. The want, in the form of a federal mandate, is that private insurers provide birth control to women (but not to men) free of any charge, including any co-pay. Free as in beer. The administration has been crystal clear on that.

  • ||

    Nobody is against allowing insurance companies to cover it.

    We're against forcing them to. At zero co-pays and no deductible.

    Shouldn't I have the option to buy a plan that DOESN'T cover birth control and they pay for it out of pocket?

  • ||

    Even if you do subscribe to the idea that it is society's collective responsibility to provide you with birth control at no cost to yourself, do you really have a lot of sympathy for a woman attending a $50,000 per year prestigious law school who is too cheap to take 20 bucks out of her pocket every month so that she can fuck with impunity? Coming from the party of the 99%, the irony was just too rich. $200,000 Chevy Volts for millionaires and free birth control for Ivy League law students. Very populist.

  • ||

    Indeed. Especially when you consider the regressive nature of the individual mandate (effectively a poll tax), combined with the fact that the costs of free birth control for wealthy young women are being shifted onto poor people who have health problems they actually have to pay co-pays for.

  • ||

    The Democrats are missing something about this whole debate.

    The longer it goes on, the more chance that the Supreme Court will take it into consideration when they begin arguments on the individual mandate later this month.

    And that can only be to the benefit of the mandates opponents.

    When you consider the mandate in the context of the cost-shifting effects of the insurance regulations, and take into consideration issues like freedom of conscience, the inherent conflict between positive and negative rights is brought into sharper relief.

  • Jeffersonian||

    Well said, Hazel. Or, as Mark Steyn aptly put it, when government gets bigger everything else gets smaller. We have been warned for centuries that positive rights would crush negative rights, and lo and behold, it's happening.

  • ||

    Not warned. Warning.

  • ||

    I was thinking about this also, Hazel, although not the legal arguments aspect of it. I was thinking about the fact that 6 of the Supreme Court members are Catholic - not that I think this would definitely affect their decision-making, but it could.

  • ||

    I did not know that. But good point. And even if they don't personally have an issue with birth control, they probably know people who do have such convictions and understand their moral objections to being compelled to pay for insurance coverage that includes it.

    I'm personally wondering if the Supreme Court can just takeover the case recently filed by the Catholic bishops, elevate it from the lower courts, and roll it into the current challenge instead of waiting.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    "As a former political science major"

    Former? You mean you forgot everything you learned? Or did your diploma get nullified?

  • The Pointer-Outer||

    He's probably just cranky because his boss told him he wasn't qualified to run the soft-serve ice cream machine.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Most of the foul-tempered people I've run into in my life, were either poli-sci or psychology majors.

    Good call on the fast-food job, because that's where I've seen most of these wannabe geniuses... scooping fries into paper containers.

  • Boycott_Government_Sluts||

    When are lawmakers going to apologize for the $16 trillion debt? That's a hell of a lot worse than a few names. I say we boycott paying taxes until they apologize.

  • ||

    Ummm aren't babys expensive? especially unwanted ones?

  • ||

    Yes. Did you have a point though?

  • Anna||

    What does that have to do with anything?

    Fluke is 30. She seems to have done well avoiding motherhood without Georgetown paying for her birth control.

  • ||

    Fluke is a rug muncher, in danger of motherhood only after humping a dick taker.

  • ||

    I wonder how many fathers after reading this thread would want any of you near their Daughters? Any of you have wives or daughters? You sound like a bunch of bitter misogynist that would go gangrape if left alone with a women long enough.

  • ||

    I have a daughter. I have a pre-written Petition for Order of Protection, in case I find out any of the vile people who associate on this could possibly have any contact with my daughter.

  • ||

    You heard it here first everybody: if you aren't in favor of the government garnishing your wages so that students attending a $50k-a-year law school can have birth control pills without paying for them, you may be a bitter misogynist gang rapist (or was that gan grapist?)

    Godwin's Law in 3...2...

  • Just Saying||

    I'm pretty sure it's the crude misogyny that make most of the Reason "libertarians" here crude misogynists.

  • ||

    People say slut, like it is a bad thing.

  • ||

    I may be a slut, but I'm not a fucking slut!

  • emperor wears no clothes||

    I thought the Big Fat Idiot's 15 minutes of fame expired years ago, round about the time he was outed as a drug addicted, non-registered voter.

  • ||

    ...Alas, this writer uses research, the student's own extended testimony, and logic...

    What others, however, will "sell" the Fluke issue on..is appeal to emotion, quotes out of context, ad hominens...and somehow protecting the "virtue" of a woman who - at the same time - wants others to support her apparently unnamed partner(s) in impersonal sex.

  • Extra Sausage||

    This is like the worst chat room ever.

  • ||

    Well its not like anyone with an ounce of commonsense listens to that pompous windbag anyways.

    www.Go-Anon.tk

  • David||

    In America we have something called Second Amendment, which protects our free speech. In other words, it protects the kind of speech that some may find offensive or unacceptable. Which brings us to Rush Limbaugh's ordeal. Rush, who is a private citizen, expressed his opinion about Sandra Fluke, another private citizen. This is a perfect example of the kind of speech that some may find offensive and unacceptable but, nevertheless, is protected by Second Amendment.
    No doubt under pressure from his advertisers, Rush has apologized. But he had nothing to apologize for. His renegade advertisers and people that want his radio show off the air are the ones that should apologize to him for violating his Second Amendment right to voice his opinion. This is what should be offensive and unacceptable to anyone who takes pride in being an American.

  • Eric||

    Joke...right?

  • David||

    No

  • ||

    Just as Rush has the right of free expression, so have his advertisers. There is no requirement for them to run their ads on his show. Its called voting with your money, and in case you missed it, a basic tenet of free market principles.

  • David||

    Close, but no cigar. If his show generates revenue for his advertisers why would they pull out? Suppose I am a company that advertises on some Liberal show. I may not agree with politically but since the show is financial success I will advertise on that show. What do I care about political contents of that particular show if I profit by advertising with it?

  • ||

    Calling Fluke a slut does not qualify as political speech and is hardly what the framers had in mind,I wouldnt suggest censoring it but i wouldnt run to drape it in the constitution. Advertising is about long term brand management, in the advertisers calculations Rush 's comments could damage their brand.

  • Anna||

    On what grounds does it "not qualify as political speech"? Are you saying that expressing an opinion regarding someone's sexual activity is not allowed by law?

  • David||

    Calling her a slut is exactly the kind of offensive speech that IS protected by First Amendment. That is why we HAVE First Amendment in this country. For that very reason. Rush has a huge following and IS a financial success. If his is censored and/or taken off the air then who is going to be next? You? Me?
    Because what was perfectly OK to say 20 years ago is a taboo today. What is OK to say today will a taboo tomorrow. There are no limits on free speech. There must be NO limits on free speech.

  • ||

    I think you mean First Amendment for free speech. I'm not sure what the right to bear arms has to do with this argument. (facepalm)

  • David||

    You're right. It is First Amendment,not Second. I misspoke. Nevertheless, the point I was trying to make is that Rush Limbaugh's radio show is a financial success (obviously) and companies advertise on his show for a reason, to profit from it, that is. So by pulling their adds they proved beyond a doubt that they caved in out of sheer pressure. The content of his show should NOT be the issue with his advertiser, what should, however, be the issue is whether or not his show can generate revenue. So, once again, by pulling their adds they shot themselves in the foot.

  • ||

    Couldn't the Progs have at least selected someone who doesn't have the speech mannerisms of a fourteen year-old girl to act as their latest Little Nell? Cripes: can you imagine this chickie arguing a case?

  • ||

    What about the fact that we now have two generations of educated women who think that sex and money are more important than reproducing? That wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that we are consequently forced to flood our country with immigrants who have minimal job skills, minimal education, high birth rates, and are taught in America's public schools to vote Democratic and harbor antipathy for white men? Such a wonderfully self-reinforcing demographic and cultural catastrophe we have created, all so women like Ms. Fluke can aspire to more sex and money. Maybe Fluke, and the entire generation of self-genocidal cultural suicide mavens she represents, is a slut.

  • ||

    If you read her quote, she didn't say "Contraception costs me $3000 during the course of my education." From her statement quoted above, she could be a virgin.

    All the perfectly valid points Rush could have made went out the window with his grotesque (potential) slander. I don't know if testifying before Congress makes you a "public figure", but it just seems kinda mean to slander a logically deficient college student instead of the idiots who brought her there as an "expert" (like Nancy Pelosi).

  • ||

    Why is it that every story on this subject fails to mention that birth control pills can be used to manage other health problems besides preventing pregnancy? Could it be because the majority of these stories are written by men?

    The entire, simple-minded condom argument completely leaves out the fact that BCP can manage bleeding, cramps, anemia, pain and a number of other maladies. To that point, BCPs are not just contraception, they are MEDICINE.

    Tell a woman with extreme cramps and menstrual pain that a condom can be just as effective as BCPs - and they only cost 40 cents!! - and see what happens.

  • Hey, Phil...||

    ...does your wife/girlfriend "peg" you?

  • ||

    I agree with Rush Limbaugh 100%. I only wish he would've used a different choice of words to express his point of view. He's an intelligent man, but due to the way he expressed himself took the focus off the issue at hand, placing the focus instead, on his language.

  • Chris||

    Where is Reason on the fact that Viagra and other erectile dysfunction medications are covered more often than contraception by health insurance? Medications who's sole purpose is for sexual intercourse, personally I don't have a problem with that but it seems to be part of what's getting you all's puritan values in a wad. It must be your invisible hand at work stroking that market efficiency.

  • Anna||

    Since when is this site a hotbed of "Puritan values"?

    As far as Viagra goes - when Congress and the President start discussing mandatory Viagra coverage, then Viagra will be a relevant issue.

  • redefiler||

    Well Chris, since you've obviously been ignoring reality while trying to help manufacture a plausible reason for Fluke, you clearly missed Reason's extensive coverage and editorials on nationalized insurance schemes. Hint: they aren't for any of it.

    If I can paraphrase: "You should pay to fix your own genetic deficiencies. If you don't see a plan that fits your particular shortcomings, keep shopping asshole."

  • ||

    I'm a medical student and while it is important to take professional medical advice under consideration, I have to say that most doctors don't know a thing about economics. Trusting doctors on how medicine should be funded or whether or not government should force people to pay for the healthcare of others is stupid. Physicians are only experts on medical science. They have no business deciding what authority the state has to use force nor do they have any clue how the laws of supply and demand affect the provision of medical care.

  • ||

    Slut? Bonobo is more like it.

  • ||

    Beside the fact that Ira Stolls remedies do not take into consideration those who use birth control for medical reasons other than the prevention of pregnancy---and they and others might have a bad reaction to the cheap methods of contraception suggested---simple supplying birth control of their choice is a small price to pay for the numerous social benefits (as opposed to trying to force people to use a method prescribed by us): Reduction of abortions, less unwed mothers, fewer unwanted children born.

  • ||

    Honestly, though I'm a relatively consistent libertarian, the government providing cheap birth control is one of the few relatively logical ideas state utilitarians advocate. Less unwanted children and single mothers on welfare = less crime and social decay. As far as cost efficiency, it's one of few relatively decent government investments. That said, I don't think people who oppose it for religious reasons should have to pay for it. Thus, the dilemma.

  • ||

    Proprietist - a highly educated law student isn't exactly someone likely to bear an offspring that contributes to "crime and social decay." Women like this produce intelligent and adaptable offspring and there is a far greater supply of excellent parents waiting to adopt such children than women willing to bear them. Your argument ignores this fact.

  • ||

    Mr Stoll wrote
    " Why should people past reproductive age who are paying copayments for their heart or arthritis medication be paying taxes to subsidize free prescription contraceptives for law students"

    Mr Stoll as did Mr Limbaugh mis represents Ms Fluke's testimoney as requiring the general public to pay for Ms Fluke's contraception.
    This is a link to Georgetown's web site on health care insurance:
    http://studentaffairs.georgetown.edu/insurance

    Notice that students pay for their health insurance. Ms Flue simply requests that the Catholic Church not be allowed to deny health coverage birth control pills in the health insurance plan it offers to students and that students pay for.

    And for all of this Ms Fluke gets called a Slut, a Protitute from Mr Limbaugh. Mr Limbaugh even went so fare as to ask to see the tapes of young women having sex at the college.

  • ||

    You're right. It is First Amendment,not Second. I misspoke. ly f2
    smartq ten3 Nevertheless, the point I was trying to make is that Rush Limbaugh's radio show is a financial success (obviously) and companies advertise on his show for a reason, to profit from it,bmorn v99 pro
    teclast p75a that is. So by pulling their adds they proved beyond a doubt that they caved in out of sheer pressure. The content of his show should NOT be the issue with his advertiser, what should, however, be the issue is whether or not his show can generate revenue. teclast p85
    jxd s601
    jxd s9000 So, once again, by pulling their adds they shot themselves in the foot.

  • ||

    Without HillyBilly, there could have been no Rush. There's something to note about politimedia and their 'icons' - they are made opposing the government, not licking their buddies' boots.

    This applies to Lefties, too. Olbermann made his mark making a mockery of Bush. His swan-song was blithering like an idiot defending Obama.

    gooapple android phone
    gooapple v5 android phone
    gooapple phone
    gooapple v5 These personalities win converts just like politicians on the make - picking up the disillusioned hating whatever face is the status-quo.

    Star Wars IV doesn't get a sequel with no Darth Vader.

  • ghf||

    Available in a plethora of chanel belt designs, colors and materials bean bags are bestowed with chanel bags generous set of features which will always bring smile on the face of all your family members.

  • ||

    Stoll is unbelievably stupid, arrogant & disgusting. First he thinks women should, rather than ask insurance to cover contraceptives, they should (a) rely on condoms handed out around town (Ira I know you don't know much becuase you never get laid but condoms are NOT the best weapon against unwanted pregnancy), (b) rely on some guy giving them birth control money upfront - are you nuts?, or (c) ignore the pill your dr prescribes & take that ONE cheap brand from WalMart. And that's assuming there's a Walmart anywhere near. Next this brainless turd acts like he knows anything about treating polycistic disease. Again, a DOCTOR determines what's best for a patient, not YOU. You have any idea what those other treatments INVOLVE?? You say "yeah, Limp-bone called her a whore but look what SHE said". You are a hate-filled angry ugly boy tee'd off at women for treating you mean. Wah wah.

  • Coach Outlet||

  • humanwrites||

    Limbaugh's "Slitgate" is one issue. But, who would quibble with the Mr. Stoll, the author of this informative little article? I, for one, would ask him about his conclusion on the Affordable Care Act (ACA), aka: "Obamacare." Mr. Stoll concludes with: "There are a lot of questions here that go right to the heart of ObamaCare. Why is the president getting involved in setting prices for prescription drugs in the first place? Where in the Constitution does he get that power?"

    Whether you call it "Obamacare" or the Affordable Care Act," ACA was, in fact, an act of a US Congress and not, in fact, a US president. Beyond the USSC decision, or ant analysis of many other governmental expenditures, Mr. Stoll might also consider that in the words "Right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," the right to "LIFE" might in fact extend even onto a right to equitable healthcare for ALL Americans. Or, does Mr. Stoll also hold our Declaration of Independence with little regard?

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement