Conservatism

A Pox on Both Houses in the Contraception Controversy

Liberals and conservatives alike need to stop circling the wagons in defense of their own.

|

Sometimes, I catch a lot of flak for taking a "pox on both your houses" stance in political conflicts. But given the way so many political conflicts unfold, what else is one to do?

Take the firestorm over Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke's congressional testimony about health insurance coverage for contraception and talk show king Rush Limbaugh's rants calling her a slut. There are good reasons to question Fluke's image as a courageous Everywoman—just as there are good arguments against the contraceptive coverage mandate, particularly for faith-based institutions (such as Georgetown, a Jesuit university). But now, we're all discussing Limbaugh's sexist slurs and squabbling over who's got worse misogynists, the right or the left.

Let's start with Fluke. She is not, as many conservative blogs  have claimed, a "fake " who was misrepresented as a random 23-year-old student when she is really a 30-year-old pro-choice activist: Fluke's role as former president of Georgetown's Law Students for Reproductive Justice was widely  mentioned  in the media  when she testified, and the misstatement of her age was one TV reporter's  isolated error.

However, it is true that most of the initial coverage of Fluke did not reflect the extent of her political activism, which goes far beyond reproductive issues. She has an undergraduate degree in Feminist, Gender and Sexuality studies, more ideological cult than academic discipline, and a post-college career spent entirely in women's advocacy groups. 

It is also true that Fluke's testimony—particularly her claims that 40 percent of female law students at Georgetown struggle to pay for contraception, at up to $1,000 a year—deserved critical scrutiny, like all "advocacy statistics." The strongest point scored by Fluke's conservative critics is that a month's supply of birth control pills costs $9 at a Target pharmacy near Georgetown.

This critique has been challenged by The New Republic's health policy expert Jonathan Cohn. Cohn notes that the Pill is not a one-size-fits-all drug: thus, some women cannot take pills with  estrogen. Yet, aside from the fact that fewer than 3 percent of Pill users  take the estrogen-free "mini-pill," generic versions of such pills can be bought for $30-$35 a month—far below Fluke's $80 estimate. While Cohn implies that a generic product is a "different drug" than the pricey brand-name one, it is in fact the same drug (except for the packaging and, sometimes, the inactive ingredients). Women's health experts such as Mary Jane Minkin, co-author of The Yale Guide to Women's Reproductive Health, agree that generic birth control pills are as good as their brand-name counterparts. Indeed, under the Affordable Care Act, co-pays may continue to be charged  for brand-name birth control pills if generic equivalents are available.

Finally, Cohn points out that many women rely on other birth control methods such as the IUD or hormonal shots. Yet the chart he reproduces shows that these methods cost $200-$600 a year. That's without many cost-savers available to women with limited income, from services at Planned Parenthood to discounts offered by drug companies (such as Pfizer, which markets the Depo-Provera injection).

And what of Fluke's story of her friend who lost an ovary because Georgetown's health plan would not pay for the Pill to treat her polycystic ovarian syndrome?  Fluke acknowledged that the college policy does cover contraceptive pills for medical problems; yet, she claimed, her friend was denied approval on the suspicion that she was seeking birth control—even though she's gay.

It is hard to question such a painful story without seeming insensitive; and yet no heartstring-tugging tale told by an advocate should be taken at face value. If the incident happened as Fluke described, her friend had excellent cause for a lawsuit. But did it? Were there other complicating factors? Was the woman's condition not treatable with generic versions of the Pill—which, contrary to the assertions of Fluke's supporters, are sometimes prescribed for it? We don't know. Georgetown officials have not commented on the matter (when I contacted the school's media office, I received a response asking when my deadline was, but my follow-up emails went unanswered). 

In any case, the focus on medical uses of birth control pills is somewhat misleading, since Fluke champions a much broader mandate for insurance coverage of contraceptives.

All of this could and should have been brought up by those who believe this mandate violates religious institutions' freedom of conscience. What should not have happened was Rush Limbaugh targeting Fluke with tirades about her imagined sex life, replete with epithets like "slut" and "prostitute." And what should not be happening now is some conservative pundits and activists circling the wagons around the rightly embattled talk show host.

It is sad to see bloggers I respect (such as former Frum Forum contributor John Guardiano) argue that Limbaugh's comments, however crass, were based on irrefutable logic: Fluke wants to be paid to have sex, and that makes her a prostitute. (I wonder what Guardiano, a former Marine, would have thought of a similarly impeccable argument that American soldiers are "hit men" because they are paid to kill people.) It is equally sad to see Limbaugh praised for his tepid apology, which came when advertisers began to flee and followed three days of attacks. 

Limbaugh did not simply call Fluke nasty names. He harped endlessly on the notion that she must be having nonstop sex to be paying so much for contraception, repeatedly excoriated her alleged promiscuity, and offered to buy "all the women at Georgetown … aspirin to put between their knees" for birth control. Despite his claims that his objection was not to Fluke's sexual activity but to her desire to have it subsidized, his comments clearly came across as an attack on female "unchastity."

Then there's the "liberals do it too and get away with it" defense.  Yes, there has been some vile misogyny on the left toward conservative women (notably Sarah Palin). Generally, the perpetrators of these slurs have been far less visible than Limbaugh. The more visible ones, such as the chronically sexist Bill Maher of HBO's Real Time and Hillary-hating MSNBC host Chris Matthews, have been harshly criticized by many fellow liberals. 

What's more, attempts to pit Limbaugh's male chauvinist piggery against that of assorted leftists tend to ignore the fact that this was not Limbaugh's first offense (take his jokes about Hillary Clinton having a "testicle lockbox" for emasculating men) and that he also has company on the right. In 2008, singer and conservative activist Ted Nugent brandished two rifles onstage during a concert and invited Hillary Clinton to "ride this into the sunset, you worthless bitch." Fox News host Sean Hannity defended Nugent's stunt  as free speech, and Nugent has remained a frequent guest on Fox and on Glenn Beck's radio show.

The only effective way to police misogyny (and other ugliness) in politics is to call out the offenders in one's own camp. Instead, we have each side denouncing the other, while "our S.O.B." tends to a pass. Radio talk show host Mark Levin's message to Limbaugh's conservative critics is, "Do not ever throw our leaders under the bus." Such an attitude is a sure way to end up with leaders behaving badly.

Guardiano's piece on the controversy was titled, "Sarah Fluke Is No Martyr, And Limbaugh Is No Monster." Monster? No, but neither is Limbaugh the martyr some of his defenders make him out to be. The only real victim here is the conservative movement—and the quality of our discourse.

Contributing Editor Cathy Young is a columnist at RealClearPolitics, where a version of this article originally appeared.

NEXT: Reason Writers Around the Internet: Peter Suderman Talks Mitt Romney, Game Change, Political Consulting, and Video Games on Bloggingheads

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.

  1. Is it pronounced Fluke as in Luke or Fluck as in duck?

    1. Please, god, let it be the former.

    2. Flook as in look.

    3. “flucky” as in “fuck me.”

      Too soon?

      1. Floo-kay.

        More French. Because of the socialism. And the sex.

        1. “floo-kay” as in “I’m gay?”

    4. Refraining from killing babies requires the “positive” action of refraining,

      I choose the former; if she wants her name spoken differently she should fucking change the spelling. Dumb cunt.

    5. It’s pronounced “pa-ra-si-tic flat-worm”.

    6. Fluke, like the parasite.

  2. This is a great article. The Democrats really have been just as bad as the Republicans, if not worse. I mean, remember that time the Democrats put a bust of Bill Maher up in the Massachusetts House of Representatives? Or that time the liberals took over Congress in ’94, and made Bill Maher an honorary member of Congress?? And that time the Hollywood guy said something that hurt my libertarian feelings? I could go on and on. It’s great articles like this that show, with some exceptions, libertarians are great champions of freedom and choice.

    1. Remember that time they made Al Franken a senator?

      1. That one had to hurt.

      2. Remind us of the sexist things Franken has said – besides making Bill-O his bitch once on a book panel.

        btw – I say a LOT of sexist things and support Rush (King of the Rednecks) Limbaugh and his ability to say them.

        1. Google is your friend. He even had feminists actively defending him against charges of misogyny.

        2. I was listening to Hannity the other day (I know, painful experience), but anyways, he had two guests on talking about Maher and Limbaugh, and the liberal one basically said “Well yeah, but Maher was right in calling Palin a cunt and Limbaugh’s wrong because I don’t like him.”

          Fucking standards, how do they work?

        3. I say a LOT of sexist things

          There’s an accomplishment to brag about.

          1. When you don’t have much, you have to run with what you’ve got.

  3. She has an undergraduate degree in Feminist, Gender and Sexuality studies

    That’s all we need to know.

    1. The more I learn the more this looks like a manufactured event. But at least both teams are using it to distract us from debating any meaningful issues.

      1. How are the Republicans using it? They didn’t put her up there? They certainly didn’t tell Limbaugh to call her a slut? It is the Dems who are using her to distract the issue. Instead of talking about religious liberty it is now about her right to fuck around on our dime.

        1. It’s not about religious liberty. Government shouldn’t be able to force insurance companies to cover anything. That is the issue, all liberty, not just religious liberty.

          1. In general sure. But in this case specifically, no. If the government can force you to do things, not prohibit you but force you to take affirmative action, that is against your religion, then we don’t have religious freedom in this country.

            That is a big deal. I wish Libertarians were more comfortable and supportive of religious liberty.

            1. What if your particular set of nonsense beliefs required you to murder babies?

              1. That is prohibiting you from doing something not forcing you to do something positive. Try again Tony.

                Although bonus points for breaking out a good anti-Semitic blood libel. You are nothing if not predictable.

                1. Same to you, what with the neverending parade of victimizations. You and Rush are peas in a pod. “Masculinity is being destroyed in this country… now give me my pacifier and a corner to cry in.”

                  1. What are you even talking about Tony. You are the one talking about religions killing babies, which is one of the oldest anti-Semitic slurs known to man. Not me. I am not even Jewish. I was just pointing it out.

                    1. No specific insult to that particular set of nonsense believers was intended, but way to deflect to a wholly other realm of victimization.

                    2. How dare people expect the government to refrain from forcing them to do things that are against their religion.

                2. Refraining from killing babies requires the “positive” action of refraining, which government forces you to do. The line between liberty and tyranny is not drawn by semantics.

                  1. Tony, if you can’t basic logic, I can’t help you son. Saying “you can’t engage in a particular practice” because it victimizes other people or is against public policy is not the same as saying “you must do something”.

                    1. Sure it is. At least the distinction’s not big enough to separate freedom from tyranny. Even more obvious than “prohibit = force to refrain” are things such as “you are forced to pay taxes” or “you are forced to feed your children.”

                  2. Refraining from killing babies requires the “positive” action of refraining, which government forces you to do.

                    This is the same bullshit specious mushy-headed liberal logic that arrives at the conclusion that existing as a living human being within the U.S. constitutes engaging in interstate commerce.

                    You’re a colossal fucking idiot.

                    1. You’re a colossal fucking idiot.

                      Nothing more need be said when it comes to Tony.

                    2. existing as a living human being within the U.S. constitutes engaging in interstate commerce

                      Or the “positive” action of refraining from leaving the country and renouncing your citizenship counts as implicitly signing the social contract.

                  3. Refraining from killing babies requires the “positive” action of refraining,

                    AHAHAHAHAHAHA

                    The only cure for this much stupid is suicide.

                  4. Refraining from killing babies requires the “positive” action of refraining

                    A few Tonyisms:

                    Not giving is stealing.
                    Not stealing is giving.
                    Inaction is action.
                    There is no difference between having a right to private property and having a right to the property of others.

                    I’m thinking he can’t tell the difference between fallacy and phallus, which is why all these arguments based upon false premises keep dripping out of his mouth.

                  5. The line between liberty and tyranny is not drawn by semantics.

                    That’s pretty fucking hilarious, considering the semantical gymnastics you’re constantly engaging in.

                    1. So is it the libertarian position that government should not require parents to feed and clothe their children?

                    2. So is it the libertarian position that government should not require parents to feed and clothe their children?

                      I guess I can add to my Tonyisms that parents only feed and clothe their kids because the government tells them to.

                      I’m so glad you’re gay, because it would be a horrible thing for you to pass along your genes.

                    3. So is it the libertarian position that government should not require parents to feed and clothe their children?

                      Those two brain cells are giving out quick Tony.

                    4. Funny how you can’t just answer the question.

                    5. Though homophobic slurs and other insults do add bonus points to your argument, I gather. What that argument is, I haven’t figured out.

                    6. What that argument is, I haven’t figured out.

                      Things that are obvious are obvious.

                    7. Funny how you can’t just answer the question.

                      Been answered a million times.

                      Out of our entire human history, only recently have we had a law forcing parents to provide basic needs for their children.

                      So, I’ll definitely take the bet you don’t need a law to do it. I mean, we’ve survived… 50 thousand years? I’ll even give you that there MAY have been laws to support your child as far as 2000 years ago, which is a HUGE stretch.

                      Somehow humans have reared children for 96% of our existence as homo sapien sapiens without laws.

                    8. So if a parent neglects his child to the point where the child starves to death, there should be no legal repercussions?

                    9. When a child starves to death, it’s because the parents lock up the food and/or child, not because they forgot or were too busy to feed the kid. There’s an overt abuse, not neglect.

                    10. Tony knows if you are against the government doing something, you are against it being done at all.

                    11. Tony knows if you are against the government doing something, you are against it being done at all.

                      That’s right. We oppose government run farms. Obviously that means we don’t want anyone to eat.

                    12. So if a parent neglects his child to the point where the child starves to death, there should be no legal repercussions?

                    13. So if a parent neglects his child to the point where the child starves to death, there should be no legal repercussions?

                      Wait a minute.

                      You said the government forces people to feed and clothe their children.

                      That means this hypothetical of yours is impossible.

                    14. Best. Strawman. Ever.

                    15. A little Logic 101 education is worse than none at all.

                      The claim is that government shouldn’t force people to take positive action. My reductio ad absurdum demonstrates the flaw in this.

                    16. A little Logic 101 education is worse than none at all.

                      You have demonstrated that admirably.

                    17. If you can’t argue without resorting to strawmen and reductio ad absurdum then all you’ve demonstrated is your own inability to debate you fucking half-wit. Please tell me that at least some that shit was a spoofer. It’s hard to believe that anyone is really that stupid.

                    18. I haven’t appealed to one strawman and a reductio ad absurdum is a proper method of disproving a claim. The problem here is you believing stupid shit.

                    19. You do nothing but launch strawmen attacks regardless what you call them. You argue in complete bad faith and are so convinced in the rightousness of your cause that you gladly seek to vilify and marginalize those who disagree with you. DIAF, asshole.

              2. I’m too stupid to know the difference between’prohibit’ and ‘require’. HURR DURR!

                1. I’ve been here long enough to see a few of your “starving children and grandmothers” posts, Tony, so if I were you, I’d re-think before posting.

                  1. Well what the fuck do you think will happen when you abolish Medicare? Starving grandmothers is not a strawman, it’s a very reasonable prediction.

                    1. You and your cohort said much the same when Clinton signed welfare reform legislation…and nothing happened. Why should it be different now?

                    2. Nothing happened–except increased poverty and more pain for the poor. Welfare reform was a disaster, particularly in light of recent economic conditions.

                    3. Do you mean the same ‘poor’ who’s major problem is obesity? If govt assistance is as needed as you would have people believe, why do they have to prohibit people from buying alcohol, cigarettes and lottery tickets with food stamps? If the majority really ‘needed’ it, you’d have a few hard core addicts abusing the system, but it would be a pretty isolated phenomenon. Here in SC, where there are estimates that 1/4 people are driving without insurance and even more are underinsured, a large percentage are on public assistance.

                      I’m probably much more sympathetic to giving people public assistance than many on this board – and even with the fraud and abuse I still think on the whole it’s worth doing, but let’s not pretend that a very sizable amount of that aid isn’t wasted on cable tv, cell phones and ‘sin taxable’ items.

                    4. Right. Just look back to the days before Medicare and the epidemic levels of starving grandmothers we had around the country! Right?

                    5. The creation of Medicare coincided roughly with an unprecedented increase in average human lifespans. It did not come into being as a communist plot, but to rectify a real social problem–namely old people in poverty.

                    6. Old people are one of the richest demographics in the country. It came about as an appeal to guilt and self righteousness.

                    7. The creation of Medicare coincided roughly with an unprecedented increase in average human lifespans.

                      Actually, the reverse is what happened. You can not tell on a graph of lifespans when Medicare began without dates. There was no discernible increase in lifespans. Look it up, if you dare.

          2. Putting aside the religious objection issue, Limbaugh’s idiocy, and the libertarian objection to any mandated insurance coverage at all, why would anyone buy “insurance” for daily living expenses? Why would the government want to mandate “insurance coverage” for daily living expenses?

            Insurance should be for large, unexpected expenses that might wreck the household budget, not for something you buy every day. What’s next, mandatory insurance coverage for toothpaste?

            1. Don’t geve tham any ideas. Poor dental health has been linked to increased risk of heart disease.

            2. i want mandatory food insurance. that includes lots and lots of steak.

              1. and skrimps.

                also, fried chicken.

      2. The more I learn the more this looks like a manufactured event. But at least both teams are using it to distract us from debating any meaningful issues.

        Keep in mind, P B, that Fluke was testifying at an unofficial hearing before the Democratic Steering and Policy Committee, i.e. at a partisan strategy hearing hosted by Nancy Pelosi. Team Blue is trying to manufacture an issue. Team Red isn’t trying to distract anyone, at least not in this instance. Too bad Team Red isn’t hammering home the point that these kinds of political arguments will be endless as long as the government is allowed to dictate a one-size-fits-all prescription for healthcare coverage.

        1. Team red stupidly got drawn into a red herring/straw-man debate. Instead of arguing the liberty aspect they went all social con and stepped in it.

    2. Pretty much.

      Anything that comes after is a prescribed response.

    3. What kind of a twisted authoritarian twat must Fluke be? Georgetown is a private institution. There are tons of other schools that offer the same things Georgetown does. What does it matter that they don’t offer contraception on their health plan? Everyone who goes there or works there has tons of other options. They choose to be there.

      Now Fluke disagrees with that policy. Good for her. But the normal response would be to say “fuck you Georgetown never going to that school”. But not Fluke and those like her. She has to enroll in the school and become an activist. In her world, no one can just choose to do what they want and be left alone. Anyone who doesn’t toe the feminist line must be changed by any means necessary. The whole world is literally either with her or against her. That kids is called the totalitarian mindset.

      1. Hey, there’s some irony for ya. The article basically calls for a little less name-calling on both sides, and all we’ve been hearing about for days is Bill Maher calling Sarah Palin a cunt and a twat, etc.

        So John calles Fluke a twat.

        Progress!

        1. No I called her an “authoritarian twat”. And she has earned that description.

          1. I carry my ginormous libertarian prick moniker proudly.

        2. Who really cares about Bill Maher? The guy is a self confessed libertarian. The left does not watch his show. The right does not watch his show. He made a contribution to Obama, so that must mean he agrees with Obama 100%, right? Good grief.

          1. I can’t reconcile what (admittedly little) I know about Bill Maher and the claim that he’s libertarian.

            1. Bill Maher calls himself a libertarian … and is a big supporter of Hillary “compulsory, government-run, universal pre-school” Clinton.

              1. He has a funny way of expressing his support:

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

                1. punch line: Maher refers to Hillary clinton’t c***.

                  1. I guess Maher has gone Team Obama, but he used to be a huge Hillary fan.

          2. And he at least “agrees with Obama” $1 million worth.

          3. Bill Maher is a legalize hookers and weed libertarian, not a free markets and limited government libertarian. And most of his audience are leftists.

            1. There’s nothing wrong with legalize hookers and weed libertarians, but he has so many other statist beliefs it more than offsets any of his libertarian tendencies. I think he’s also pretty anti-interventionist which for my money is one of his more redeeming qualities.

      2. It is like someone buying a Chevy Volt and complaining that it does not come with the UAW healthcare plan.

      3. It’s been the cliche for eternity that libertarians who, say, don’t like drugs, don’t do drugs. While “liberals” who, say, don’t like guns, ban all guns. This is the corollary to the more recent “if you don’t pay for me to have something, it means I don’t have access to it” line of reasoning. If it weren’t for double standards, leftists wouldn’t have any.

    4. Dr. Peter Venkman: Janine, someone with your qualifications would have no trouble finding a top-flight job in either the food service or housekeeping industries.

      1. I use this line on my son when he doesn’t want to do his school work.

    5. Why didn’t they refer to it a BS degree in Feminist, Gender and Sexuality studies?

    6. She has an undergraduate degree in Feminist, Gender and Sexuality studies

      From this we can safely assume she’s unemployed or otherwise sucking on the government teat.

      1. She is on a public service scholarship. She is serving the public.

        1. Hopefully not sexually. I’d buy her contraception just to ensure she doesn’t reproduce.

    7. She has an undergraduate degree

      That’s all we need to know.

      *Fixed it for you

    8. You mean a bogus degree?

    9. You mean a bogus degree?

  4. (I wonder what Guardiano, a former Marine, would have thought of a similarly impeccable argument that American soldiers are “hit men” because they are paid to kill people.)

    Reminds me of this:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Np6_b-72H3E

    1. Going by the Marines I know, they would enjoy being known as ‘America’s Hit Men’.

      1. I betcha there’s a company of Marines that has that as their motto. Force Recon, if I had to bet.

        Unofficially, of course.

        1. “We are the ones your Imam Warned you about”. A very unofficial and frowned upon motto. But a real one.

      2. I thought “America’s Hit Men” were the Seals?

        1. Actually, Delta Force probably fits the bill better.

  5. The Free Shit For Everybody Party could not have deflected the argument into the weeds of irrelevance any more effectively if they had tried.

    They should send Rush a big thank-you note and a check.

    1. Yeah. On Powerline (partisan Republicans) they described it well: The Democrats won this round by a TKO. The actual issue that was originally at stake?the government’s effort to force religious institutions to pay for contraceptives and some abortions?has been mostly lost sight of.

      1. I’m not sure the Democrats win anything by the issue getting buried by the Slutarama. It’s not like everyone is accepting what she was demanding. All that happened is that people who already hate Limbaugh had their hate refreshed.

        1. I think that was the plan Pro. And that shows how desperate the White House must be right now. Confident campaigns don’t waste political capital getting the base riled up.

          1. To be sure, I meant on the issue, not so much on the campaign tactic. However, I think it’s too early to gain much in pushing the Limbaugh hate.

            1. I think it’s too early to gain much in pushing the Limbaugh hate.

              Pushing the Limbaugh hate does nothing except drive Limbaughs ad revenues up.

              1. and increase Dem funding raising success.

                1. It’s a folie a deux.

    2. Disagree. Feminism isn’t particularly popular, even with women, because feminists have a (deserved) reputation for being wackos. They Left does better when they can keep them quiet so everybody forgets they exist.

      1. They Left does better when they can keep them quiet …until they need them for something. Then just go find an activist like Sandra Fluke to go testify before congress, get made fun of by Rush, deflect the original controversy, then discard said feminist activist once they’re done with her.

        Basically Rush played right into their hands. Sometimes I have to wonder if Rush is really a secret liberal planted to say stupid shit to make conservatives look dumb.

        1. find an activist like Sandra Fluke to go testify before congress

          I think this bears repeating: Fluke was not testifying before Congress.

          Rush didn’t play into anyone’s hands. He did what he has done for more than 20 years: ridicule liberals and their antics. This little kerfuffle will have no lasting effect and nothing that Limbaugh said makes conservatives look dumb.

          Those who already buy into the caricature of RL manufactured by his enemies will feel validated and those who worship RL will see it as just the latest attempt to take him down. No game change.

  6. I don’t care if her clit is the size of a summer sausage, your girlfriend is not going to get you pregnant, Sandra Fluke. Leave the birth control issue to those who are actually affected by it.

    1. Do they give gender studies degrees to straight women?

      1. Do they give gender studies degrees to straight women?

        No. And to prove you’re “one of the crew,” you have to go down on the biggest, burliest Women’s Studies professor on campus. If you can deep-throat those meat curtains and still maintain an airway, you’re in.

      2. Do they give gender studies degrees to straight women?

        Only if they are post-op. (he-females who like men are considered straight by feminists, aren’t they?)

    2. She defines herself as a woman, and that’s good enough for me.

    3. Like allegedly nonsexual male priests.

      1. TMI Tony. TMI. Keep your sexual fantasies to yourself.

        1. How old are you?

  7. The sad part is that if Limbaugh had kept his big fat gob shut, none of this would have been inflicted on us.

    1. HAHA! Keep his mouth shut… good one.

    2. I’m really starting to believe that RL is either a long-running performance art piece or Newt Gingrich’s long-lost love child.

  8. It is admittedly not all that much but everything I can perceive about Sandra Fluke tells me that she doesn’t have any particular use for contraception. It shouldn’t matter; just sayin’. Well, actually, if true it does relegate her to the role of pure shit disturber.

    1. Yeah, because nothing says “freedom for women!” like begging others for handouts for birth control.

      1. Nothing says “equality” like “I am too poor and helpless to take care of my most private needs”.

        1. Nothing says “treat me like an equal” like not “taking the punches”.

  9. And-

    Ted Nugent is a worthless scumbag drug war cheerleader; he should take a 00 dose of his own twelve gauge medicine.

    1. Ted at least actually believes what he says and practices it. He has never done drugs. That puts him above the rest of the drug warriors who all smoked pot or worse in college but are perfectly content to throw others in jail for doing the same.

      1. Well, if his intentions are pure…

  10. The generic is not “the same drug”, the active ingredient is the same, but everything else is different. I know some women that have reactions to generics of certain birth control pills, and so have to take the brand name if they want or need that specific formulation.

    Most women take birth control pills not for just the protection against pregnancy, but for many of the other benefits to regulating hormones. Most are prescribed for this very reason, if not then we’d just need one or two. All of the arguments about choice fail on that alone.

    I know if we had a real market based system then we would not even need this discussion, but we don’t. And if we’re going to pay for someone’s pregnancy and birth, then why not pay the far cheaper cost of the pill? in the end it actually saves money for the other people in the insurance pool.

    1. And if we’re going to pay for someone’s pregnancy and birth, then why not pay the far cheaper cost of the pill?

      If you’re going to provide my health insurance, why don’t you just decide what I eat?

      1. Don’t forget forced morning calisthenics!

        Number 4378 you are not touching your toes!

      2. “If you’re going to provide my health insurance, why don’t you just decide what I eat?”

        They will. They have to, otherwise the system collapses under the moral hazard.

      3. If you’re going to provide my health insurance, why don’t you just decide what I eat when I die?

        Light Day! Renew! Renew!

    2. Most women take birth control pills not for just the protection against pregnancy, but for many of the other benefits to regulating hormones.

      Ima gonna need to see some linkage on that assertion. From my very limited experience, while the pill can reduce the severity of a period, it has other side effects that aren’t necessarily welcomed, and wouldn’t be endured unless the pill was a contraceptive.

      1. Heart attacks in otherwise healthy 30 year olds?

        1. Strokes in 14-17 year olds?

      2. Well I will say that my wife, who has had a tubal ligation and therefore doesn’t need any contraceptives, has been using the pill for a couple years now to deal with the severity issues you mention. There are evidently some beneficial medicinal uses of the pill aside from contraception. Not saying that means government should pay for them – particularly not where they’re used just for contraception. Just another data point.

        1. And I don’t think the Catholic Church has any objection to the pills if taken for those purposes.

      3. I believe it’s sometimes prescribed specifically to deal with hormonal acne . .

        1. Does it help with pysco-bitchery?

          1. yes, if the cause is hormonal.

  11. similarly impeccable argument that American soldiers are “hit men” because they are paid to kill people who never harmed them

    Well…

  12. BS degree in Feminist, Gender and Sexuality studies?

    What misogynistic misanthropy is this?

  13. I wholeheartedly support Rush’s right to say ugly sexist things all day long and hope he does it some more.

    The only fucked up thing here is how a vile shock jock happens to be the de facto leader of a major political party.

    1. I guess that is why Rush is the nominee for President. And the Romney campaign never had a chance because Rush hates him.

      Just shut the fuck up Tony. This is stupid hackish shit even by your admittedly low standards.

      1. Yeah even Mitt Romney couldn’t muster a strong criticism of Rush for this incident–out of fear of backlash from Rush’s millions of loyal sheep.

        1. So you think Romney vehemently disagrees with Rush’s assertion and is only pushing out lukewarm criticism b/c of fear of Limbaugh? I think it’s probably the other way around, he agrees with him (probably in politer terms) and only issued the criticism b/c his flunkies told him to. I read the article too, “Blah blah blah, the Republicans all support bombing Iran but are scared of Rush” – but if that’s the truth, that they’re keeping quiet b/c of fear of Rush’s minions, then it implies they aren’t all women hating war against women types, no? You won’t catch me defending the Republicans b/c of any affinity I have for them but I don’t think their silence if b/c they fear Rush, it’s b/c they agree in spirit. And Fluke is annoying and loathsome – if she was on the other side of the aisle, the left would have a super field day with her. At least Prejean , Palin et al are nice to look at.

      2. Just shut the fuck up Tony. This is stupid hackish shit even by your admittedly low standards.

        I’m now convinced it’s not Tony, but the Fat Idiot impersonator.

        1. But don’t all jump at once to defend the Republican party.

          Jesus it’s like you don’t even realize you’re doing it.

    2. Why are you dragging Michael Moore into this?

    3. More idiotic bullshit. Why don’t you show us some evidence of how Rush “leads” the Republican party? BTW, sharing views and policy preferences does not mean he’s in charge or leading they party, or that they do anything because Rush has indicated that’s what he wants them to do.

      1. Name a GOP pol who’s ever stood up to him. I’m sure there’s been one or two. Just name one.

        1. So not speaking negatively about Rush = Rush is the leader of the GOP.

          I reiterate my earlier comment about the state of your cognitive abilities.

          1. Wait, Romney doesn’t speak negatively of me either.

            Am I teh leaderz of the GOP?

            Fuck yeah.

          2. My cognitive abilities notwithstanding, it’s a simple question, and you’ve not been able to answer it.

            1. It’s a stupid question and utterly irrelevant.

        2. Name a single democrate who has ever denounced a single person who still claims that Bush Stole the election in 2000 and often is claimed for 2004 also. It has never happened. BTW if either party started to denounced the fringes of either of their parties there would be no parties , which might not be such a bad idea in itself

          1. It’s hardly settled history that Bush won 2000 fair and square. The supreme court did, in fact, appoint him to the office. And Republicans are STILL engaging in various shenanigans to distort the voting process so it’s hardly a comparable issue.

            1. Barf

            2. Republicans are STILL engaging in various shenanigans to distort the voting process

              Link?

            3. Sorry Tony both the New York Times and CBS got permission to count the votes latter and confirmed that Bush won, they only reported it once on a back page though.

            4. The Supreme Court did not “appoint” anyone. It simply threw out the Democrat’s challenge and let the State of Florida give it’s electoral votes to the winner of the State (which was Bush).

          2. there would be no parties

            There will always be parties.

        3. Name a Democrat pol who’s ever stood up to Ed Schultz. Ergo, Ed Schultz is the leader of the Democratic Party.

    4. As a Howard Stern fan I find him a terrible leader of the liberal party.

      But damn, Stern is funny.

      That is the problem with liberals – they don’t herd well.

      1. That is the problem with liberals – they don’t herd well.

        HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

        1. That is just fucking classic.

      2. I will not feed the troll. I will not feed the troll. I will not feed the troll.

      3. That is the problem with liberals – they don’t

        herd well

        hear well

        listen well

        make any sense.

    5. A few days back, in another thread, you called for hate-crime laws, Tony.

      How, then, can you be so cavalier about what Rush said, without wanting him arrested for it?

      1. A liberal griefer with a double standard? Well I’ll be damned.

        1. I know. What *are* the odds.

  14. I mean, she said that birth control was unaffordable for her. So she presumably, hasn’t actually bought or used it, right? Isn’t that what “unaffordable” means?

    So she is either:

    (a) lying about not being able to afford it,

    (b) not having sex (with men, anyway) and doesn’t apparently need it, or

    (c) having sex with men without birth control, in which case not having it isn’t crimping her style.

    Am I missing something here?

    1. Yes, you obviously are missing something, but that’s just because you’re such a misognynistic, right-wing troglodyte who doesn’t care about anyone else and you’re engaging in a “war” on woman’s health. You selfish bastard.

    2. Am I missing something here?

      No, she is in fact a lying hack.

    3. She was forced to downgrade to a 3G smart phone, you heartless bastard!

    4. Maybe she had uterus issues and needs the pill to control it. I mean, really, it’s none of our business to get into her personal life.

      1. I agree with this. And it’s also not my responsibility to fund her medicinal needs.

      2. When she asks us to pay for it, she is making her personal life our business.

  15. The actual issue that was originally at stake?the government’s effort to force religious institutions to pay for contraceptives and some abortions

    I’m not even buying that much of it.

    Everyday foreseeable operating expenses should not be covered by insurance.

    Do you believe in choice? Decide what you most want to pay for, and budget accordingly.

    1. Brooks, you can’t expect special little snowflakes like Fluke to make decisions and choices. That is just too much for her delicate little head. Everything she could possibly want must be provided.

    2. But, but but…if you refuse to subsidize it, you’re taking away her ‘choice’! WAAHHH!!!!!

    3. How is having basic medical needs subsidized removing anyone’s choice? Isn’t it, in fact, greatly expanding on people’s choices?

      1. Not the choices of the people who are being forced to pay for it. Stupid is too weak of a word for you most days Tony.

        1. What you’re saying is the minuscule increase in freedom of choice of the taxpayer having a few extra cents in his pocket is worth more than the extra choice someone gains from having her basic medical needs covered.

          You don’t care about increasing choices or liberty. You care about protecting wealth. It’s why, unfathomably, you can reconcile using government guns to protect the luxuries of the rich, but not secure the needs of the poor. Your worldview is completely nonsensical, a set of platitudes disguising plutocracy.

          1. Stealing money to give to someone who didn’t earn it is better than letting everyone be responsible for themselves. DERP

            1. So it’s no longer about choice, it’s about how taxation is immoral. Pick your premise, please.

              You know what’s definitely a characteristic of system of thought tailor-made to defend plutocracy? Weasel moves like this.

              1. Wealthy people suck! Throw rocks at them!

              2. I’m a man. Mandating that every insurance company provide coverage for a drug I will never need eliminates my choice to select insurance that meets my needs and implicitly says that someone else’s medical needs are more important than mine. That’s the elimination of choice.

                Government forcing my local grocery store to give me 3 free candy bars every time I come through the line isn’t expanding my choice in confectionery – it’s limiting the choice of the store and every other shopper who patronizes it.

                1. In other words, your question has been answered 50 times. You are being disingenuous.

          2. What you’re saying is the minuscule increase in freedom of choice of the taxpayer having a few extra cents in his pocket is worth more than the extra choice someone gains from having her basic medical needs covered.

            Explain how stealing money from a potential consumer and providing them with a small compensation gives that consumer more choice.

            Oh wait, you can’t, because you’re retarded.

            1. Are we talking about increasing choice (and liberty) or are we talking about how taxation is immoral? They are two separate issues.

              Because it is obviously true that choice can be maximized by redistributing wealth (since above a certain point, a few extra dollars don’t enhance choice that much, while below a certain point a few extra dollars enhances choice greatly). That’s just mathematical obviousness. So do you care about choice or do you care about your stupid taxation=theft hypocrisy?

              1. Sorry, they’re related: Just because you tax the “rich” today doesn’t mean you aren’t taxing me for the services you’re “providing,” usually through either interest or inflation.

                Why do you refuse to accept that taxes are paid by citizens?

                1. Why on earth would I refuse to accept that? All I’m saying is that redistribution can increase choice, and that you can’t really disagree if you’re sane.

                  What libertarianism is about is maximizing choice, even increasingly meaningless and minuscule levels of choice, for those who already have wealth, and, well, fucking everyone else. Just saying you’re for freedom doesn’t cut it when you’re, in fact, for minimal freedom.

                  1. All I’m saying is that redistribution can increase choice, and that you can’t really disagree if you’re sane

                    Smug, elitist, left-wing statist douchebag. That’s what you are Tony, and that statement proves it.

                  2. Why on earth would I refuse to accept that? All I’m saying is that redistribution can increase choice

                    To which I refer you to the previous two arguments made.

                    You can not take money from someone and say they have more choice. For citation, I refer you to every communist government ever.

              2. “a few extra dollars don’t enhance choice that much, while below a certain point a few extra dollars enhances choice greatly). That’s just mathematical obviousness.”

                Glorious. Fill us in on marginal utility. “Our leaders” are all knowing all seeing gods who can define what funds are essential and which are not to every living person.

                1. Any rational human being can figure out what are basic needs for human beings. Nothing wrong with disagreement at the margins, but you sure seem fine with taking my money to pay for your precious property rights so I don’t see where you get off criticizing other efficiencies.

                  1. Who took your money to protect their property?

                  2. Yeah, BASIC needs like birth control. And quadricorns.

                  3. Any rational human being can figure out what are basic needs for human beings.

                    Yet we seem to be arguing about whether contraception is a basic human need.

                  4. I’m not an adherent to the thinking behind progressive taxation and reduced marginal utility. That’s your bands tune.
                    You are well past quibbling over “margins” when implying that birth control is a basic human need.
                    You’re starting off from whole other way of thinking, and it should not surprise you that you catch nothing but hell here. Liberals and Libertarians, and for that matter conservatives, do not agree on what a right is. For you a right is a malleable social construct that arises out law, precedent, and societal agreement. Libertarians believe in inalienable natural rights. These two strains of thought are incompatible. The former type is an infringement on the latter. You want to argue the rest of the alphabet, but don’t agree with libertarians on what letter should come first.

                    1. If libertarians want to believe in magical bullshit, that’s their problem. It does not give them a get-out-of-rational-argument-free card; on the contrary it renders everything they say meaningless.

                      “I have a right to your tax dollars to protect my property, but you, starving person, don’t have a right to my tax money to feed yourself with… because God says so” doesn’t cut it, sorry.

                      “Natural rights,” along with unicorns, exist in the same garden of bullshit in Nowhere, Egypt.

                      Contraception is considered a basic medical need for women in the 21st century (and many decades before). Whether basic medical needs are subsidized is a different matter, but I refer you to the bullshit distinction above.

                    2. Rational response, I can see why you’re so popular. Never the less, I didn’t say “I have a right to your tax dollars to protect my property…” I have a right to my property, and I have a right to protect it. I don’t have a right to reach in to your pocket to fund its protection.

                      A starving person has a right to find a legitimate way to support them self. Kindness and charity are redeeming qualities of human beings. However, to demand that any one reach in to their pockets because you think it’s a good idea does not make you a charitable caring person. If you’re concerned for the starving, feed them. Don’t pontificate to the masses about how feeding them is wonderful, do it.

                      Finally, if women don’t receive tax payer funded contraception what will happen to her?

                    3. I don’t have a right to reach in to your pocket to fund its protection.

                      So you don’t believe in property rights per se, you an anarchist who believes in might makes right.

                      Finally, if women don’t receive tax payer funded contraception what will happen to her?

                      Her likelihood of getting an abortion at some point increases, for one.

                    4. I’m sorry, does that protection paid for by taxes not cover your property as well? It does? Then shut the fuck up.

                    5. I rent. And a safety net would protect you should you fall into dire poverty. Same deal. No difference big enough to make a principle out of.

                    6. You continue to make Bastiat’s point. I’m a strong believer in property rights, and a miniarchist not anarchist.

                      Actually it’s you who believes “might makes right.” As a supporter of majority rule you invite the community to the table to decide rights. You should keep that in mind when your interests are imperiled, since your a gay man you should be uniquely aware of that conundrum.

                      All women are on the verge of becoming impregnated at any moment? They have no choice to abstain or make their partner wear a condom?

                  5. “precious property rights”

                    Ask Godesky to come over and shit on your living-room floor then, Tony.

                    1. Godesky to come over

                      Gambol over. Get it right, already.

          3. What you’re saying is the minuscule increase in freedom of choice of the individual is more than offset by the reduction in freedom of telling other individuals what they have to spend their money on. Put it this way Tony – forcing employers to cover it means they all have to pay for it whether or not their employees want or will even use it. You act like this is giving women the right to vote or freeing slaves. If getting 3k worth of coverage adds so much to some people’s freedom, doesn’t taking that 3k from others reduce it for the people being forced to pay it by at least that much?

      2. Holy fuck, I was making a rediculous joke and here comes Tony to prove my point by saying the same thing for real.

      3. Basic medical needs were provided long ago. Birth control isn’t part of the equation – anyone with half a brain can figure that out.

  16. Thank goodness for Cathy Young, she gives me hope for some vestige of balance and rational in media…

  17. This topic is….boring.

    1. Thread winner!

  18. I can’t decide whether the lead picture that goes with this article is a gas-mask fetish lover’s dream or a sci-fi geek’s.

    1. I’m still waiting for iPod- powering cunnilingus trainer mask–make beautiful music with your tongue!

      1. I’m hearing ‘Ride of the Valkyries’.

  19. Of course, by “greatly expanding people’s choices” you mean, more pocket money for chocotinis at the “free buffet happy hour”; right, Tony.

  20. If Limbaugh had any spark of libertarian thinking, he would have called her a “moocher” and the left probably would have been too scared to say boo. Or if they had got all in a twist, the debate would have been one we all welcomed.

    1. Limbaugh I think would have done something like that 20 years ago. He would have had a bake sale where his listeners provided and bought cakes and pies to raise money for poor Sandra’s birth control.

      Maybe it was the drug addiction or the years of having such a big pay check. But he has lost his fast ball.

      1. pies???
        dare I say it???
        No, as this whole (and don’t take the hole out of whole and call me misgynogistic) discussion is about using women and naughty words together.

  21. So, is it always and necessarily ‘misogyny ‘ when someone makes stupid comments about a political or social figure? If so, why isn’t a similar comment about men {at least by women} ‘misandry’?

    Labels are cognitive shortcuts, and they tend to cut out the thinking.

    It’s as if a negative and/or stupid comment *necessarily* and ineluctably applies to a whole group.

    This is why we don’t have anything like a fair and open discussion of Israel/Palestine, or frankly Jewish economic and media power, for example {the fact 7 of 12 Fed bank presidents are Jewish seems statistically fascinating, but because we set differing thresholds, based on group, which itself seems per se racist, we are absolutely precluded from inquiring into the how/why of 2.5% of the population being so staggeringly over-represented at the Fed and economic roles in the administration.}

  22. Maybe I’m wrong – is calling a woman a slut not just stupid but sexist whereas calling a man a name has nothing to do with men qua group?

    I guess I don’t get it.

    to me, a stupid/ignorant comment can be such without necessarily making wider assertions about intrinsic, negative qualities of groups of people.

    As to sexism – how many times does one read in the paper about some death toll on *civilians* where some variant of ‘including women and children’ is used – tacitly asserting it’s not as woeful when some guy going to work is blown up by some government or terror group.

    Isn’t that ‘misandry’?

    Is it not just because the label of ‘misandry’ doesn’t really exist in public discourse, ergo the idea doesn’t exist?

    If people are so stupid and thoughtless, then… why listen to anything they say at all?

    1. Maybe I’m wrong – is calling a woman a slut not just stupid but sexist whereas calling a man a name has nothing to do with men qua group?

      Calling a woman a slut can be a fact. It can also be a fact for a man. There’s nothing sexist or stupid about calling a person a slut, unless they aren’t a slut.

    2. They keep talking about this as if “slut” were a bad thing….

    3. According to my daughter, who is majoring in Gender Studies, all men are misogynists from birth. So what exactly is Rush guilty of?

      1. According to my daughter, who is majoring in Gender Studies

        You sir, have failed as a parent.

        1. Perhaps I’ve failed, but then again, I’m not paying her tuition – my ex is. So I count it a win.

          1. Your child is having her head filled with misandrist nonsense, and you’re being cavalier about it?

            1. I learned to distance yourself from my offspring when their upbringing and education was placed in the hands of my ex. And at 19, she’s hardly a child. She bears responsibility for herself now.

              1. Still, dude… shit, my kid’s 22, and if he says stupid shit, I still correct him. Yeah, it’s up to him to take the advice, but sometimes he learns a lesson.

      2. Being male?

      3. majoring in Gender Studies

        I hope you’re not paying for that.

        1. Paying double. Once for the tuition and then afterwards when she can’t find a job to support herself.

    4. If people are so stupid and thoughtless, then… why listen to anything they say at all?

      That’s not a bad idea…

  23. At some point the cognitive dissonance will force Tony to commit suicide. The world will rejoice.

    1. One thing a person with only a single thought floating around his head can’t be accused of is cognitive dissonance.

  24. But now, we’re all discussing Limbaugh’s sexist slurs and squabbling over who’s got worse misogynists, the right or the left.

    No. “We” are not. You are having this discussion. Sane people don’t give a shit. Move on please to something newsworthy o’ great and kind media outlets.

  25. Why can’t libertarianism get anywhere? Geeze. Perhaps the level of discourse is too high.

    1. What are you going to do, run home to your momma and take all your strawmen with you?

      1. Thank god libertarians are all perpetual 8th graders so they won’t ever be able to figure out how to gain control of the levers of power?

        1. Oh yeah, because all those brilliant minds from our best universities are running things so well now, right?

          1. Some better than others… are you suggesting we give middle schoolers a chance?

            1. A lot of stank behind that pendulem.

            2. Most worse than the rest. The only reason you don’t believe the same is becasue you are in thrall to statism and all the power and trappings it entails.

              And yes, Tony, maybe we should give middle-schoolers a chance. At a minimum they wouldn’t get anything meaningful done except to mandate ice cream with their lunch everyday, and that would be a good start. Fucking jackass.

              1. At a minimum they wouldn’t get anything meaningful done

                Which would differ from current reality how?

                You guys should be pleased as punch with teabagger control of congress. Nothing is getting done. As apparently the status quo is the freest obtainable world, and more freedom can’t possibly entail the proper functioning of government and the passage of legislation.

                But complaining about guvmint is the raison d’etre of libertarians–and many a front porch dwelling old man, so I get it.

                1. Teabagger control of Congress? How is that mathematically possible? Nice strawman, though.

                  1. Good catch, Y.

                    The more the Teams “work together”, the worse things get. Marginally not as worse, perhaps, if one Team has complete control, like Team Blue briefly had, but still…

        2. Think about the phrase “to gain control of the levers of power”, Tony.

          Yes, to one such as yourself, that is a “good” thing, but only if it’s your political party with control of said levers.

          Rational people, however, are at least skeptical of such power, if not distrustful.

          1. Rational people understand that humans will always attempt to have power over other humans, and that the only known way to deal with this situation is to implement a system of strong checks and balances. That includes checking and balancing private power with public power.

            Libertarians seem to think that power itself can be wished away.

            1. Power corrupts, Tony. Look at the people in government, and tell us such is not the case.

              1. Okay. See one post above.

                1. I did, and I concur with that post.

            2. Libertarians seem to think that power itself can be wished away

              You really learn more about the topics you wish to wax eloquent about if you wish to be taken seriously.

            3. Except government,that is “public power” has a monopoly on the use of physical force, i.e. guns. That is why rational people treat it more skeptically.

  26. Good article Ms. Young.

  27. “The more visible ones, such as the chronically sexist Bill Maher of HBO’s Real Time and Hillary-hating MSNBC host Chris Matthews, have been harshly criticized by many fellow liberals.”

    Funny, I haven’t noticed that.

    1. They did it quietly. In fact, I’m not sure they ever said anything out loud. But I’m quite sure at least one liberal thought to himself, breifly, maybe they shouldn’t have said that.

  28. Jude Law shouldn’t be allowed to dress himself:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvs…..ilson.html

    1. I’m so good-looking that I amuse myself by trying to dress so goofily that I can’t get laid. Still haven’t been able to do it.

  29. ‘Take the firestorm over Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke’s congressional testimony about health insurance coverage for contraception’

    Please stop repeating this media distortion. She was not nor has she ever testified before congress. It was a staged speech designed to look like it was before congress.

    1. She spoke at a meeting of the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee, which, last I checked, was a subset of Congress. So ok, she did not testify before Congress as a whole, but then again, I don’t think anyone ever does. Testimony typically is before some committee or other, which then prepares a report and submits it for the rest of Congress to ignore and vote on the legislation anyway without reading any of it.

      1. House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee

        As that particular conglomeration of parasites cannot vote out a bill, I posit that it is not really a “Congressional” committee, and more of a “party” committee.

        1. Furthermore, it was an “unofficial” meeting. The whole thing was a stunt perpetrated because the Republicans wouldn’t let the Democrats use Fluke to turn Issa’s actual congressional hearings into a circus.

  30. They keep forgetting that the left still calls anybody from the TEA party a tea bagger which is a vile sex act and in my opinion far worse then being called a slut. Anderson Copper a so called journalist was one of the worst offenders of this and he never appologized, he did say he would quit using the term even though he said it still makes him laugh.

    1. And Chris Rock says nigger repeatedly… but none of these people gives marching orders to a major political party.

      1. Chris Rock is a stupid fuck for using that word.

        1. Fuck you, cracker spawn of Satan.

  31. I still don’t understand where all of the outrage is coming from. Rush called someone a “slut”…I mean, so what? Whose outrage is it to have?

  32. She has an undergraduate degree in Feminist, Gender and Sexuality studies

    That’s a real degree? Good. Fucking. God.

  33. THERE WAS NO CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY! For ***** sake do the bare minimum of research before you write a story.

    1. So you’re saying that the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee is not part of Congress?

      1. I would say its probably no more an official Congressional committee than the Congressional Black Caucus is.

        Every time a few Congressfolk get together to stroke each other, its not necessarily a Congressional committee meeting.

      2. No, it’s not. It’s a group of Democrap congresscritters, but it’s not a legislative body. They don’t/ can’t pass legislation out of that particular committee.

        In fact since the only people in the room during her “testimony” were liberal dems, what you were actually seeing was just a big echo chamber where they could pat themselves on the back for being so progressive and ahead of the curve compared with those knuckle dragging Bible clinging Repubicunts.

        The fact that Rush played right into their trap was just a bonus for them.

    2. Do a little Googling to find her statement, and you’ll find the very first sentence was this:

      “Leader Pelosi, Members of Congress, good morning, and thank you for calling this hearing on women’s health and allowing me to testify on behalf of the women who will benefit from the Affordable Care Act contraceptive coverage regulation.”

      1. That was staged bullshit, and you fell for it.

        That was nothing more than a press conference that the media was complicit in staging to look like it took place during a hearing.

        How she started her statement doesn’t prove anything except that they were all conciously trying to portray it as congressional testimony under oath. It wasn’t.

      2. That’s “testify” in the Al Sharpton sense, not “testify” in the Joseph McCarthy sense.

    3. I also love how you lament the debate over who said what and who’s the worst pig. Then you proceed to engage in that very argument.

      I’d find a new line of work if I were you. You have the writing skills and insight of a third grader.

  34. Rush, next time use the term, ‘strumpet’, and don’t misrepresent the profession. Of course you’ll need to explain it to those in Loma Linda.

    1. His name was Robert Paulsen…

    2. it’s Rio Linda

  35. I understand you have taken exception to my calling you whores. I’m sorry. I apologize. I ask you to note that I did not call you callous-ass strumpets, fornicatresses, or low-born gutter sluts. But I did say “whores.” No escaping that. And for that slip of the tongue, I apologize.

  36. “The problem here is you believing stupid shit.”

    Like egalatarianism?

    1. Okay… egalItarainism. Rare misspelling on my part.

      The point, however, stands.

    2. Now accusing me of believing in communism or total egalitarianism IS a strawman.

      I believe in, as a good first step, the “egalitarianism” of the 1990s. The horror, I know.

      1. So, you’d roll back spending to say 1997 levels? Count me in!

        1. You accuse us of shit, Tony, so we do you one better by exposing your belief system.

          I think I touched a nerve with the “egalitarianism” thing, because you got rather upset over it.

  37. Allow me to challenge some of the basic premises of slutgate.

    A perjorative is only a perjorative if the person on the receiving end perceives it as such. Think about the fact that blacks can call each other nigger without causing offense, but a white cannot do the same.

    Now consider that Fluke is a full-on sexuality liberated female who is deeply involved in promoting non-traditional attitudes toward sexuality and was willing to be an actress in Pelosi’s stage show before a national audience in which Fluke suggested to the world that she is promiscuous. Is it likely that Fluke is offended by being called a slut? In my experience in this age when casual sex is accepted and is even a source of pride for many, “slut” is not an insult to people like Fluke.

    1. How’s the view from circa 1950?

      1. I have no idea. The 50s were well before my time.

        1. That’s Tony-code for calling you a racist, blinded. He does this shit a lot.

          1. Where can I send for the decoder ring?

            1. There isn’t one, but it’s pretty easy:

              Whenever Tony posts something, it’s bullshit.

  38. There is nothing misogynistic or sexist about Limbaugh’s remarks. Why would you think so unless you held a different standard of sexuality for men and women?

  39. One look at her was all the birth control I needed.

  40. Limbaugh didn’t make a mistake by “taking the bait” with regard to Fluke. Fluke provided material for his show. Any advertisers he lost have been or will be easily replaced. RL has already made his fortune and any financial damage he may have suffered won’t impact his lifestyle at all. Limbaugh and his show have gotten a ton of publicity from all the phony outrage about his remarks. RL has built his career largely on poking fun at liberals and their sensibilities. Slutgate is just more of the same.

  41. RL hasn’t hurt the RP. His attention to Fluke has focused attention on the issue of government insurance mandates, esp. as regards religious institutions. Obamcare is already unpopular. Slutgate has heightened awareness of some of the basic issues of liberty surrounding Obamacare and has also highlighted the profound double-standard present in most of the media.

  42. Since when did Hit & Run become a haven for Rush Fanboys?

    1. Since when is crying Bullshit! in the presence of the willing acceptance of bogus narratives surrounding a staged partisan dog-and-pony show an indication of being a Fanboy of anybody?

      1. Nothing gets people at H&R riled up so much as someone daring to criticize the Republican party or one of its propagandists.

        1. Yes, that’s right Tony, becasue no one at H&R ever criticizes the Republican Party. Pathetic douche.

          1. You’re FIFY aren’t you?

            1. I am Fixed It For You? You know, you never make any sense to begin with but this takes the cake.

              1. Sorry, you’re not FIFY, unless his cognitive issues extend to talking to himself. But making the, yes, strawman argument that I somehow claimed that no one ever criticizes Republicans is a very FIFY thing to say.

                Occasionally someone does, then all the cabin dwelling freepers jump on that person.

                1. Go fuck yourself, Tony. I’ve never said as such.

                  Now, feel free to use one of your bag-of-tricks standard responses, like looking down your nose at me for not going to college, or just call me a racist without proof of harboring such beliefs.

                  You know, the kind of shit you liberals use to derail the topic at hand.

                  Oh, and a reminder: I can’t speak for anyone else here, but I was proudly kicked off FreeRepublic, which was a mistake to join in the first place. I’ve learned a lot in the three years since THAT shit happened… but, conversely, I know I don’t need to join DU just to get kicked off for disagreeing there, either.

                  1. I wouldn’t put up with being smeared like that, FIFY. Glad to see you don’t, either.

  43. The remarks of Bill Maher and Limbaugh are not equally offensive. By calling Fluke a slut, RL was using a term which was descriptive. Maher, on-the-other-hand, by calling Palin a dumb twat and a dumb cunt used terms which are simply insulting and considered much more offensive by most people than the word “slut”.

  44. A pox on both houses ….. even though one of them (notably George Stephanopoulos) insisted on making contraception an issue during the GOP debate, in the time of 9% unemployment rate.

    Then one of them advocated government policy based on shaky math and anecdotal evidence, with her allies resorting to name calling themselves and decrying the bogus “war on woman”.

    Pox on both houses, sure. But the pox is bigger on one of the houses. It’s a given that both the left and the right makes offensive jokes and slurs. But who does it more, and given a pass by the media when they do? Who is more able to control the narrative of what’s “racist” or “uncivil” to serve their own end?

    Limbaugh was ultimately advancing the argument made by this publication. But his mistake in style is being used by the author to illustrate how “both sides are to blame”. Come on.

    1. Well, both sides ARE to blame… for a lot more than just name-calling.

  45. United States Virgin Islands Republican caucuses, 2012
    Candidate Votes Percentage Unbound Delegates Delegates
    Ron Paul 112[3] 29.2% 1 1
    Mitt Romney 101 26.3% 6 7
    Rick Santorum 23 6.0% 0 0
    Newt Gingrich 18 4.7% 0 0
    Uncommitted 130 33.9% 2 1
    Unprojected delegates:[4] 0 0
    Total: 384 100% 9 9

  46. We’re still talking about this? Even pro-Obama ass-kiss Bill Maher is telling Liberals to get over it!

  47. Both “sides” celebrated following this scripted event.

  48. You’re argument is invalid. Nugent is in fact an esteemed scholar of gender relation and reproductive studies. Refer to his works such as “Wango Tango” and “Cat Scratch Fever” for valuable insights into these subjects.

  49. You know, if you can’t afford contraceptives, and can’t keep your legs closed, you can get some super glue for under a buck at your local gas station…

    Just sayin’

  50. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that a female libertarian wrote the most insightful article I’ve read about this whole thing. Like libertarian men, Ms. Young gets why Ms. Fluke has it wrong. Unlike libertarian men, she also understands that, while anyone is free to call a woman a slut, said woman and other women are also free to regard the “slut-shamers”/misogynists as pigs and encourage others to do the same AND (here’s the nuance) that doing so is reasonable.

    Do any libertarian men have daughters? If so, would you really cheer when (and I mean “when”, not “if”) some punk calls your daughter a slut? Would you really tell your daughter shove aspirin in her vagina or staple it shut? If you wouldn’t say those things, why would you say that to someone else’s daughter? Sure, you’re free to be a jackass, but don’t be surprised when you stop getting laid without paying directly for it.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.