All I can say about this is…
[WARNING: profane tweet after the jump]
…this:
That Georgetown “slut” is somebody’s daughter, @RushLimbaugh, you misogynistic piece of shit.
— Brendan Loy (@brendanloy) March 1, 2012
Okay, and also this:
As father of 3 girls who I hope will grow to be virtuous, responsible & able to speak up without being called sluts, I say fuck you, @RushLimbaugh
— Brendan Loy (@brendanloy) March 1, 2012
All right, and maybe also this: Has the GOP, or the far-right branch thereof, lost its collective fucking mind?! I’m a social liberal with a lot more respect for social conservative positions than most fellow libs I know (witness my sometime admiration of Rick Santorum), but this stuff is beyond-the-pale unbelievable!
Shame on Rush Limbaugh, and shame on anyone who thinks for a single fucking moment that this sort of vituperative attack — directed at a private citizen who merely dared to voice an opinion about a policy issue — is remotely acceptable. (And I know from Twitter that there are plenty of such people out there. Like this idiot. And this one. And this one.)
I rarely bother to get worked up about the crazy stuff Limbaugh says. But for this, that son of a bitch should be hounded off the air if he doesn’t apologize.
[/angry dad mode]
Said private citizen should be able to sue Limbaugh for defamation, eh? I mean, it should be pretty easy to prove that she’s not actually a prostitute.
Vituperative, learned a new word today, thanks Angry Dad 🙂
Also I agree, although I think Limbaugh has a long history of things he’s said that should have gotten him hounded off the air.
While I agree with Becky that it would be appointment viewing to see Limbaugh homina-homina-homina his way through his defense, you’d have a hell of a time proving malice. I’m sure the “he’s just an entertainer” line would get a good workout, too.
See, and this is why we’ll never have a respectful discussion about birth control, fatherhood, motherhood, and personal responsibility in this country–because someone’s always going to get ad hominem.
Why should Rush Limbaugh be “hounded off the air” if he doesn’t apologize? Because he said a word about someone you don’t like? For this he should have the power of the state (i.e., the judicial system) turned on him? See Brandon, in that case he’s already won. Why? Because you’ll make him a martyr and believe me when I say he’s only said what many, many people (and not just on the far right) think about women who believe access to birth control is a “human right.”
I’d _much_ rather this young lady challenge him to a meeting at a neutral site, then ask him to call her that to her face. Then, if he persists, ask him to define in simple, easy to understand and possibly numerical terms at what point a woman becomes a “slut.” Does becoming pregnant out of wedlock make a woman a slut? Can men be “sluts”? If so, does that make Newt Gingrich a slut? Maybe ask Rush if he suddenly now thinks Sarah Palin’s sex life is open to discussion (something he has said is not, btw)? You know, since apparently being a woman and speaking publicly is the same as opening the door to everyone’s comments on private matter? How about Bristol–is she a slut? I think this would go a lot further to ending Rush’s career than screaming “misogynist.” To his listeners, that just makes you sound like a “dirty liberal.”
But any which way it goes, “hounding him off the air” is both unimaginative and, quite frankly, an example of wanting to quell Rush free speech rights because he said something you (and I) vehemently dislike. I’m a HUGE fan of letting dumbasses keep talking…it makes them easier to identify.
On the flip side, I’d like to know when it became my responsibility to pay for another adult’s birth control? As either an insurance copayer or a taxpayer? Because I’ve been married 12 years and somehow my wife and I have managed to not make a baby without anyone else financing our health care. Oh, and are insurance companies now going to be responsible for paying for condoms? I mean, if a man can get those claimed it would make sense to buy them in gross lots (they keep for a long time, after all) and then have the insurance company foot the bill. After all, it’s birth control, isn’t it? Oh, wait, that’s right–we can’t run around and scream “women are oppressed!” in that case, can we? Not that I think this is an election year minefield that the Republicans are busy dancing a polka in or anything…
I never said Limbaugh should be hounded off the air by the government. I would be 100% opposed to that, and would march through Skokie, Illinois if necessary to prevent such a thing.
He should be hounded off the air by moral pressure and market forces, not state power.
he’s only said what many, many people (and not just on the far right) think about women who believe access to birth control is a “human right.”
If many, many people on the right, including the “moderate” right, believe that women — note, just WOMEN, not men — who believe access to birth control is a “human right” are “sluts,” then the conservative movement in this country is a lot sicker than I imagined. Mind you, I do not necessarily agree with the position that access to birth control is a “human right,” but to think that any woman who believes that is therefore a “slut” is illogical, indefensible, and deeply sexist. (Yes, sexist. You know I don’t support throwing around labels like “racist” and “sexist” over mere disagreements, and have repeatedly called out folks on the Left for doing that. But in this case, the shoe fits for those who hold such a repugnant and ridiculous view, applied only to women.)
If Ed Schultz (I know, who’s that) wasn’t hounded off the air, I wouldn’t hold my breath on Limbaugh. That said, Schultz at least had the decency to apologize…
@James, I think we need to look at what’s actually being proposed. The Right wants to put birth control in a special class of medications that insurers don’t have to cover. That’s entirely different from saying that insurers must cover it (ala Obama). I’m not sure either side is right on this argument, but I know that I absolutely *hate* the concept of putting birth control or any gynecological procedure, abortion included, in its own category so that insurers don’t have to cover it.
Georgetown slut, is it. I call that bold talk for a fat-assed junkie. ;}
@Becky – But what Obama and those who agree with him want to do IS put Birth Control in a special category. A non-medically necessary (in most cases at least) medication that is none-the less mandatory for insurers to cover.
@Brendan–you’ve been watching the GOP primaries, so I don’t think I need to address the relative health of the conservative movement.
@Becky–Actually the Republicans are simply arguing that employers / insurers should not be forced to cover birth control as per the health care act. I would submit I agree with that stance as it’s not a life saving medication / untreatable illness. That’s where the personal responsibility comes in–if you can’t even afford birth control, you may want to rethink the horizontal monkey dance. I have not heard any (reasonable) Republican (as opposed to Far Right Whackjobs) state that OB/GYN procedures should be “special.”
I have to respectfully disagree that abortion is just an OB/GYN procedure carte blanche. Unfortunately, as soon as you say “abortion” the convo’s pretty much over.
@James, the Blunt Amendment that was voted down yesterday would have established birth control in its own category. And honestly, I think that in order to have an adult conversation about obstetrical health, abortion *has* to be on the table because there are quite legitimate instances where abortions are medically indicated and IMO, those instances should always be covered by insurance if said insurance offers an obstetrical benefit. Now, abortion as birth control is another matter entirely. I’m no unrestrained pro-choice advocate nor am I an absolute pro-lifer on abortion. The murky middle grounds are what interest me in terms of developing a rational policy, which will never actually happen. However, your implication that poor people shouldn’t have sex is laughable at best and cruel at worst and certainly nothing that a reasonable policy can be based on. Even if abstinence was in people’s best interest, I would wager that the vast majority of people wouldn’t choose it. At a certain point, I find the argument that birth control is too expensive kind of hilarious from a policy perspective. An unwanted child who grows up on medicaid and food stamps going to the poorest schools promises to be far more expensive than a pack of birth control pills. And frankly, the GOP argument that the government shouldn’t be in the business of regulating health care is entirely frustrating. We all knew that health care reform was coming. Why the GOP didn’t take on the issue when Bush was president is a great mystery to me. What’s the alternative proposal? Let insurers cover whatever they feel like? Kick people with pre-existing conditions off health care plans every time they lose a job? Maintain the status quo–a bewildering mashup of state and federal regulations that make it impossible to determine the price of most procedures prior to having them? The GOP’s counteroffer to Obamacare is nonsense.
@David, birth control is preventative care. Insurance covers a lot of preventative care, from vaccines to mammograms. And as a fertile girl who would be Michelle Duggar in the absence of birth control, I gotta say that the ability to prevent pregnancy is intimately tied to the health and well-being of women (and their partners and children). At its core, pregnancy is a huge event for a woman’s body and birth is costly and traumatic. I don’t think you would question the medical necessity of preventing birth if you thought of it as preventing a 2-3 day hospital stay and in 1 out of 5 instances, a major abdominal surgery. If you remove yourself from the babies part of the equation (and who wants to do that because babies are awesome) and focus on the woman’s health part of it, the medically necessary bit becomes more clear.
I find the argument that birth control is too expensive kind of hilarious from a policy perspective.
I find the idea that we need to force insurance companies or employers to pay for birth control kind of hilarious from a policy perspective.
The proponents of this policy like to assert that 95% of women today use birth control at some point. That sounds like the very definition of a non-problem.
At a time when condoms are given away free at schools and public clinics are we seriously supposed to believe that there are people today who seek to use contraception but can’t?
If there is an actual need to have insurance companies pay for contraception, one or more companies will provide such a service, advertise the fact, and reap the profits as women flock to that company in droves.
@Becky
No matter how hard feminists try, they are never going to convince the American public that pregnacy is some type of disease. At it’s most basic level, the only purpose of human life is to reproduce.
Watched some repeats of Bill Maher on HBO last night and it dawned on me how selective and tedious the outrage is over Limbaugh. What is the principled difference between the two? Is Limbaugh any less of an entertainer than Maher? Is Maher a “comedian” who is just saying what he thinks is “funny” while Limbaugh is … not? Does Limbaugh need to do a couple of craptastic stand up shows and star in the sequel to Cannibal Women in the Avocado Jungle of Death before he can pass off hateful, douchey comments as just jokes? Does Limbaugh’s vast audience as compared to Maher’s make any difference — do you have to stop being a prick once your following reaches critical mass? Are you allowed to be a misogynistic piece of shit on HBO, but not talk radio? Or is repeatedly calling Palin a cunt and any number of other things so far beyond anything Limbaugh has ever said about anyone somehow acceptable because Palin is/was a public figure, while Fluke is a “private citizen who merely dared to voice an opinion about a policy issue” so making fun of her is beyond the pale? If so, then how do you explain all the awful things Maher, et al. said about Joe the Plumber? Wasn’t he just a private citizen who dared to ask a question of a presidential candidate who came parading through his neighborhood? Joe the Plumber didn’t insert himself into the public arena because he merely asked a question about taxes, but he was certainly treated that way by the Left, and now here we have a law student who voluntarily testifies before Congress on a culture war issue and she’s somehow out of bounds because she’s a “private citizen?” Sorry, no sale. Fluke isn’t immune to ridicule because she’s a “private citizen,” not anymore. You want to testify before Congress and stand up for all the women out there who need public assistance for your birth control? Fine, that is your right, but don’t think you’re going to be afforded some special status that puts you beyond the reach of jokes, even tasteless, unfunny jokes (and don’t even try to say that Limbaugh wasn’t joking, he actually thinks she’s a slut, etc. because the exact same thing is true of Maher’s shtick).
@Becky – Vaccines and mammograms prevent diseases, pregnancy is not a disease. Its also entirely avoidable unlike the aforementioned diseases. And NO I’m not saying women just shouldn’t have sex, so please don’t try and use that line against me.
Sex is (in all acceptable cases at least) a voluntary action. I believe adult men and women should have the freedom to choose to have or not have sex. I further believe that if they choose to do so they should be able to use birth control. No problem there. BUT, why should anyone be forced to pay for THEIR birth control? It is a voluntary choice on the woman’s part (except of course for rape, rape is horrific) and the man’s part. Yes it may be biologically unfair that guys get away pretty much scott free while the girls are the ones who carry the child to term. I in no way want to be seen as denying that pregnancy is far from easy. It’s not. I get that. But back to the point at hand, sex is a choice. Many women choose to reduce the chance of pregnancy by taking birth control, and again I’m fine with that, but they could also choose not to have sex, or choose to wait until they are not ovulating or whatever. Its a voluntary decision on their part and as such they can voluntarily choose to take birth control, but it is not a health condition that others should have to cover for them, anymore than others should have to pay for my gym membership if I decide I want to eat lots of donuts and need to exercise to lose weight because of it. Do I have the right to eat donuts? Absolutely! Do women have the right to have sex? Absolutely! In neither case though should someone else be FORCED to pay for the mitigating factors for the voluntary decisions. Especially when paying for those mitigations is in stark violation of their religious beliefs.
Now if an insurance provider decides, “You know what, paying for birth control is a whole lot cheaper than paying for pregnancy” so they provide birth control, thats great. I don’t think they should be prohibited from doing it. But they should NOT be forced to do it.
I do think there is a valid grey area when it comes to women who are prescribed BC of one form or another for non-BC reasons. At that point it becomes not a voluntary choice but a medical need. Thats worth discussing and I can see compromise being made in that area.
@Joe Mama – First, I think Bill Maher is an ass.
Second, whether or not he is an ass has nothing to do with Rush Limbaugh. Either you think that what Rush did is defensible and valid, or you think its not. I think its not, its horrible (and so is Rush for many many such incidents over the years). Not only is what he said horribly cruel, its not even accurate! He’s basing his criticism of this woman, harsh, invective filled, hateful attacks on her, on lies! And either he’s too big an idiot to have done even a surface investigation of the matter or he knowingly didn’t care and just decided to say horrible things because he can. Does he have the legal right? Sure. Is he morally in the wrong? Absolutely! It has nothing whatsoever to do with Bill Maher except in two cases.
1) Bill Maher himself attacking Limbaugh while engaging in the same behavior
2) People defending Bill Maher for equivalent behavior and then attacking Limbaugh without at least admitting they are wrong about Maher.
Attempting to defend Limbaugh or side track the issue by pointing out a failure of someone else is wrong and so damn typical of the conservative right. Come on, you are better than that man! Either you think what Rush did is acceptable or you don’t. If you also think what Maher does is wrong, fine, but don’t try to defend or deflect from Limbaughs clearly inappropriate action.
Bill Maher may be an ass and a hypocrite, but that doesn’t change that Limbaugh is an ass.
Also, surely you can recognize the irony of Pro-Choicers demanding the Church and the Gov’t stay out of their sex lives and then demanding the Gov’t force the Church to pay for their birth control right?
Why should I only think about whether what Rush said was defensible* or not? Why shouldn’t I think past that obvious question and wonder why those who are outraged at Limbaugh are strangely silent about even more outrageous entertainers on the Left like Maher? I’m glad you think that Maher is an ass, but I seem to have missed all the criticism of him before Limbaugh’s stupid comments, which is my whole point. I’m not arguing that Maher is a hypocrite, I’m saying so many of those angry at Limbaugh are.
And surely you can recognize the irony of supporters of a gov’t mandate for contraception coverage being upset that a women’s personal sexual choices are a matter for public debate, right?
* My only defense of Limbaugh, such as it is, is that Fluke is not beyond ridicule.
Also, surely you can recognize the irony of Pro-Choicers demanding the Church and the Gov’t stay out of their sex lives and then demanding the Gov’t force the Church to pay for their birth control right?
Yes, I do. I re-read this and realize it was not an attack on me, so feel free to ignore my rejoinder above.
So Limbaugh had the decent to apologize. Good for him. He’s a better
man than Bill Maher.
I don’t know how to do the neato hyperlinks, so Becky I’m just going to put your comments in quotes.
“@James, the Blunt Amendment that was voted down yesterday would have established birth control in its own category.”
Yes, but only for purposes of allowing employers to not provide coverage that is contrary to an employer (read, the Catholic Church’s) teachings.
“And honestly, I think that in order to have an adult conversation about obstetrical health, abortion *has* to be on the table because there are quite legitimate instances where abortions are medically indicated and IMO, those instances should always be covered by insurance if said insurance offers an obstetrical benefit”.
So employers who believe life begins at conception should have no option other than to A. not have OB/GYN coverage or B. cover something they find abhorrent and utterly repugnant? Mmm, okay, I think that you’ll end up with many more dead women due to the missed cervical and breast cancer than the abortions which have to be performed to preserve the physical / mental health of the mother but if that’s the trench you want to fight to the death for more power to you–I’m just not seeing the logic. If I, as an employer, am giving you medical insurance as a benefit (meaning I’m paying for it as well as you), I should be able to set whatever limits on it I want. Don’t like it, don’t work for me.
“Now, abortion as birth control is another matter entirely. I’m no unrestrained pro-choice advocate nor am I an absolute pro-lifer on abortion. The murky middle grounds are what interest me in terms of developing a rational policy, which will never actually happen.”
So your problem isn’t that the Catholic Church and other religious entities are drawing a line, you just think that you (or alternatively some government bureaucrat) should get to say where that line is? We all know where babies come from, no? So are we now arguing that I, as an employer, now have to cover my employees choices due to willful actions? So where does this end? Do I now, as an employer, have to cover addiction recovery? Mental health? Do I _have to_ provide coverage for children? Oh, and at what point did I, as an employer, lose my right to what I purchase with my property?
“However, your implication that poor people shouldn’t have sex is laughable at best and cruel at worst and certainly nothing that a reasonable policy can be based on. Even if abstinence was in people’s best interest, I would wager that the vast majority of people wouldn’t choose it.”
Ahhh, and here we have the standard appeal to emotion because the underpinnings of logic aren’t there as well as the tyranny of low expectations. Appeal to emotion = you use words like cruel (heaven forbid I be considered _that_) and laughable (to try and shame me into thinking that I posit the absurd) that I think people can actually demonstrate responsibility regardless of their economic station. Apparently you think “poor people” are wild rutting animals that cannot help themselves from having sex in their poor, destitute existence. I’m sorry, I subscribe to a different theory–that mankind is a higher animal than the the common beast and that, yes, people really can keep from using their naughty bits. Unfortunately folks like you apparently tell them this is somehow “cruel” and they should vote for a party and/or people which doesn’t tell them that with freedom comes responsibility because, hey, as long as the “vast majority” decides to act illogically those responsible schmucks can be forced to pay the bill. Either we live in a free country where people are responsible for their own actions or we live in one where any faction, provided it reaches 51%, can force the other 49% to give up their property because it’s too hard to actually use their brain rather than their nether regions. I happen to think Mr. Madison’s brain child says the former, but its becoming more and more apparent that a lot of people don’t actually read that parchment–they just whine about how hard those of us do make their lives.
“At a certain point, I find the argument that birth control is too expensive kind of hilarious from a policy perspective.”
Mmm, no, your fellow travelers are arguing it’s “too expensive.” My side’s arguing that some people, both male and female, need to reorder their priorities.
“An unwanted child who grows up on medicaid and food stamps going to the poorest schools promises to be far more expensive than a pack of birth control pills.”
Hmm, wait, I think I see a strawman…I do, I do! Again–if this was a simple dollars and cents argument people would state the government should offer free tubal ligation and vasectomies while drastically cutting the welfare rates…and the problems would take care of itself. (After all, it’s not like those poor people are going to stop screwing like rabbits in your worldview.) No, this is, and always has been, an argument that the decree employers must provide insurance that covers birth control is wrong due to the 1st Amendment and arguably the 5th Amendment (as you’re now taking employers’ funds and making them cover birth control). You want to run around like an overwrought schoolgirl and claim that the GOP wants to take B/C away which is stupid because pills are cheaper than children, have at it–but that’s _not_ the argument being posited, that’s just what the President and his water carriers keep _saying_ is being said.
“And frankly, the GOP argument that the government shouldn’t be in the business of regulating health care is entirely frustrating.”
My God, the strawmen are multiplying! It’s like someone took their birth control away and they’re below the poverty line! Quick boy, fetch my flamethrower! I’m going to be a cruel, heartless Republican and BUUUUURRRRRNNNN THEEEMMMM!
I have yet to hear a serious Republican candidate or office holder other than Ron Paul (who basically wants to pay the Russians $5 billion to nuke the District of Columbia because he figures the sales of ionized Potomac swamp sand + all those salaries we’re no longer paying = balanced budget) talk about cutting the FDA, Health and Human Services, or eliminating Medicaid completely. Ergo, when you say “the GOP [argues] that the government shouldn’t be in the business of regulating health care” you’re like the goateed version of the yahoos in a tricorn hat claiming Obama is a secret Kenyan Muslim sent to destroy the United States for the Caliphate. (I think that you are as big a geek as Brendan, so I’m reasonably certain you get the Mirror, Mirror reference.) The GOP, however, is arguing that the President cannot just decide, by edict, to force employers to forego their religious beliefs.
(On an aside, I’ve long concluded the Catholic Church does not have a hair on its a** with some of these issues. Or, put another away, the ink wouldn’t have even been dry on that directive before Kathleen Sebelius, Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, et. al. were receiving mapquest directions to the nearest Lutheran Church with a handwritten papal note that read “Hey, figured you guys were confused, so I’m sorta helping you out with finding the house of the last guy who basically said ‘eff the church, eff it’s teachings, and that’s not how I’m rolling.’ Tell ol’ Martin’s descendants I said hello–and, and just in case you continue to demonstrate you can’t understand clear English / Latin, you’re f*cking excommunicated. Signed–Benny the Hun.” But then again, that’s why I’m not, nor will I ever be, Pope.)
“We all knew that health care reform was coming. Why the GOP didn’t take on the issue when Bush was president is a great mystery to me. What’s the alternative proposal? Let insurers cover whatever they feel like? Kick people with pre-existing conditions off health care plans every time they lose a job? Maintain the status quo–a bewildering mashup of state and federal regulations that make it impossible to determine the price of most procedures prior to having them? The GOP’s counteroffer to Obamacare is nonsense.”
Um, the GOP’s read the Constitution and realizes that you’re going to have to get the Commerce Clause a whole lot more drunk before you try to fit _that_ in _there_? *whispered comment in ear* No Child Left Behind? I didn’t leave any…oh, yeah, I was hoping you were from Utah and had basically channeled your inner Mormon Honey Badger.
In all seriousness, I don’t know why we, as a nation, haven’t had a serious discussion of this. Oh, wait, yes I do–because people gotta win primaries, there’s no third party, and money has poisoned politics for both sides. I mean, you want to talk about nonsense–Obamacare as written is pretty f*cked up, and I’d be willing to bet you and your co-host a steak dinner (at a reasonable restaurant) that it’s not going to make it past SCOTUS. (That’s you and your husband–I’m not paying for the kids. Matter of principle, being a cold, cruel heartless libertarian and all that.) But the bigger problem is that I think, intuitively, people realize if you have a Federal health care system for a country the size of the United States you either have to have some pretty ruthless rules or said plan is going to collapse due to the freeloaders. Well, ruthless rules aren’t going to happen as they aren’t compatible with a free society (and some people call you names when you even suggest it), so that means the things doomed from the get go (I mean, you eventually run out of other people’s money when you’ve got 330 million citizens). Not to mention Bush was sorta distracted–something about “Hey, you guys, wake up…” on a phone message?
Sandra Fluke is a 30-year old adult law school student who previously served as president of Law Students for Reproductive Justice. Now, in many cases it’s fair to assume that law students aren’t the best at math (which is why they want to be lawyers and not engineers), but this Fluke-y activist seems to be especially challenged with numbers. If she stands by her math, then the amount of sex she is having is going to cause far worse reproductive health problems (chafing anyone?). Based on the facts as presented (again, taking at face value Fluke’s math), I’d say the chances she is actually a slut are somewhere between 90-100%.
That said, why should the government be setting the bounds on what is or is not covered in an insurance policy? Why can’t consumers have broad choices just like with car insurance, where you can choose what you want your liability limits to be, whether you want comp / collision, and whether you want to carry insurance for potential accidents involving uninsured motorists? Let the Catholic-affiliated institutions offer whatever they want to offer, and if the employee isn’t satisfied, let them pay for a supplemental plan that provides whatever they want to add to their coverage. This isn’t rocket science, people.
…And what they all said.
Limbaugh has said that he doesn’t want American citizens paying for these social activities. The reality is that American citizens will be paying for the sexual choices their fellow citizens make regardless, so long as we have any form of a governmentally-financed assistance program for the poor. Ideally, yes, people should not be engaging in sex if they are not prepared for the possible consequences. But most people are humans, rather than Vulcans, and it’s more practical to treat them as such — people are going to have anyway, and we should plan on that. And in that light, paying for contraceptives is a massive boon as far as economics are concerned. See, for example, this Slate article summarizing a Brookings Institute study finding that expanding family planning services and running a media campaign announcing this would save hundreds of millions of dollars spent by the government. citation Ideals are nice. Dealing with reality is more effective.
“Dealing with reality” is why “ideals” don’t work. Why, again, is it the government’s place to pay for contraception? If the argument is that “Well it makes the social programs cheaper…” then how about we cut the social programs–after all, that makes it cheaper as well, doesn’t it? Oh, wait, that’s right, ohhhhh the humaaaaannnniiitttty. Look, you can say all you want about people “not being Vulcans,” but point of fact is with freedom comes responsibility, and I’d much rather have my freedoms than have a blunt scissored world where Mama Government keeps the weak willed from suffering the consequences of their dumbassery. Your mileage may vary, at which point you can feel free to donate to Planned Parenthood or whatever organization providing birth control you feel appropriate–but don’t use the power of _our_ government to pay for _your_ inability to look at someone and say “You made your bed, now lie in it.”
Anyone else just not see the moral hazard involved in inviting the government to have a say in contraception? You know, that whole “keep the government out of my bedroom” thing? (See why I’m also against government requiring ultrasounds for abortion. Pretty sure if a woman’s decided to kill her baby there’s a reason–and that reason is no one else’s f*cking business other than the her, her doctor’s, and the father’s.<–Yeah I went there. Deal.) It starts with contraception…where does it stop? So when President Santorum dictates that any small business that _does_ provide contraception will be subject to fines I'm sure you'll all be okay with that, right? What's that? You'll display the hypocrisy that both sides seem to because it's not your guy in charge? Well, good…glad to know what to expect.
In that same vein, I don't want government telling private employers what they must purchase as far as medical insurance goes. I note that no one has yet had a refutation that this violates multiple amendments. So basically we're saying, "Hey, that Constitution thing is optional…there's a greater good at stake!" Mmm, no, that's the kind of stuff that leads to all sorts of mischief, and quite frankly I trust James Madison's judgment more than just about anyone commenting on this board.
. I note that no one has yet had a refutation that this violates multiple amendments.
The sides have been drawn over this. It’s up to the Supreme Court now. Either the Commerce Clause effectively negates the rest of the Constitution or not.
Behold, Maher attempted an answer to my question @ 13, distinguishing himself from Limbaugh on the grounds that Maher doesn’t have sponsors. I shit you not.
So to all you outraged fathers who want your daughters to grow up virtuous, responsible, and able to voice their opinions without being called sluts (or cunts, dumb twats, mashed-up bags of meat with lipstick, deserving of hate-fucks, etc.), rest assured that such misogyny will not be tolerated so long as
their opinions don’t incur the wrath of liberalstheir critics have to answer to advertisers.Kirsten Powers has been doing God’s work calling out her fellow liberals for their hypocrisy on misogyny, and she was at it again yesterday:
Indeed.
I didn’t know that to denounce the wrongdoing of one person you must denounce the wrongdoings of all. What does Bill Maher have to do with Rush Limbaugh? I’m a fan of both, and Bill Maher defended Rush Limbaugh on his show, so what’s the difference? I see none.
Rush Limbaugh defamed Sandra Fluke for hours a day for multiple days in a row via his show with 20 million listeners. I understand that Fluke spoke before congress for 30 minutes, but she doesn’t have any ability to defend herself against the smearing by Limbaugh. She was on the View for 1 segment. Maybe she has a blog, but to be called a slut because she spoke about women’s healthcare from a point of view that Limbaugh disagrees with, would be funny, in passing, a one-liner. But 3 days in a row for hours each day? That’s intentionally trying to damage a person. The truth is, she is a private citizen. She made a public presentation once, but she’s a private citizen.
If you don’t know the difference between Sandra Fluke and Sarah Palin you must be as “willfully Ignorant” as Joe Mama. Georgetown law-student Sandra Fluke or Former Mayor, Former Governor, Former Vice Presidential candidate, Multi-Millionaire, author, Fox News Contributor, National spokesperson at Republican events, Sarah Palin. I really don’t like to call people stupid, but come on, there’s no comparison.
Bill Maher can call women names, just like he calls men names, it’s not misogyny. He says the same things about Santorum as he does Palin because he hates the message and ignorant statements, not the gender. Limbaugh used Sandra Fluke’s gender with popular sexist terminology to denigrate the person making the argument, not the point of view that he disagreed with. If there is a logical opposition to preventing women, specifically, from getting birth control on plans that cover vasectomies for men, claiming that she is a prostitute or a slut is not a winning argument.
If there is a logical opposition to preventing women, specifically, from getting birth control on plans that cover vasectomies for men,
1) First of all, I believe you meant logical opposition to women obtaining birth control rather than what you wrote. If not, your comment makes no sense. (insert practically obligatory snarky remark here)
2) Almost no one (and certainly no prominent person) is trying to prevent women from obtaining birth control, or even prevent insurance companies from paying for birth control. What we object to is the government forcing insurance companies to provide birth control, and forcing the American people to pay for this “free” birth control.
3) If you buy insurance from a company that pays for vasectomies, but not the pill or IUD, and you find this objectionable (which I agree is an entirely reasonable point of view), the answer is not to interfere in private business transactions and destroy choice for everyone. The answer is to take your business elsewhere and buy insurance from a company you agree with.
4) Fluke was not some innocent bystander who got slimed by Limbaugh. She is an activist who long ago launched a crusade to force Georgetown to pay for students’ contraception. (And her testimony was completely off topic, since the bill she was commenting on had no provision to force colleges to provide contraceptive health care to students) She is less of a private figure than Joe the Plumber was.
1) Actually , I think I meant logical position meaning logical argument, but I’m pretty sure you figured out what I meant.
2) I’m pretty sure that Greta and Hannity and all the right wing pundits I’ve seen on Fox are in favor of employers and organizations choosing to exclude birth control from their Obamacare policies when that goes into effect in 2014, citing religious freedom. I never heard that BC could be excluded from any policy before, and if it’s true that “the pill” is $9 per month at Wallgreens, then excluding it can’t possibly be of any financial benefit, and therefore I can’t imagine that an exclusion would ever even be offered if that was ever asked for in the first place. This just seems like the phoniest argument I’ve heard in a long time, and if I didn’t watch Fox News, I’d think it was a planted story from the Left, because continuing this argument has no benefit politically, morally, or otherwise to the Right.
3) I heard somebody mention that the Georgetown medical deal covers vasectomies but not the Pill. I don’t know if that is true or not, and really don’t much care.
4) How can Fluke be less of a public figure than Joe The Plumber, when Joe is running for Congress, was riding in a side-car attached to the McCain bus and speaking as an important figure near the end of McCain’s presidential campaign and a regular contributor on every cable news program for months? I watch way too much political BS, and the only public event I’ve seen Fluke on was 1 segment of the View. Nobody would know who Fluke is today if Limbaugh had never called her a prostitute for using Birth Control, she certainly is not and never has been touted by the left as a significant figure with a valuable POV. In fact, I’m pretty sure we won’t hear from her ever again, until Obama nominates her for the Supreme Court.