Not a member? Sign up now
John Boehner, Scott Brown, Rick Santorum (kinda-sorta) criticize Limbaugh remark
By Marty BeckermanMarch 2nd, 2012, 8:45 pmComments (23)
Update: Romney responds, "I'll just say this, which is it's not the language I would have used."
For Republican politicians, Rush Limbaugh is like a father who gives you a pack of cigarettes for Christmas. At first you think, Wow, a pack of cigarettes! Just what I wanted, Pop! But later you're dying from emphysema and wishing you'd never met the bastard.
Earlier this week Limbaugh called Sandra Fluke, a Georgetown law student, "slut" and "prostitute" over her support of contraception coverage. President Obama thanked Fluke for her courage, which put Republicans — including senators, congressmen, and presidential contenders — in an awkward position: defend Fluke against Limbaugh, who crushes perceived apostates, or defend Limbaugh against Obama and alienate a huge number of women?
John Boehner decided on the former. "The speaker obviously believes the use of those words was inappropriate," said his spokesman. And Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown, up for reelection, was even more adamant: "Rush Limbaugh's comments are reprehensible. He should apologize."
But Rick Santorum, who needs Limbaugh's support more than Boehner and Brown, tried to downplay the situation. "He's being absurd, but ... an entertainer can be absurd," Santorum told CNN. "He's in a very different business than I am." This is either a criticism of Limbaugh ("absurd") or a defense ("an entertainer can be absurd"), depending on your perspective.
Mitt Romney declined to respond to the controversy, possibly because he believes it's undignified, and possibly because he just can't outshine Santorum's masterpiece of having it both ways.
Commentarium (23 Comments)
As wrong as Limbaugh was, I'm still trying to figure out why she feels entitled to having her birth control paid for 100% by others. If she was only advocating that health insurance cover the pill, I would agree wholeheartedly. But her position that she shouldn't have to pay for it at all is just ludicrous, as is her claim that birth control would cost her $3,000 a year... a condom is about $1 honey, so unless you're getting laid 8.22 times per day you don't have to spend anywhere near $3k on birth control. If you can't afford the pill there are alternatives.
Here's a simple fact (as I put in another comment below): Men get Viagra covered, but women don't get coverage for care that prevents not only unwanted pregnancy, but is also involved in treating ailments like ovarian cysts, which can be cancerous. In addition, condoms are less reliable than, say, the IUD or the pill, and a lot of women are pressured not to use condoms. This disproportionately affects younger women and at risk women, who probably don't have the money for more expensive contraceptives. And let me restate that contraceptives can also be used for other health problems that have nothing to do with sex. It is so galling to be told that our health and family planning options are less important than a man's ability to get hard.
And for bonus points: “A 2000 study by the National Business Group on Health, a membership group for large private- and public-sector employers to address their health policy concerns, estimated that it costs employers 15–17% more to not provide contraceptive coverage in employee health plans than to provide such coverage" (Source: http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/02/10/423107/how-will-insurers-resp...)
the fuck are you calling "honey"? Are you actually attempting to be a parody of a sexist douchebag?
Limbaugh is correct. Fluke, on behalf of the Democrats, is trying to make contraception the new abortion and, luckily, failing miserably.
As for LAdair's comments, you need to pay more attention. Viagra is not contraception and is used to treat a medical condition. Likewise, the birth control pill can be used for medical purposes - note that contraception is not medical treatment - and even those opposed to contraception provide it in such cases. When used to treat conditions such as those you mention, the BCP is not contraception even if infertility is one of the side effects.
Further, LAdair, the opposition to providing contraception does not rest on an economic basis, it rests on a moral basis. Perhaps more significant is that your suggestion that the public at large should pay for contraception because it's more cost-effective entirely misses the point - the public should not be paying for others health insurance at all.
Actually, covering birth control without a co-pay saves health insurers money: http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/article/2012/02/13/cost-contraception-in-i...
Multiple studies have validated this, hence the reason the health insurance companies have been silent on the issue. I.e. the cost savings from preventing unplanned pregnancies, the health benefits of contraception, etc, are far greater than the cost of paying for contraception.
Time after time, it's been shown that providing birth control without a co-pay hasn't required an increase in insurance premiums.
It's not a culture, social, or women's health issues, it's a mathematical one.
But that's really besides the point, if you had read Sandra's actual testimony, you'd know she was talking about religious employers not having the right to deny women coverage for birth control: http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/statement-Congress-letterhead-2nd%...
She only talked about denial of coverage all together, not once did she say someone should pay for it on her behalf, it should be free, etc.
Furthermore, the $3k number she referred to was the cost of paying for birth control over the course of three years of college, NOT per year. An amount of about $90/month, which for students on scholarship could be an issue.
Finally, I was against Ed Schultz calling Laura Ingram a slut as a pejorative since she didn't like her. But what Rush did was worse, not only he either not read or just outright lie about Sandra said, but claimed that women who want Birth Control coverage from the insurance they paid for most be sluts or prostitutes and that they should be required to film their sex lives for the enjoyment of others.
It was so far beyond what Ed did, especially since Rush's statements were based on a lie anyway.
The true irony is that Rush has issue with insurance paying for Viagra, but he gets upset about birth control, thus illustrating how he truly feels about women.
IT'S NOT ABOUT MONEY, IT'S ABOUT FORCING A CHURCH TO PAY FOR SOMETHING IT BELIEVES IS IMMORAL.
Maybe someone will ask Obama about taking money from Bill Maher given his comment about the 9/11 Terrorists: "Staying in the airplane when it hits the building, say what you want about it, it’s not cowardly.”
I know, the only reason you are on this website, is because you get paid to post neo con opinions. Didn't you post the same irrelevant comment a few months back? Copy/paste.
You always try to switch the topic. You are defending monkey brained Ursh Bimlaugh, and his drug addled thinking. A lack of birth control would cost $10,000/year, or more, with an unwanted pregnancy.
How about you and Rush adopting unwanted children? $500 million would feed a lot of hungry children. And since you and your neo con masters don't like contraceptives, don't have any sex. Ever. That way, you and the neo con overlords would be doing everyone else a big favor, since you are too cowardly to kill yourself, by slowly dying off.
Hey, Greg, please let me know how you can get paid to post conservative comments! I post them because I know they're correct and the libs here need education. I also enjoy seeing the "open-minded" left blow a gasket over an opinion that doesn't match theirs, but that's just a side benefit.
I found Maher's comments about Sarah Palin to be the ones that should result in his money being returned. Rush's comments about Fluke were mild in comparison.
There's nothing quite so hateful as an open-minded spokesman of the left, whether it's Maher or Thoughtless Greg.
Always entertaining, Thoughtless Greg, and a well chosen nick, to boot.
Well its only fair because all these people came out against Ed Schultz (MSNBC) when he called Laura Ingraham a "right wing slut'. Then the Pres called her to .......o wait THEY DIDN'T
I definitely don't think it is okay to randomly call every woman you disagree with slut, whore, bitch, etc. It's offensive, usually irrelevant, and perpetuates the ridiculous idea that women are defined by their sexual conduct. However, the two situations are pretty different. Laura Ingraham is a pundit, and was hardly an underdog standing up for the rights of about half of the US; she's just doing what she's paid to do. I think an average woman outside the political arena exposing herself to such scrutiny to promote women's health (and, in a certain sense, equality. Men get Viagra covered, but women can't get care that prevents not only unwanted pregnancy, but is also involved in treating ailments like ovarian cysts, which can be cancerous. Ridiculous.) is taking a much bigger risk. Her actions actually required courage. While Ingraham deserves respectful criticism, she didn't do anything that admirable.
OK, when someone with whom you agree is called a "slut," it's wrong. When someone with whom you disagree is called a "slut," it justified.
Got it. Good God, will these leftists ever critically look at themselves, even for a second?
Will the LEFT ever look at themselves critically? What, do you think guys like Limbaugh or Hannity..or even Ingraham ... ever look at themselves critically?
Schultz, for whom I have zero admiration anyway, apologized, and was even suspended. Limbaugh, instead, doubled down on his criticism, and I'm not anticipating any apology from him anytime soon.
As I thought I clearly expressed, I don't think Ed Schultz should have called her a slut. It was NOT justified. What I was responding to was your irritation over the President calling Sandra Fluke. She did something admirable and brave. Laura Ingraham did not. But, once again, that rhetoric is not okay from any side. You should read people's responses before going on an enraged rant; it makes you look a lot worse than me.
Again, the issue is not whether birth control should be covered by insurance (it absolutely should), but rather that Fluke is advocating that it be covered *at no cost* to her, unlike other prescriptions where the recipient is responsible for part of the cost via a co-pay or other means.
Wrong on virtually all counts.
1. Contraception is not properly covered under health care any more than hair transplants should be. Neither is required to prevent poor health.
2. The real issue in this case is if an organization should be required to provide something that it considers morally unacceptable. My guess is that Gtown will drop student health coverage if it's pushed.
If my fiancee didn't get estrogen pills when she needed them, she would never need it again because she would have lost her uterus. As Fluke testified, many others are in the same boat. Her secondhand anecdotal testimony may not be compelling, but the issue is real.
Then the birth control pills aren't used to control fertility, are they? In this case, they're used to control a health issue and even the Catholic Church would cover the cost.
And let me add: Duhhhhhhh.
You may be right, but the amendment allows an employer to exclude any care based on medical reasons. Is your boss's religion against blood transfusions, or hysterectomies? Tough.
“If you care enough for your living”, If you want to have another new found in you life. You may join ❤in ❤ --(W’ealthychat-C0M)---THE❤LARGEST ❤ W-ealthy ❤Millionaires❤S.I.N.G.L.E ❤C.L.U.B ❤—to enjoy the romantic and w-ealthy feeling!❤ It’s the most effective site in the world to¬ connect with, date and marry successful, beautiful, w-ealthy and rich¬ people! Appreciation for socioeconomic challenges!
The worst thing is that so many of my coworkers accept Limbaugh's assumption that the cost of contraception is proportional to the amount of sex one has. When I pointed that out, using general terms and third person statements, one of them shouted in the office "You CAN survive without having sex." Serves me right for jumping into a conversation between a neocon and an anarcho-capitalist at the office.
...for just being clueless douche.