Not a member? Sign up now
Rush Limbaugh apologizes for sexism, keeps digging
By Marty BeckermanMarch 3rd, 2012, 9:30 pmComments (25)
After six advertisers dropped sponsorship of his radio show, Rush Limbaugh has apologized for calling a pro-contraception Georgetown student a "slut" and a "prostitute." The remarks caused a massive controversy, which resulted in President Obama telephoning the student, and — perhaps more remarkably — senior Republicans criticizing the influential shock jock.
On his website, Limbaugh wrote:
"For over 20 years, I have illustrated the absurd with absurdity, three hours a day, five days a week. In this instance, I chose the wrong words in my analogy of the situation. I did not mean a personal attack on Ms. Fluke. ... My choice of words was not the best, and in the attempt to be humorous, I created a national stir. I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for the insulting word choices."
But then right in the midst of his contrition act, he unleashed yet another rant. "I personally do not agree that American citizens should pay for these social activities," Limbaugh writes. "What happened to personal responsibility and accountability? Where do we draw the line? If this is accepted as the norm, what will follow? Will we be debating if taxpayers should pay for new sneakers for all students that are interested in running to keep fit?"
Limbaugh neglects to acknowledge that 1.5 million American women use birth control pills for reasons other than contraception, such as lessening menstrual pain and preventing ovarian cysts. He might regret using the inflammatory language, but nevertheless continues to suggest that a huge number of female citizens are greedy and immoral simply for expecting insurance companies to pay for medicine. It's unclear whether — in the wake of advertiser discontent — this is an apology from the heart or just the pocketbook.
Also: "sneakers ... to keep fit"? Really, Rush? You're going to make the punch line that easy?
Commentarium (25 Comments)
Sigh... once again, he (and others) are NOT complaining that contraception shouldn't be covered at all... they are complaining at her assertion that the insurance companies (or the government) should have to foot the bill 100%, that she is entitled to her birth control free and clear unlike other prescriptions for which the recipient is at the very least responsible for a copay.
Rush is a fucking asshole... no question about it. But I agree, this sense of entitlement is bullshit.
I know you have to throw in the obligatory I-hate-Rush-and-think-he-should-die-even-though-I'm-an-openminded-lib insult but if you did some research, you'd see that at the root of Limbaugh's satire is exactly what you suggest: Insurance companies shouldn't be covered. More accurately, people should be able to pay for what they want; you want no co-pay buy a premium insurance policy.
Personally, I'd like to buy nothing but catastrophic insurance that would cover me only in the event of a major illness. It's no more proper for health "insurance" to pay for routine medical care than it would be for my car insurance to pay for oil changes or other routine maintenance.
Eh, "...insurance companies shouldn't be forced to cover contraception."
Insurance companies are able to negotiate much better rates than an individual could pay. Even though I had a high deductible health plan that went years without forking over a cent, it saved me money in discounts.
I'm most definitely not an open-minded lib. In fact, I don't find most liberals to be open-minded at all. Ditto conservatives; both sides are far too entrenched in their ideology (and their hatred of the other side) to be open-minded at all. As an independent thinker (and voter) I consider myself far more open-minded than the average lib or con, simply because I form my views by carefully considering both sides of the argument. Life is never black and white, the shades of grey are rampant.
Actually it's been proven that expanding contraception coverage saves health insurers money: http://aspe.hhs.gov/health/reports/2012/contraceptives/ib.shtml#TOC
Hence the reason that NONE Of them complaining about it.
Furthermore, Sandra's actual testimony revolved mostly around religious employers not being able to deny coverage for birth control NOT getting it without a co-pay.
It's also worth pointing out that Viagra is covered by health insurance too, isn't that a case of "other people" covering the cost of social activities?
I.e. these so called arguments around entitlements and what not are categorically false, the real issue is that there are a legion of "faux men" who want to control women's sexuality - that's their real issue, the rest is a smoke screen.
Ya know, as a guy with a viagra prescription (due to serious physical injury), I *wish* insurers would cover it. That shit is expensive; it makes the price of the pill look like tic-tacs. But they don't, and I wish I knew where that idea came from. And would whoever made it up please call my insurance company?
Vets get 4 Viagra pills covered per month if they have pharmacy coverage. It all depends on the insurance, I suppose.
It's not about saving money. It's about forcing the government morality on others.
This being a NYC based web page, a frat house filled with children, the author has no experience with these adult financial realities:
Homeowners insurance DOES NOT COVER THE COST OF PUTTING ON A NEW ROOF.
Auto insurance DOES NOT COVER THE COST OF NEW TIRES.
Why should Health insurance cover the cost of "normal" expenses?
Its NOT such a radical idea to call into question somehow who wants their auto insurance to buy her new tires and put gas in the tank!
Because your body is much more important than a house or a car.
Poorly thought out analogies are just below ad hominem attacks on my personal list of Ways to Lose an Argument Really Quickly.
The number of Nerve employees that are former fraternity members is around zero. The office, is however, filled with children. They type really fast and we use them to get us our lamestream/liberal/East-Coast/intellectual/elitist coffee drinks.
"I personally do not agree that American citizens should pay for these social activities,"
You can bet your ass that his insurance paid for all of the prescription drugs he was abusing....
...but you'd lose. His drug abuse was uncovered by the illegal purchases. Plus, I guarantee you that no insurance company would reimburse for abusive levels of prescription drugs.
What kind of idiot thinks insurance companies do this?
that legally obtained prescription drugs are the most abused drugs in our country.
I don't know why we allow two sides to every debate; and every idiot a chance to voice damaging obnoxious misogynistic noise. Conflicting views are not always created equal because sometimes there actually is a right side to be on. Providing free birth control does not add to the cost of health insurance, it lowers it. Preventing unwanted pregnancies (and subsequent prenatal care and birth expenses) along with preventing abortions negates the 'opinion' that Rush Limbaugh will be footing the bill.
Also, contrary to what Rush believes, the amount of birth control used is not dependent on the number of partners or experiences one has had. I'm assuming this needed to be cleared up knowing the amount of beer-soaked-fraternity bro brains out there who have no fucking clue as to how contraception works. Isn't it funny how the ones who diligently oppose the coverage of birth control are the ones who really shouldn't be reproducing? God help us all.
...Rush isn't aware that "the amount of birth control used is not dependent on the number of partners or experiences" that a woman experiences. He's only been able to build a billion dollar media empire through dumb luck; there's no intelligence there. It's a good thing he has people like you, roman, to inform him of the reality. After all a condom is good for like a week, right, regardless of the number of partners.
RUSH: What does it say about the college co-ed Sandra Fluke, who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex, what does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She's having so much sex she can't afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex.They're admitting before congressional committee that they're having so much sex they can't afford the birth control pills! "
If you don't agree with the tenets of the Catholic Church
1. Don't join the church.
2. Don't attend a Cathlic school. (Georgetown)
3. Don't utilize the service of the Catholic Church, hospitals etc.
4. Get your own insurance that covers contraception.
If this was so important to her, then one would think that she would have done her research and decided that Georgetown wasn't the place for her.
Bingo. I'm firmly in the camp that says Catholic organizations should not be forced to provide services that violate their beliefs; if access to insurance-covered contraception is important to you then why the hell are you working for a Catholic organization?
I'm a die-hard atheist, yet I feel strongly that peoples' religious views must be honored just as I expect my anti-religious views to be respected.
I agree that religious views should be honored, however I think we're forgetting the case in point about her friend who had an ovary removed due to a cyst from uncontrolled polycystic ovarian syndrome. She now may be entering menopause though she's only in her early 30's, which would lead to infertility and puts her at higher risk of cardiovascular disease and osteoporosis. These are serious medical conditions with potentially devastating and expensive consequences. Not to mention, it is a painful chronic disease that just some Tylenol isn't going to treat. Meanwhile, the religious institution itself wouldn't be providing the medication, just the insurance company it uses to cover it's employees or in this case, students. So why should they be able to force their beliefs on non-Catholic members of their organization? I went to an Irish Catholic college because that's where I felt I would receive the best education, but I am neither Irish nor Catholic. To suggest I shouldn't have gone there because I'm not either of these things only promotes segregation of cultures and beliefs, when ostracizing others is the last thing the Catholic church should be doing right now.
As a sexually active female, I'd like my birth control to be cheaper - free would be nice - and my boyfriend offered to help me pay for it, but even if I weren't sexually active I would take it to help manage my acne anyway. This would be much more severe without the help of oral contraceptives. However, I don't necessarily think that it should be free for me because while acne is actually a disease with serious emotional and social implications if left untreated, it is my choice to take contraceptives. However, Ms. Fluke's friend didn't really have a choice. It was medically necessary. I find it cruel to deny her a medically necessary prescription solely because of its other uses.
Furthermore, taxpayers don't pay the costs for private insurance - that's why it's private. The insured pays. If people are so concerned about this, then what we should pay for is sex education, then maybe teens and low SES people would make wiser choices about their sexual health. Oh wait, everyone hates Planned Parenthood, too. Then I guess women are just fucked.
@sea: The Catholic Church has nothing (actually it promotes) medicine that is therapeutic and this includes various forms of pills or other hormonal contraceptives as long as they are not consumed with the pure/ sole intent of preventing the creation of a new life.
Recap: Therapeutic: Yes, Fun: No!
Also nowhere as far as I can tell -even in the general health care systems- are contraceptives being covered by the insurance companies/ medical plans. If you want to have fun without consequences of the lasting kind, you have to pay, if you can't afford it keep it in your pants or find ways that do not result in said consequences. Simple as that.
You didn't fully read my post. I said that I don't think bc needs to be free for people who are taking it only for contraception. I take it for that reason, but also to treat acne, though I'm still willing to pay for it. The entire reason for my post was to point out that Ms. Fluke's friend needed it therapeutically, but was denied. Now she will probably never be able to have children, among the development of other serious medical conditions as a result of it.
And insurance does cover it to an extent, I only pay a $25 co-pay.
Amen.
how about we tax these churches?
Then they can do whatever the fuck they want and I do not have to support this shitty Westboro Baptist or Latter Day Saints nonsense.