A Morality Lesson from Rush Limbaugh

qbee

Proud Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2007
Messages
11,824
Points
0
Location
Michigan USA
A Morality Lesson from Rush Limbaugh
Jonathan Cohn - March 2, 2012 | 11:16 am


Rush Limbaugh has said many outrageous and offensive things over the years. But he may have hit a new low over the last two days.

I'm talking about a series of statements Limbaugh has made about Sandra Fluke. Fluke is the third-year Georgetown Law Student who testified before a congressional panel about the Obama Administration's controversial new health insurance regulation, the one requiring that nearly all plans cover contraception. During that session, Fluke told the story of a classmate who needed birth control medication to control ovarian cysts. According to Fluke, the classmate had difficulty convincing pharmacists that the medication was for her medical problem (which Georgetown’s policy is supposed to cover) rather than to prevent pregnancy (which it’s not supposed to cover). Facing $100 out-of-pocket expenses she could not afford, the classmate stopped taking the pills and developed a large, painful, and dangerous cyst. Doctors had to remove one of her ovaries, Fluke said, and now the twenty-something law student is showing signs of early menopause.

Fluke gave her testimony last week. On Wednesday, with the Senate preparing to vote on a measure that would allow employers to opt out of the new contraception requirement, Limbaugh said the following:

What does it say about the college co-ed Susan Fluke [sic] 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.

On Thursday, following protests from liberals, Limbaugh kept at it:

So Miss Fluke, and the rest of you Feminazis, here’s the deal. If we are going to pay for your contraceptives, and thus pay for you to have sex. We want something for it. We want you post the videos online so we can all watch.

[Links via ThinkProgress.org.]


I’m not quite sure what to say to this.

Do I point out that, for many women, access to contraception has nothing to do with trying to prevent pregnancy, as was the apparent case with Fluke’s classmate? That many people wishing to use contraception are married people who simply want some control over whether, and when, to have children? That the most effective forms of contraception are expensive, because they require either a medical procedure or the constant use of medication—regardless of whether you have sex once a month, once a week, or once a day? That, as a forthcoming paper from Harold Pollack and Adam Sonfield points out, studies show women will choose these forms of contraception if they are affordable? That contraception has all kinds of economic and health benefits, which is why a nonpartisan commission of experts from the Institute of Medicine first recommended birth control be part of basic health insurance?

I could say any of those things. But to do so might seem to concede an argument that doesn’t deserve conceding: the suggestion that women who have premarital sex are “sluts.”

So let’s be clear about this. Women sometimes have sex out of wedlock. That does not make them sluts. That makes them human—just like men, who also have been known to have sex out of wedlock. But when contraception is not available, women are the ones who end up bearing children and, all too often, raising them on their own. That’s one reason why birth control ought to be widely available. It gives women, unmarried and married, the freedom to control their bodies and their lives—freedoms that most men take for granted.

More and more people seem to grasp this, at least intuitively. In the most recent CBS News/New York Times poll, 61 percent of Americans support making contraception coverage mandatory, even for plans that religious employers sponsor. Most Americans also seem comfortable with the idea that unmarried people are having sex. In 2003, the last year for which I found data in my hasty web search, 58 percent of Americans believed that premarital sex is morally acceptable, according to a survey from Gallup. The number will likely get higher with time, since young people approve of premarital sex by even wider margins.


Maybe Limbaugh is among those who disapprove. That’s his prerogative. And if he ever wants to have a serious conversation about reducing teen promiscuity or pregnancy, I’d be among the many liberals happy to have it. But in what kind of twisted moral universe is it ok to denigrate sexually active women as sluts or prostitutes and then, in the same breath, suggest they earn the right to their birth control by performing in sex videos?

Only a moral universe that treats women as second-class citizens—which, I guess, is the moral universe Limbaugh inhabits.


Source: http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-co...lls-sandra-fluke-slut-birth-control-sex-video
 
Is this the 21st century? Where women are called sluts for having sex out of wedlock? (And of course, men who do the same, aren't.) Shocking.
 
He was way out of line by calling anyone sluts .. What makes it worse, The woman he was attacking wasnt even speaking about using Birth control pills for sex out of wedlock. It was for a serious medical condition. BC pills are also used for ovarian cysts, exessive bleeding. Severe Cramps and other female contditions. Plus for married couples for family planning.
 
I used to take BCP for female problems. This outdated kind of thinking needs to be thrown out, and scummy Rush Limbaugh needs to go back to the sewer where he came from.
 
Birth control pills can also be used to treat hormonal imbalances. That's what I needed them for, and I'm not even sexually active. Reckon I'm a slut too, then.

Rush Limbaugh and conservatives in general just need to hurry up and die out. Sex out of wedlock has been around for ages--prostitution isn't the world's oldest profession for nothing. Public attitudes towards sex have also changed--this isn't the 1950's anymore. The façade of immaculateness is over, and people are more willing to acknowledge these things go on.
 
I found Limbaugh's remarks to be despicably appallling and offensive. The scary thing is that a narrow minded person like him has a following in the U.S. I really can't believe my eyes when I see this. Men like Limbaugh are obsessed with power. They are insecure. They are intimidated by the growing independence of women. They still see women as just reproductive tools.

The ultra-conservative politicians/commentators never cease to amaze me. When I think they can't get any more ridiculous, they sink lower.
 
If men took pills for birthcontrol and medical reasons, then I´m sure it would be different
 
So taxpayers should now be paying for everyones sex life!? How about payng for your own condoms and pills. Rush has a point although i disagree with his language.
 
Erikmjfan;3606544 said:
So taxpayers should now be paying for everyones sex life!? How about payng for your own condoms and pills. Rush has a point although i disagree with his language.

I dont think the government should be paying or taxpayers _ but I think you missed to whole point of this article . He was adressing a specific woman (Susan Fluk) she was speaking speaking of a serious medical condition and nothing to do with sex. So it was highy innapropriate what he said about her and was not even adressing her issue. ( It was very disrespectful distastful and hateful toward women who suffer from these conditions ... or any woman for that matter. )

This is how he adressed her _it is more than language it was an out right hateful offensive attack on this women (and all women IMO )

What does it say about the college co-ed Susan 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.

So Miss Fluke, and the rest of you Feminazis, here’s the deal. If we are going to pay for your contraceptives, and thus pay for you to have sex. We want something for it. We want you post the videos online so we can all watch.

maybe you didnt see it like that but please .. This could be your mom sister wife etc .. So you should be offended by his words
it was not just language _ It is his overall view of and disrespect toward women.
 
I found Limbaugh's remarks to be despicably appallling and offensive. The scary thing is that a narrow minded person like him has a following in the U.S. I really can't believe my eyes when I see this. Men like Limbaugh are obsessed with power. They are insecure. They are intimidated by the growing independence of women. They still see women as just reproductive tools.

The ultra-conservative politicians/commentators never cease to amaze me. When I think they can't get any more ridiculous, they sink lower.

Misogyny comes in many shapes, very sad. Sometimes it hides behind political affiliations. Quite appalling. But it was good to see that a big amount of people in the US media did speak out on this pure hatred of women in general. That backlash was deserved.

Using someone's medical needs (I think people don't know just how many medical conditions are being treated hormonally) to showcase one's own view of women as payable objects is quite astounding.

Limbaugh made it quite clear what he is about when he keeps ranting about 'overeducated women'.

People say something about 'shockjocks who don't believe what they say'- even if he didn't believe that stuff- there is something questionable when you are able to spew that much vitriol and you're not an actor in a play etc.

It regularly astounds me what gets bleeped out on any given afternoon on TV- but "sl*t" is totally cool on mainstream TV as well. No bleeps.
 
So taxpayers should now be paying for everyones sex life!? How about payng for your own condoms and pills. Rush has a point although i disagree with his language.

Once again, birth control pills are not exclusively used for sex. They can be used for a variety of things, including hormonal imbalances [my case], severe acne, among other non-sexual things. I think the name is really misleading. Although one of their purposes is indeed "birth control," the pills' functions extend beyond just that.

The intention is not to pay for everyone's sex lives. Birth control pills are relevant to women's health in more than just that way. No one is suggesting taxpayers should be paying for people's sex lives--I have yet to hear of a bill suggesting taxpayers should pay for universal distribution of condoms.

Also...think of it this way. Would you as a taxpayer rather pay for birth control pills or for the welfare of the people who can't afford said pills' children? Which do you think would be more expensive?
 
Thanks for posting this. I had not heard about this story. It's good to be aware of what is happening.
 
Back
Top