Sandra Fluke Responds To Rush Limbaugh 'Slut' Comments
 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...6pLid%3D140233

oh boy. I'm not sure how I feel about the birth control debate, but I will say that I've always found Rush Limbaugh completely obnoxious. What is worse is that any time I ride in the car with my father I have to listen to him for the duration of the drive.

I think it is really sad that so many people support the ridiculousness and stupidity that is Rush Limbaugh.

Rush Limbaugh is a disgusting stooge and a hypocrite.

That being said, birth control is a luxury not a right. If your bust ass can't afford condoms, you have bigger things to worry about.

"Lil Rush" on Talk Radio (a parody) used the word "slut" 100 times yesterday...hillarious!

Rush is no worse than people like Steven Colbert or Jon Stewart.

Oh boy, here we go.

*sits and waits for the keys to come out on this thread.*

And if anything Rush is as bad as Olberman. Colbert and Stewart are comedians, Rush is a pundit.

Rush is A BIG, FAT, FILIBUSTERING WINDBAG!!! Unfortunately there are many more mouthpieces just like him.

And on both sides...

Precisely why I said there are many more like him. I have no interest in affiliating myself soley with either side.

Agreed, or the worst: Bill Maher. That guy is a moron.

Sorry it's impossible to tell if Colbert and Stewart are trying to be humorous or not.

In any case, Rush did issue an apology, so case closed.

Oh, don't get me wrong, Colbert and Stewart have an agenda at times, but they also go after anyone, as long as it's funny.

yes he did:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...6pLid%3D140345

I guess this situation is a real FLUKE, EH?! lolololololololololz i h8 you guyz

You are such a sad, old person...

What I think is most terrifying about this is that Rush has no idea how birth control works. You don't buy single pills and pop them before or after you have sex. It's a prescription drug- and he really just does not get that.

I'm so pleased that Obama called this woman. He does a lot of things I don't care for but lately I've been very proud to call him my president.

And seriously? **** anyone who says insurance shouldn't cover birth control. Having control of my body is my right.

To make an extreme counter-point, though, if a person becomes - solely through their own actions, mind you - an alcoholic, or a drug addict, should taxpayers have to pay for their rehab? *I* had nothing to do with it, and quite frankly don't care if they "get help" or not, and if you asked me up front to pay for it I'd say no, I refuse to physically pay for the consequences of someone else's actions, actions I was not involved in and heavily disapprove of.

It's different, but it's what he meant when he asked "What about personal responsibilty?" Shouldn't people have to, at least some of the time, pay for their own "mistakes"? Even if casual sex can't be considered "a mistake", because I *definitely* don't think it is, some people don't like it, and would have a huge problem if you said to them "I want you to pay for my birth control". So they simply don't want to magically have their taxes pay for it, either. Makes sense if you ask me.

Plus there's the whole line between preventative and curative medicine. When you're asking other people to pay for things you *technically* don't need, or wouldn't need if you had done something differently, things get tricky. Taxpayer-funded cancer treatments, sure, makes sense. Taxpayer-funded liposuction? Absolutely not.

These are all different from the birth control issue BUT they're related in a broad sense. Personally, a lot of people I know and may or may not have known "biblically" have benefited from planned parenthood clinics, etc. So I'm not sure about how I totally feel, but at the same time I totally understand why people would be against it. It does encourage promiscuous behavior... anyone who says otherwise is full of it, the entire point is so you can f*ck around and not have babies, maybe some people do the "one guy/one girl" thing still but I find it's not very realistic for anyone over the age of 15 to believe in monagamy, but that's a whoooole other topic.

I personally don't get why anyone actually pays attention to Rush, Colbert, Stewart, or anybody of their ilk to begin with, because a lot of these things that happen are just to distract everyone from the fact that it's an election year and the economy still sucks. I do agree with Rush 100% though, that all this talk about "social issues" right now is stupid, because none of it matters unless people are going back to work. I hate how people get so worked up over stuff like this; they're working you, it's an act. Whenever there's an election, people talk about emotional issues like contraception and gay marriage, but once you're IN office all that matters is economics. So why even talk about anything else, except to avoid questions about why things ain't fixed yet?

But on the whole, I prefer Bill O'Reilly. Just sayin'. 8)

One thing that I've wondered in this whole debate is, "What about STDs?" The argument is all about potential pregnancy and government paying for prescription birth control pills, but those only stop one possible problem of "unprotected" sex. Is it because if you want to prevent an STD you can buy a condom at the corner store for a quarter, or get them free from a clinic? Don't those things work to avoid pregnancy as well? It's seems like asking to government to use tax dollars to cover prescription codeine cough syrup, when you can buy a bottle of Robitussin over the counter that does the same thing.

How many times do I have to tell him "Don't call chicks 'broads'"?

The thing about condoms vs birth control pills.....one you have to have a cooperative male....the other you can do for yourself. I don't know if having the pill as part of an insurance or medicaid type program is right, but I do think the pill is too damn expensive and the fact that it requires a perscription and a full fledged exam by a doctor to get makes it out of reach for some women.

I'm in a long term committed relationship. We aren't ready for kids at all. I take birth control pills because I want to be in control of my own fertility without having to rely on my partner to put on the condom or whatever (not that he's a jerk who wouldn't do it, but you get my point).

My pills are about $45 per month. If I didn't have a lot of disposable income, they would be sacrificed for more important things. It's rediculous that they are so expensive. So, if I'm poor and have an uncooperative partner, should I be forced to get pregnant when I don't want to be just because I cannot afford to be in control of my own fertility? Then people would be whining because they have to support me and my kid on WIC and welfare. Seems like a cheaper pill solves a lot here.

It's very cheap to control your own fertility. It's called "not having sex."

You hate being zinged, don't you? :tlol:

But then u can't feel the puzzy :oops:

While I think Rush's comments were out of line to Ms. Fluke, I do think he has a point in some aspects. Yes, birth control is expensive and hard to get for some women, but you have to understand that there are a lot of conservatives out there who don't believe in birth control. Their belief is to wait until marriage to have sex. Honestly, I think that the idea of paid contraception is ridiculous when you can go to a store and get condoms all you want. While I do think birth control should be cheaper, I really doubt the taxpayers are going to allow that, especially the conservatives. That's just the way it is.

As for me, I'm all for birth control and contraceptives, but I can see that this debate is going to be a lost cause because of the conservatives and their beliefs. We have so many other important issues right now such as the economy and lack of jobs, but this is the thing that people are focused on. People make me sick. They really do.

Yeah? Not everyone is a frigid b!tch. Should someone in a marriage or relationship not have sex just because they don't want to procreate? sounds terrible. Bonding with your partner through sex is about more than procreating.

All I'm saying is that a female should be allowed to have sex if she chooses and should not have to rely on a man to be in control of her fertility. I hate when politicians (of any flavor) act like women are terrible for having sex or are immoral or whatever when half of them if not more run around having affairs.

I doubt you even know what that means. But I'll give you that, your weird world views are an endless source of hilarity.

I do remember seeing on television years ago about an old woman who was a child during the Great Depression who remembered overhearing her parents argue about sex. The wife didn't want to have sex out of fear of having more children and her husband was quite upset about that.

As far as Sandra Fluke is concerned, if she can afford to go to Georgetown University, she can pay for her contraceptives. Unless she is forced to constantly have sex, her behavior is her own responsibility.

Yes, I know exactly what it means. It means you're upset that I made a joke about (presumably) your favorite political commentators.

As far as my world views are concerned, they're based on a concept called "reality". FOX News may not tell you what you want to hear, but that doesn't mean they don't tell the truth.

Thank you grandpa, you teach me so much. I feel enlightened.

You're welcome, sonny.

Lots of people use birth control for even more things besides preventing pregnancy, such as:
-acne
-menstrual cramps
-heavy periods
-PMS
-irregular or total lack of periods due to a number of reasons, particularly those with damaged ovaries from chemotherapy

And even if the pill did NOTHING else but prevent pregnancy, it's still incredibly important that it's covered by insurance. Sex is natural and healthy and important to many people. Condoms don't work for everyone.

I don't give a sh*t who believes in waiting until marriage. It's my body, not anyone else's. If you want to wait until marriage to have sex, that's your own business. I don't care. I'm not going to force you to take birth control and have sex. So don't you dare force me to go without it.
And wow, "that's just the way it is!" LOL LET'S NEVER CHALLENGE ANYTHING, EVER. THAT'S JUST THE WAY IT IS, GUYS.

And yeah, people make you sick? You poor poor thing. How dare anyone be concerned with controlling their own body and fertility when there are OTHER PROBLEMS IN THE WORLD? I guess you can only ever be upset about one thing at a time. Poor you.

omg you guys sex is ONLY FOR BABIES and only for privileged heterosexual people GEEZE
http://i43.tinypic.com/jt6z9g.gif

You make the point that contraceptive medicine is for medical purposes other than preventing pregnancy as well. But guess what? Sex may be pleasurable, but it's not a right, any more than it is a right to smoke cigarettes and get lung cancer or other health problems. Society doesn't have to pay for your personal irresponsibility.

i'm just gonna leave this here

But guess what?

Sometimes I wonder if this Rush person is real, or just some jokers making fun of the US by faking a politician... :ohwell:

beat me to it.

But yeah, birth control pills are, at least here in Norway, recommended to girls and woman that have so severe menstrual pain that they are bed ridden during their period. and the stuff mentioned by Hannah.

And in Norway girls in age 16-19 get birth control pills free as long as they have a prescription

Hannah, I agree with you. I'm not saying that I believe in sex until marriage. I don't. But there are people out there who do. I'm just being realistic about it. Conservatives aren't going to allow this to happen. You can challenge it all you want, but you're just going to lose when it comes to this issue. People don't want to look at it the way others do. The problem with this country is that people forget that we all have different belief systems. They would rather we all believe in one certain thing and proceed to shove that down our throats.

Plus, there are other ways to have birth control besides the pill such as Mirena and Nuvaring. So, if all else fails, you could always do something like that if you want to. And I know about birth control being for other things. My sister went on it because of her irregular periods. She went off it for a time after her periods became more regular, and I'm not sure if she's still on it or not. But for a lot of people, they see birth control as only one thing and that's what they focus on.

This is completely beside the point. Rush isn't forcing his views upon anyone; in fact I find that it's the liberals who are often worse about trying to suppress views they don't like. I say that from what I see. He criticizes (legimately IMHO) Fluke and gets shouted down for it. Who's the real "shove it down your throats" types?

In any case, my original point still stands. You have the right to have sex, but you have to take your own responsibility for it. Or to put it in more concrete terms: You have the right to go skiing, but you don't have the right to receive free ski equipment from the government, and you certainly have nobody to blame but yourself if you crash into a tree while going down a hill.

This ^^^^^

I think we're forgetting a key component of the argument, and that's that it's primarily Catholic (and other like minded) employers who don't feel that they should compromise their beliefs by offering contraception on their insurance plans. It's not all conservatives. (I personally have no problem with birth control or other contraception. I'd prefer people be responsible with their sex lives than just have sex without thinking of the consequences) The issue here is should Catholics employers be forced to provide something to their employees that goes against their core beliefs.

Conservatives aren't against birth control being covered, we just think that you shouldn't be enforced by breaching the Bill of Rights.