A nice man is he?
Citrix has joined a growing group of companies who are pulling their advertising from Rush Limbaugh's radio show following his controversial remarks attacking Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke. "Over the past day, we've heard from many great Citrix customers about our advertising on The Rush Limbaugh Show," wrote Brett Caine …
Rush is a personality trying to be a Republican 'shock jock'.
Rush isn't a nice man but is trying to score points with the Conservative Right.
He is also a recovering drug addict. He was arrested and convicted over a drug offense because he was addicted to pain killers.
But here is his quote:
"So, Ms. 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, and I'll tell you what it is. We want you to post the videos online so we can all watch," he said.
Shows he is more of a perv than we thought.
That "jerk DJ" thing is, as I understand, at the core of US radiophonic culture.
The once-Merkin-now-Brit madman-in-chief Terry Gilliam made a great movie around such a person... It's called "The Fisher King" and is obligatory viewing for anyone who wonders what a red dragon in Central Park would look like. Or who wants to see Robin Williams in the buff for that matter (one of the very few flicks that remind you that, yes, Mr Williams is an actor).
...is that Ms Fluke hasn't yet, it would appear, to have instituted legal proceedings against Mr. Limbaugh for slander; over here in the UK, I'd warrant that a suit for defamation of character would by now be the least of his concerns (there being rules on what a presenter may and may not utter over the airwaves), but this is the USA we're talking about, so Ms. Fluke suing Mr. Limbaugh should be the very tip of the iceberg,surely?
Freedom of speech or whatever, radio jocks over there can say some pretty hideous stuff without any comeback all under the protection of the "founding fathers", it's why Americans come over to the UK to launch libel (hence, tourist libel or whatever it's called) as we believe in free speech as long as it's true, or unless you get a super injunction so people can't say what is true, except on Twitter, Facebook etc.
"... we believe in free speech as long as it's true, or unless you get a super injunction so people can't say what is true, except on Twitter, Facebook etc."
The thing is free speech in the US does have limits, the famous example of shouting "fire" in a crowded theater when no fire or other threat exists is one where the "free speech excuse" wouldn't fly particularly far. It also comes to loggerheads when speaking with an "agent of the government" inasmuch as people can, have and will likely continue to go to jail for lying to an agent, who may be anything from a Senator to a local plod, just ask Martha Stewart or any of the BALCO people. Tangentially, police often lie during interrogations, that's "interviews" or "conversations" in plod jargon, when trying to get a confession in order to trip up the target and catch them in a lie. Note the police aren't obliged to inform you there is an investigation and may act like a friend and it's just small talk or "off the record" while waiting for something else but that wouldn't work so well if they didn't have the "free speech" bit to fall back on.
Nope calling some a slut or a whore on national radio is no actionable the US. Now if he said she is a know hooker or has aids and sleep with men to get them infected. To when a liable,slander or defamation case you must prove that what was said to you was a lie,a 3rd person heard or read it and that it cost harm. Yes being called a slut on radio does not haply as courts have said in simlliar occasions opinions do not count. There is a difference between saying I think he is a pedophile and I know he is a pedophile .
Precisely. If you have any useful snippets about Rush's pedophilia feel free to share. Facts are great, reporting other opinions is OK (e.g. Anonymous Coward said that Limbaugh's a paedo!) but not lies. Lies are bad. Opining abou lies might be OK.
I actually sort of agree with Limbaugh's point that society (through health insurance) paying for birth control is essentially society helping people have sex for pleasure. Yes, there are medical reasons some for the use of birth control, but as a general rule it's about worry-free romping.
However, he's wrong in that we're not paying people to have sex. We know they're going to have sex. We're actually paying to reduce unwanted breeding, which, as Freakonomics fans will know, causes crime.
* I feel dirty
But it's precisely those people that do need this medication to control what can be really devastating conditions such as ovarian cysts and endometriosis who should be the focus here. These conditions are more common that you think, and a great many people take the pill for all kinds of reasons other than to prevent pregnancy.
Why should these people be at such a disadvantage (potentially missing days of work every month due to pain, or even becoming infertile) just because their medication also happens to be used for purposes that some people do not condone?
At the extreme end of the argument, pain relief can be used to do yourself great damage or even kill yourself, which I'm sure is not condoned by all sorts of religious groups. Does that mean that pain relief should also be banned because 'paying for pain relief is essentially society helping people to become addicted to drugs (or worse)'?
As with anything, it requires case by case assessment and regulation, not blanket cover reactionary bile. That's even before we start on whether people should have free access to contraception.
"I actually sort of agree with Limbaugh's point that society (through health insurance) paying for birth control is essentially society helping people have sex for pleasure. Yes, there are medical reasons some for the use of birth control, but as a general rule it's about worry-free romping."
There's another very good reason for providing birth control to people. It reduces the rate of abortions.
Anything worth having is worth paying for YOURSELF.
I do not want to pay for your "romp", and neither do I want to pay for Ms. Fluke fun and games. It seems absurd that with drug stores able to supply her with ample of her needs that we should be required to pay for them.
Maybe the next step would be to start and insurance program with premiums based on her use.
Rush was wrong in calling her a prostitute. She never took in money to support her sexual escapades. However, she did ask for others to support it. She just threw all of society into the 'friend zone' -- we get to pay for it and hear about it, but are not invited to participate.
Given that she testified in front of Congress that she had enough sex that it cost her $3,000 for birth control, and that apparently, none of her partners had enough of a relationship with her that she could ask (or make) them go at least halfsies on it to defray the costs, the term 'slut' seems perfectly applicable here. This, especially in that the pills she is talking about cost $10 to $12 a month in the States at a Planned Parenthood clinic. We're still trying to figure out how one spends 3 Large on birth control a year without hiring a proxy to have the sex for you. It wouldn't cost her much more to get the tubes tied. If she started a kickstart for it, I'd gladly kick in a few.
Personally, I think she belongs on Jerry Springer's show. Can just see the teaser for that episode: "Next on Springer: She sleeps with so many strangers, she's going broke on birth control!" Just throw in a few toothless cousins and you've accomplished the 'Lesbian Hillbilly Incest' trifecta.
The PH icon is too good for her. PH may be game for many, many romps in the sack, but at least she doesn't expect me to pay for it.
Which is covered by his health insurance. In fact, drugs for impotence in MEN are routinely covered by insurance, and always have been. (Rush, by the way, was once held by authorities at an airport because he had the prescription written in his doctor's name, rather than his own, for reasons of "privacy". Meaning the authorities thought he was taking someone else's medication illegally.)
So Rush believes, apparently, it's acceptable for someone pay for HIM being able to have sex, but unacceptable, say, for a married woman who could not survive another pregnancy to have sex without worrying about dying, because she can't afford the pills herself?
Rush and others seem to think men have a right to sex, but women don't have a right either to have sex OR be responsible enough NOT to let it lead to unwanted pregnancy.
All of which is beside the real point: We're not talking about making the Catholic Church provide or endorse birth control. We're talking about a very few, vocal, Catholic founded non-profit, tax exempt corporations THAT RECEIVE STATE AND FEDERAL FUNDING.
Federally funded non-profits may NOT deny certain health coverage on the basis of the religious beliefs of the parent organization. The institutions in question were simply being required to follow the same rules and laws as EVERY institution receiving government funding.
Even more stupid: Most of the Catholic-founded non-profits in the country already HAVE health insurance, covering millions of non-Catholic employees, that DOES cover birth control, hormone treatment, hysterectomies, even vasectomies. Their Catholic employees may choose not to use it, but the company may not refuse it..
If other employers tried to deny certain coverage based on, say, the religious beliefs of their founders and executives, a Catholic company president might refuse to include coverage for hysterectomies or vasectomies, because those prevent procreation permanently.
Again, NO non-profit employer may deny a particular drug or treatment on the basis of the parent organization's religious beliefs. On the flip side, neither can the government force an actual CHURCH to include birth control in the health insurance offered to their paid staff.
Hospitals and clinics are not churches. They are not places of worship. They receive government funding, and in signing the contract to receive it agree to certain terms.
The President should not have backed down. He should have insisted the whining institutions obey the law like every other institution affiliated with a religious organization, Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, etc. Just because they yell loudly doesn't mean they aren't trying to breach their contract and break Federal law.
And Rush Limbaugh is even more of a bigot for trying to turn the argument around. He vilified a woman who was only saying the law should apply to everyone, that health care provided must be consistent for ALL federally funded corporations, for both men and women, and for all citizens in general, not at the whim of insurance companies. And that an employees' OWN freedom of worship and belief may not be denied or dictated by their employer, especially not when denial of a Constitutional right also may threaten their health or life.
Rush Limbaugh is merely being himself here, perfectly in keeping with the rest of his career and his entire philosophical outlook. So why has it taken these companies so long to realize that he was "not representing their values"? For the most part, he was representing their values perfectly, I would say.
This is less an indictment of Limbaugh (no indictments necessary, I would say) and more of corporate advertising in America. The latter will sponsor the worst kind of rightwing populist tripe that regularly slurs whole sections of society - especially because Limbaugh advocates free-market economic values - and only pulls back its financial support in those rare cases when an extreme outpouring of public anger occurs, and when US law has no choice but to actually take an interest in the case of one single slurred individual.
The fact that it takes a rare lawsuit to finally cut this guy's financial support after all those many years on the air...FAIL, America. Just fail.
Sounds like certain so-called broadcasting "personalities" (I use the word loosely) here in the UK, who seem to think they can get away with saying anything on the air. However, the situation has been known to bite back and so it should in the States. The man is obviously an out-and-out bigot, if the reports are to be believed and should be given his marching orders pronto - never to darken the doors of broadcasting again.
Once in a blue moon I agree with his POV. His comment was inappropriate though not slanderous IMO. He is entitled to his opine of Fluke. You'd need to prove in a U.S. court that his comment was intended to cause harm - which may be impossible to prove and was not necessarily his intent. He may be of the opinion that a college student who needs $3000 to pay for her contraceptives is more sexual active than she should be? He's entiteled to that opinion just as she's entitled to screw every guy she can find.
As far as her testifying that tax payers should pay for her contraceptive costs, there is no way in Hell anyone is "entiteled" to this type of payment - period. If she want's to have sex then she is free to do so and she's also free to pay for her contraceptives.
Rush's target was a student lawyer who was trying to explain how contraceptives can have genuine medical health uses. She was citing the case of a patient who lost an ovary because she was denied contraceptives that would have prevented the damage! Limbaugh appears to be wilfully and deliberately distorting the story to present it as "This student wants to have lots of sex!" instead.
The student lawyer herself was merely providing testimony on behalf of someone else.
Get it now?
"His comment was inappropriate though not slanderous IMO. He is entitled to his opine of Fluke."
By the same standards I am entitled to opine about your sheep-shagging habit and the fact that you probably eat newborn kittens alive. Your mother couldn't afford contraception, when she clearly should have used it more often.
Now imagine I could have broadcast this "opinion" to a few million rabid rightwingers, half of them armed, rather than a few hundred geeks (if I'm lucky) or one moderator (which is more likely).
AC, because off all those armed, right-wing geeks...
Equally, you could make a similar dubious comment about a banker/politician/company director to a bush of plastic explosive, petrol bomb wielding anarcho-Maoist-socialists and in some people's eyes, that's ok.
Apparently socialists are allowed to be offensive, while right wingers are always instantly accused of being fascists. Ain't hypocracy marvellous?
AH as I don't want a petrol bomb in my lap come the revolution for expressing an opinion contrary to some self righteous champagne socialist.
you dumbass retard. Read the fucking article. It wasn't so she could have sex. It was that the prescribed medicine had a contraceptive effect, for a gay student. Shels not getting pregnant is she?
Limbaugh is a fat c*** and the sooner the bloated shite has an embolism the world will be a better place.
There is a russian saying: "Sviato mesto pusto ne byvaet".
Which roughly will translate as: "The cosy chair shall not stay empty".
Even if all Limbaughs, Le Pen's and Zhirinovkij's or Volen Siderov's get an embolism it will take couple of days tops for a replacement to be found.
Not at all. She is NOT a prostitute and Limbaugh had to apologise.
He, on the other hand, IS on the portly side, HAS made himself fair game for comments on his own character, and it is at least arguable that the world would be a better place if he (and all like him) were dead.
Of course in the US a student pays for their medical insurance either directly or through their family or employer because unlike the UK there is no National Health Service free at the point of delivery.
The case she wanted to discuss during the hearing was about a gay student refused contraceptive treatment to prevent damage to her ovary and therefore the argument it was a contraceptive treatment is a bit spurious (why would a gay student need to worry about getting pregnant with a partner of the same sex??).
Rush Limbaugh also supports those states who have introduced mandatory assault on women through forcing them to have an ultrasound wand forced in to their vagina when they say that want to have an abortion. This is so that they are forced to hear the foetal heartbeat.
Sorry Rush has no defence other than the failure of American law.
It looks like the "slut" epithet came from her claim that she couldn't afford $1000 per month in contraception and so needed her ($23,000 per term) Catholic university to bundle it in with the education. Needless to say, $1000 buys a hell of a lot of contraception - some people have calculated how many condoms it would cover, which worked out at 5 or more per day. With 'The Pill' actually about $20/month commercially, and available free from a lot of places thanks in part to existing government funding (Public Law 91-572, passed under Nixon) her tale doesn't ring true anyway. From other accounts, it seems she's an activist with an axe to grind about insurance plans which don't bundle 'free' contraception - maybe that's driven by this ovary tale, or maybe she just made it up to get headlines.
It also seems to be all over the news now that Limbaugh has apologised for his comments, which is good I've never actually listened to his show, but it does sound as if he's pretty much a radio troll with his over-the-top wording. If he'd just pointed out that maybe someone coughing up over $70,000 per year in tuition shouldn't let her "friend" lose a body part for want of $20/month or a lift to the nearest Planned Parenthood to get it free, he'd have had a point - but then I suppose he wouldn't have the massive audience and all the headlines ...
Catholic institutions flatly refuse to provide care that can be regarded as "contraceptive." That happens to be why Catholic Healthcare West is now Dignity Health, a medical falling out about whether a doctor can make immediate need-based medical decisions or has to consult the Pope first. The $1,000/mo figure is not for contraception; it's for a non-Catholic - non religious aligned - health insurance that would cover her needs. As it is, the student program at a Catholic University will only provide the care options that the church deems "moral." Contraception would run somewhat over a tenth that cost, but considering that the purpose of the prescription was not contraception, you might have a hard time determining what it might cost.
Many plans would cover what she says her friend needs, but none sponsored by a Catholic institution would.
But not necessarily true.
20$ contraception can easily become 2000$ in the US system once it has gone through the insurance and medical system and is being administered as a part of a formal treatment regimen.
I for once am not surprised by the price tag.
Also, there is the erroneous assumption of per month, it may be one-off - an implant. In fact that is more likely in a medically administered case under prescription. That is a few hundred to start with, throw in the 500 which you just "leave at the door" every time you visit a US doctor and voila - here is your 2000. It is not monthly though - it is once up front for a year to 5 years depending on the type, location, etc. If the subject had some complications to start with forcing extra observations or regular checkups you may be looking at more than 2000.
"20$ contraception can easily become 2000$ in the US system "
Meh. Most co-pays on prescriptions are $10 or $20. Most generics are $5 to $10. It is easier to just pay the actual price and avoid the insurance -- and your pharmacist/chemist will tell you that, as it is a LOT easier for them to just adjust their price so they don't have to screw with filling out a sheaf of forms and get paid in 9 months for 1/6 of the cost...
Not accurate - the co-pay on one of my medications, when I had health insurance, was $20 for the generic.
Now I no longer have insurance, the lowest price available for the same generic, same dosage, is $110 a month - over 5 times as much. It's not a medication I can do without.
People don't realize how much their insurance covers until they are without it...most companies are budgeting at least $400 per employee, and it's that low only because they are getting basically a volume discount.
As for the Catholic University's student health care refusing to cover contraceptives for any use, they are in violation of Federal Law, because they receive Federal funding. They also receive State funding. They are a tax-exempt non-profit institution, not a church. Their students are not all Catholic, nor are they required to be, nor are members of the staff or faculty.
The majority of Catholic and other "religious" universities around the country also receiving government funding. They ALSO ALREADY INCLUDE CONTRACEPTIVES IN THEIR STUDENT AND EMPLOYEE HEALTH COVERAGE. As they are required to.
Some religious colleges and universities choose NOT to receive government funding - that is, TAXPAYER dollars. Many operate as private instituttions, not non-profit tax-exempt corporations. In those cases, they MAY, in fact, refuse to include certain treatments and medications in a health care plan (though many of those at least realize estrogen/progesterone treatments are not given only for contraceptive reasons).\
But any non-profit corporation accepting government funding must comply with state and federal law. The Catholic University in question is still breaking the law...and doing it with money paid by taxpayers of every religion. But then, what do you expect from a religion that protects pedophiles?
The fact that you didn't spot this was about a serious health matter, not about having sex without getting pregnant, nor even that a second person was involved, and the contraceptives were never intended for the person that Limbaugh attacked, shows that you did not read or comprehend what was written in front of your face.
It is however only my opinion that you are a shit-for-brains prejudiced arsehole moron.
As many people have already pointed out to the other moron in this thread, the contraceptives were NOT FOR HER USE, but were for another student who urgently needed them for STRICTLY MEDICAL REASONS. Well, who used to urgently need them until the failure of the college to provide them caused her ovary to be destroyed, but I'm trying not to over-complicate things for your pathetic little brain.
... But then if you take issue with that, wouldn't Rush's activism be an equal or greater problem for you? It's certainly more overt and has a louder megaphone.
What everyone seems to overlook is that this is NOTHING TO DO WITH CONTRACEPTIVES. Rush and the Republicans have no issue with contraceptives. What this is about is attacking the Affordable Care Act (aka 'Obamacare'), along with furthering their principal party objective of making Obama a one-term President by utterly fscking up anything that might be remotely helpful to voters or the economy. But as a prominent Republican observed recently in a NYT opinion piece, attacking sex is probably not a winning strategy. Sex is still very popular.
And obviously not for any treatment involving certain hormones which are used in contraceptives, even if that will lead to sterility. Oestrogen and gestagen reduce the risk of ovary and uterus cancer. So since the poor lady lost an ovary and a treatment containing something which is used in contraceptives, we might assume that she had ovary cancer.
IMHO nothing to joke about, even if your catholic.
Actually, though the Catholic church does not allow condoms or other contraceptives to be used to prevent pregnancy, it recognizes that it is preferable to spreading disease. If your intent in wearing a condom is to prevent the spread of HIV then this is considered less immoral than unprotected sex, though still considered less preferable than abstinence.
The same would be said of taking an oral contraceptive if the intent was one of mitigating an existing illness rather than preventing conception. Indeed the pill itself would not be considered evil only the use to which it is put could become so. Taking a drug to treat an illness is a good thing, regardless of what other uses that drug could be put to.
See http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11804798 for some coverage.
RECENT comments? SEEM inconsistent? Did these advertisers just parachute into U.S. talk radio yesterday? He's been a pompous asshat making his living kicking anyone he dislikes (for the most part, anyone not(white + male + het + rich + to the right of Atilla the Hun)); why all the clutched pearls and feigned offense NOW? The saddest part of this is the number of people who listen to him and just open their heads to whatever vitriol he pours into them.
Also, note that he doesn't say a darn thing about taxpayers paying for Viagra and other erectile dysfunction meds (it's covered by Medicare, Medicaid, and other gubmint health plans) -- who's paying whom to have sex? (Rising rates of STDs among senior citizens, attributable in part to Viagra's "magic wand"/ "raising the dead" effect, is a dirty little secret at nursing homes.) And, HELLS NO, I don't want to see videos of Rush rocking his raisins on the public dime, EWWWWW!
I think you'd be surprised. Some listen because it's like watching a traffic accident -- horrifying but mesmerizing -- and others listen, agree with parts of it, but take him for a blowhard who is very, very good at what makes talk radio tick, and knows just how to play a controversy (or even create one) for maximum effect. He trolls a nation -- and some 12 million listen every day. That's 1 in 25, or 4% of the nation.
I'd say that the actual Rush zombies are scarce -- but there are those who find him as entertaining as a Keith Olbermann or Schultz -- who follow pretty much the same principles, just from the other side of the street, ideologically speaking. I can't take him, personally -- I think he's a blowhard, and so off the wall with his 'facts'* that you simply can't rely upon him to interpret a given situation rationally.
* -- entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts...
Unlike your selfless POV that you shouldn't have to donate to the less fortunate directly if the gov't is already supporting them? Don't talk about anyone being a sociopath when liberals are the most lifeless, bloodless, soulless people I know.
As to Rush, you people are so stupid. He doesn't actually believe what he says on the radio. He's the prototypical shock jock, hoping to cause outrage on one hand and laughter on the other. If you could loosen your sphincter long enough to relax, you'd realize he's a charlatan just like Jon Stewart, Al Franken, Stephen Colbert and all these other "infotainers".
The one who spouts bigoted shit and then any time his big mouth gets him into trouble claims not to really mean anything he says....
... or the one who believes him when he pulls out that feeble excuse?
Hint: If he's a big idiot who doesn't mean anything he says, why do you believe what he says when he says he doesn't mean anything he says? Just what exactly is your criteria for accepting some of his statements and dismissing others? Meantime, I'll operate on the principle that he said it so he meant it.
Incidentally, you might like to try out your theory next Friday night. Just go into the nearest bar, find the biggest meanest ugliest looking drunk in the room, then go up to him and call him gay or insult his mum. Next, tell him he's an idiot for getting so overexcited and he should have known you didn't mean anything you were saying. Report back to us on whether you are still held accountable for what comes out of your mouth, or whether you can say anything you want to people and simply deny responsibility for it by claiming it was all a big joke.
Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot.
Don't give the loudmouth any press ... it's what he's after. Rewarding bad behavio(u)r is contraindicated in pet training, child rearing, and political commentards.
Al Franken, ISBN 0-385-31474-4 if you're interested. Surprisingly, it's a good read, in a mid-1990s political theater kind of way.
Ludicrously late recognition of Rush Limbaugh's qualities by firms whose only concerns are not what they state, but merely whether anything affects their profits. For those of us who have known about Rush Limbaugh, he has never changed in well over 15 years of broadcasting, and, indeed, is the subject of a book ("The Bum's Rush: The Selling of Environmental Backlash. Phrases and Fallacies of Rush Limbaugh" by Don Trent Jacobs) that aims to teach people critical thinking: his contributions are the bases of many illustrations of fallacious and poor arguments in the book. The book hopes that by showing these flawed arguments up for what they are, people can better avoid them and recognise them, and it has been used as a textbook in various US universities.
The man could be humorous in what he says to those who can have fun identifying all the fallacies he uses in his acts, but because most of the public is not skilled in critical thinking, his acts have the power to corrupt further and mislead greatly.
His late apology seems disingenuous in the extreme, given that he steadfastly refused to withdraw his comments until the withdrawal of advertising began to hit his media stations wallets; so, given his previous behaviour, I think the apology is likely to be forced and does not refelvct a change of attitude at all, even though he attempts the usual trick of saying "it was meant as a joke".
For every one advertiser that cancels, fifty are lined up to sell, sell, sell, and due to programming considerations, he could not sign them until he got rid of some of the regulars. This actually made him money. He dropped advertisers who were no longer getting the positive results, they gained sales from a sudden show of 'morals'*, and he can sign up a whole raft of new ones for double the rate -- all of whom will benefit from the polarisation he and others create.
Think of it like where we in IT go to work across the street for a better salary, and your replacement in the old position also makes more than you did. Sometimes you need the turnover.
*Honestly -- you people that hate Rush with passion -- would you have bought Citrix' product if you knew that they paid for his show? No? You represent half the market, and they knew that they would NEVER reach you until they had an excuse like this. Now they do, and now they're working *you*. As a very wise person said about other 'free' services -- if the product to you is 'free', then the actual product being sold is *you*.
While she may be a slut, it's not nice to state that in public.
It seems as though this story is being distorted in many ways to rationalize payment for contraceptives. If you can afford law school, then you can afford contraceptives IMO. There are a Helleva lot of people who are homeless and hungry through no fault of their own who can't get the time of day from Bama or Congress. It is absurd to think that this woman or anyone else should be paid for her contraceptives.
Apparently you have been gulled into believing that Limbaugh actually honestly represented the facts of the case. More fool you. The issue is that the college already pays for health care for all its students, but wants to arbitrarily withdraw that insurance in the case of a student who has a serious medical condition that can only by treated by medication that, as it happens, is also useful as a contraceptive.
For Christ's sake. The contraceptives were not for sexual use - the woman in question had polycycstic ovaries, and the hormones in the contraceptive pill/implant helped control it.
Regardless of your blinkered medieval views on birth control, this is a genuine medical treatment for a painful condition. Think of it as a treatment that has the side effect of making one unable to conceive and now try and tell us it shouldn't be covered by insurance.
"I actually sort of agree with Limbaugh's point that society (through health insurance) paying for birth control is essentially society helping people have sex for pleasure. Yes, there are medical reasons some for the use of birth control, but as a general rule it's about worry-free romping.
However, he's wrong in that we're not paying people to have sex. We know they're going to have sex. We're actually paying to reduce unwanted breeding, which, as Freakonomics fans will know, causes crime."
And what's wrong with having sex for pleasure? We're one of a few species on the planet able to enjoy our copulation (3 or 4 others right?). Why does the Christian right seem so intent on denying their own humanity? Their life in the bedroom mug a sad tale to behold.
Ultimately, our goal as humans should be hedonism through invention and devlopment? To use the sense we have to fulfill our desires? To use what resources we have to perpetuate this for as many people as possible?
Sadly these people see pleasure = selfish = sin. Not a balanced equation I feel and it breaks my heart for them.
"Sadly these people see pleasure = selfish = sin."
No. most of them actually don't give a damn whether what you do is a sin or not. Further, why should you give a damn what they think? Look to your own soul -- yours is not my issue. However, what you are doing for your pleasure should be paid for by you. Not me. Am I supposed to pay for your next foray into Disney World? Why? I'm serious. Explain to me why a pleasurable action that is purely voluntary on your part is somehow my responsibility? If you say that this reduces unwanted children, I can always counter that I'd be thrilled to adopt them.
The whole thing is turning into bread and circuses, and that doesn't have a good track record, historically speaking.
As to the 'medically necessary' bit -- the whole thing is just another one of those tortured anecdotes foisted upon a gullible public to scare us into supporting legislation we would never support if we had time to think it all the way through. These things are getting absurd. I suppose she ears her dead sister's false teeth, too?
From my personal experience with that sort of medical plan, you have to prove that you aren't using the 'eeeeeevil' birth control pills in an 'eeeeeevil' way. Not hard to do in that case, she probably had to tell the doc something to the effect that she has hormonal imbalances, a related condition, and give enough information to support that, and sign a paper or two. If her privacy is so important, then find a doctor who will tell you which pils to get, write a prescription for them, and get them at a heavily subsidized cost. Most of these pills are so low-cost that it doesn't pay to fill out the paperwork. The woman's cost her $8 a month. Hardly a deal-killer to pay for out-of-pocket.
It goes without saying that if you go to a Catholic University, that you subscribe enough to their beliefs that you made the decision to spend a hell of a lot of money to attend. Why would, for example, a practising atheist think that the Catholic credo and teachings are so wonderful that they'd choose to pay $500 a credit hour for the inevitable "Catholics are great!" course that such a Uni will slip in? (I'd consider it a monumental waste of time and money, myself) If she wanted the cachet that comes from graduating from a Catholic University, but doesn't want to take the rest of the deal, then she wants to be a fraud. I suppose there is value for a prospective lawyer in impersonating a person who has ethics.
There are PLENTY of non-Catholic Universities out there that would have taken her in as a student without imposing their 'odious' belief system upon her. Of course, with such an alma mater, she couldn't present herself as well to a Catholic as a fellow Catholic.
I get from the article that she was not getting contraceptives, but medication (for some medical benefit primarily for treatment of an illness) that also had a contraceptive (side) effect.
Not sure how that translates into claiming for a contraceptive, or how you can infer anything about the sex life of someone legally representing the ill person from that.
I was going to say this Rush fella is probably just retarded, but given his success, that can not really be true I guess, more he must be a shameless bigot playing to an obviously wide audience I'd guess.
Though I have to say, withholding treatment from a sick person because your belief conflicts with a non threatening side effect is pretty odious too. They should maybe read their bible and look to things like the good Samaritan.
The issue is not about having sex. The issue is who should pay for contraceptives. That should be between the parties having sex. If you have a health care program that pays for it, great. If not then it's up to the people having sex to pay for it. There is no logical reason for the government or tax payers to be paying for contraceptives.
I can't imagine when anyone but the "entitled" generation would get an idea like that.
You're completely right in your first sentence: it's not about having sex. In fact, it's nothing to do with sex. Every other sentence you wrote is irrelevant garbage however.
The student in question - WHO IS NOT THE SAME ONE LIMBAUGH ATTACKED - needed treatment for a serious medical condition that was destroying one of her ovaries. The college refused to cover the treatment because the medication used to treat that condition is ALSO a contraceptive.
So, the argument is not about whether free contraceptives should be supplied to people. It's about whether vitally-needed medical treatment should be supplied to them.
It's also got absolutely nothing to do with whether tax-payers or government should provide the aforementioned vitally necessary medical treatment. It's about whether people's EMPLOYERS should provide medical treatment, and whether, when they are already covering an employee's health needs, they can arbitrarily withdraw the cover on the grounds that they don't like the nature of the treatment. Did you not notice all that stuff in the article about congressional hearings, or did you just skip over it as irrelevant detail?
I can't imagine why anyone would think that their opinion is automatically valid when they haven't bothered to make the most elementary effort to understand what the article said. Maybe it's you who really have a sense of entitlement; a sense that you're entitled to be automatically right in all your opinions, without having to do any of that hard work like reading and thinking things through.
I have no comment on the rights or wrongs of publicly funded contraception (though I believe contraceptives are a good thing), but I was more shocked to learn Cisco, amongst other big names actually advertised on this odious mans radio show.
Pulling out of advertising now, speaks to me that they did not actually find every other vitriolic piece of garbage that came from his mouth offensive in the least. I mean, its a pathetic and utterly transparent move. So I'm supposed to continue believing now that Cisco are not sympathetic to the political views of Rush Limbaugh?
Actually, I feel like I'm only just now realising what kind of company Cisco are and what views they hold. So who else advertises with this troll that I can choose to personally boycott? Since I've never been a listener, I've never been aware.
Just as the occupy protests didn't change anything, neither will boycotting advertisiers. I doubt any of us know what any company's ethical views are unless stated in writing and actually lived.
Rush can act like crackhead but he's entitled to his opinion just as we are in this forum. It was crude to call this woman a slut and he should and did apologize. Beyond that people are off on tangents over the wrong issue. Who should pay for contraceptives is the issue and that isn't government.
The issue is that he used his nationally broadcast radio show as a platform from which to repeatedly, over the course of several days, repeatedly insult, demean, harass and *slander* someone who disagreed with the views he's paid to represent. Not for the first time either. He only backed down with a poor excuse for an apology when his sponsors started to walk out.
Sure he's entitled to express his opinion. It's his 1st Amendment right in fact.
But what he may be about to learn is that freedom of speech doesn't confer freedom of consequences from what you say in public. A long overdue lesson in my opinion. Free speech carries great responsibility and Limbaugh has a long track record of being irresponsible with his words. Until now, he's been able to sidestep the consequences.
If an average office worker were to express those same opinions about a colleague, they'd be escorted out of the building on grounds of sexual harassment, First Amendment regardless.
Yes, a boycott can make a difference. Money talks, far more loudly than any other form of protest. Advertisers *will* leave him if their clients and customers threaten to leave *them* because the whole point of advertising is to gain business, not lose it. Enough advertisers leave and the radio stations which carry his show will have serious pause for thought on whether to continue his contract.
She needs medication for a disease.
The medication has a side effect that means it has a contraceptive effect.
The catholics don’t want to pay for contraception so they are being incredibly dumb and short sighted wont pay for the drug in case a GAY female student uses it as a contraceptive.
I can see why the US is reducing NASA's budget and trying to control all media - they don’t want any of this fuckwittery reaching intelligent aliens. They'd be forced to wipe us out.
US Businesses have to start think very hard about, supporting via advertising extreme Christian views where the ROW are concerned, I was surprised to here the names of the advertisers, certainly buyer concerns will be the driving force as to the risk to impartiality and ethics of such clear advertising support. In essence the US Corps, cannot have their cake and eat it. If you want to be a global player drop the support of extreme unethical politics, time to think of the baseline, the ROW are not interested in so called US Christian Ethics, buyers are concerned that the company we buy from is supports an unbiased approach to all. Simply put multi- culturism and multl-faith ethics are good, on-sided bad. Citrix et all be warned. :)
... i bet you money she'll be getting plenty of calls now from horny guys and gals looking for some of that action needing $3,000 worth of birth control during her lawyer schooling. I knew a few law babes in my time and they may not have been sluts, but they've ravaged a few since.
Of course one of you guys minor writers got it right in Henry The Sixth, Part 2 Act 4, scene 2 with his comment on lawyers. Or was it Frank Bacon who penned it? Hard to tell which.
Also you're yet another one who hasn't read either the article he's commenting on or any of the other comments (re: wrong student, not for contraceptive use, gay in any case). Your point of view was clearly decided without reference to any of the facts, only your pre-existing attitudes. See? See how your prejudice makes you blind and hence stupid? That's what you get for being a bigot. It's your own fault and you deserve it.
No applause for Citrix on this one. Limbaugh has a well documented history and the the fact that they were advertising on his program before this particular incident is a fail for them.
Indeed one wonders what Citrix thought they were achieving anyway. It's not like any of the knuckle dragging nazis who listen to Limbaugh are intelligent enough to use Citrix products anyway.
Did you see what just happened there, on that post and thread ...... The space cadets are playing with media levers delivering really weird tales. :-)
This tale is important for padding/news noise chatter revealing Novel NEUKlearer HyperRadioProActive IT Energisation.
I'm watching this stream of companies, Citrix included getting jumpy and going "Oooh - sorry, we won't advertise with him in future because he expressed an odious opinion" and it makes me slighltly nauseous. Honestly they knew exactly the type of shiock jock they were funding, For them to turn around now and feign surprise makes me feel slightly queazy.
"These customers have expressed their growing concern that some of his recent comments seem inconsistent with the core values Citrix has always stood for – humility, integrity and respect."
I applaud Citrix for dropping their sponsorship of that toxic sack of crap.
But I do have to wonder why, if they're concerned with humility, integrity and respect they ever advertised on his show in the first place. He doesn't know the meaning of any of those 3 words (among others) and never has. Anyone who's ever listened to his shock jock show for more than a couple of minutes would have that figured out long ago.
"Recent comments" "*seem* inconsistent"? He's been an incendiary, arrogant asshat for his entire career, people. It *IS* his career, frankly. This is just the first time he's truly been called out and been hurt by it. It wouldn't surprise me to find that when he says he's "sorry" he really means "I'm sorry my sponsors are leaving me, maybe this insincere apology will help".
No, it won't. I'll be very sure not to do business with anyone stupid enough to keep advertising with him.
Thank God and Allah that people are free to boycott, sue, express their opinion, hate, etc.
The U.S. isn't quite a socialist state yet but Obama and much of Congress is trying their best to make it one. My suggestion is that this woman get in touch with reality. There are lots of medically useful, appropriate treatments that are not covered under healthcare programs. If you need those items then you should expect to pay for them. Don't expect the Catholic church or your government to pay for them. Life is full of challenges and that is one minor one that you need to deal with. Think of the millions of people who never get a chance at a college education because they are poor. All you need to do is buy contraceptives.
Socialism is defined as government moderated (*not* government controlled) economics. Basically Socialism is everything between carte blanche free-market with no regulation and total communism.
IN other words the socialism that Americans rant and rave against is what we've had for a *very* long time.
The entitlement many young people feel is incredulous. Where did they get the idea the world is here to serve them? Last time I checked if you wanted something in this world you had to earn it and/or pay for it. That would apply to contraceptives as well as anything else in life.
More affordable healthcare for the needy would be useful but a free lunch is not practical nor useful. That mentality is why this woman wants to have contraceptives paid for. Many people in socialist countries come to the U.S. for healthcare because the treatment in their country is so poor. I don't think it makes sense to turn modern medicine back 30 years by socializing it.
Most health insurance plans DO cover birth control! Georgetown and other Catholic universities CHOOSE plans that specifically do not. If you don't like the policies of a PRIVATE university concerning healthcare coverage, I have an idea for you.... Pick a different school!
turn modern medicine back 30 years???
51,000,000 people with NO cover
to fund a healthcare "system" that so badly fails it's poulation you need to start looking at the gold coast of africa to find similar 'systems'!
why so many merkins choosing not to take advantage of 'the best healthcare in the world'... cos they cant afford it.
so why's that?
for 1: Merkin HMO's are the worlds MOST inefficient administrators (about 3 times that of medicare)
for 2 because of the way ER's are run - the cost is met by every other procedure carried out on the site. (see that 'free ride' you are so afraid of was there all along - eejit)
reason 1 - HMO's have to spend a lot of money to ensure their point of view is understood in washington. (cant let common sense kill the goose that laid the golden egg now can we)
reason 2 - ERs are overworked because the 50 million uninsured merkins have to wait until their trivial complaints become life threatening before they can seek treatment. this is VASTLY more expensive than early treatment - or prevention, and, incidentally, better for the patient. and why is this - because of mean spirited tightfisted asshats like YOU terrified that someone else might be getting a free ride on your dime.
Given that this batshit crazy fundamentalist 'ideological' thread this comes from is christianity, which has at it's very core the value of (christian) charity - a fact that seems to have escaped ALL american rightwing thought for half a century, tends to make us in the civilised world take your peoples self righteous rantings\mumblings with a significant pinch of salt.
the ONLY health 'tourists' i have ever met have been merkins who found that with diabetes or having survived cancer are un able to get ANY cover under 'the best system in the world' so need to resort to gaming the health services offered by the civilised nations of the world instead.
The us has the 3rd highest health cost as a percantage of GDP in the world, and almost 1 in 5 of the people ARENT EVEN COVERED! and you think this is good???
because if thats the case and seeing as the tide is out right now, i have some great land i'd like to sell you, take it from me it's the best building land in the world!
"Many people in socialist countries come to the U.S. for healthcare because the treatment in their country is so poor." Show proper proof*, and include a list of the countries, or be labelled as a bullshitter.
* That means figures from several reliable sources, which should be peer-reviewed.
What you are seeing is 100% grade A GOP bullshit . If that was the case hospitals would not be closing , instead we would see boom in hospital. Having all of those people paying full price would be a massive increase in profits . When is the last time you have seen an ad for medical tourism in the US ?
Shock Jocks are the Trolls of the radio waves and w ha t this DJ has done is earn every cent of his $400m paycheck. In media there is no such thing as bad publicity and while he may have pissed off a lot of people with his remarks, those same pissed off people are now listeners to see what he will say next. Sure, some advertisers will pull out but there will be others who take their place and will pay more for it because of the now expanded audience. This whole thing was deliberate, to either raise revenue or to increase a declining a audience pool.
Everyone just played into their hands. Don't feed the Trolls!
So many people are led by talking heads they actually forget how to think. It's pathetic. It's no wonder the world has so many problems. I can say however that deciding who should pay for contraceptives is not a significant world issue worth all the foolishness exhibited in this thread and others I have read online.
Was Rush wrong to call the woman a slut? Of course. Does it change anything? No. If the woman's healthcare policy doesn't cover contraceptives she needs to change her policy or pay herself. Why would she expect the church or government to pay for contraceptives? This is completely illogical. Time to get a grip on reality.
Who is this guy, that people purporting to be better than him, do the same thing that this guy is criticized for?
People calling some guy all kinds of names, sometimes inferring death as an alternative, because the guy called someone all kinds of names - that is the height of hypocrisy.
It is no wonder that people left Europe in droves, to find safety in the foreign nations. It is no wonder that Europe was the home of World War II, where Socialists on both sides Eastern Front genocided massive groups of people, because of faith and association.
Words dehumanize and encourage others to murder "less than human" people - yet the same children and grandchildren of the old European mass murderers unwitting claim to be enlightened, yet commit the same evils rhetoric which leads to the same murderous results.
How ashamed I am of the readership.
Anonymous, because of the Stalinists and Nazi Socialists on this blog who typed about a guy calling someone else unkind things would be better dead... while consistently littering the guy with far worse unkind words than what the guy used.
"to find safety in the foreign nations."
go watch heavens gate - think of it as a documentary
"genocided massive groups of people"
discuss that with a navie american.... if you can find one... oh wait a moment.
+1 for creative use of the language though
"because of faith and association"
are you now or have you even been a member of the communist party?
while you're pondering that tell me how many NON churchgoing presidents have there been?
separation of church and state MY ARSE
"Words dehumanize and encourage others to murder "less than human" people"
like gooks and ragheads you mean?
"same children and grandchildren of the old European mass murderers."
that would not be the mass murdurers and camp guards ushered into merca to help with the development of nukes I take it
A word of advice; If you are going to venture out of the shallow end - read a fucking book every once in a while, and just occasionally try to make it someting other then the bible.
Well, then you don't talk to many of them, then. Then again, given the amount of self-righteous BS people dump on them, how would you know if you were -- most won't admit it.
There is a lot of libertarianism in the RP, and that is getting a lot stronger.
The days when you could successfully mischaracterize all Republicans as card-carrying Bible-beating bedroom-peerers is long gone -- I don't even thin that in its heyday of the 80's that it was all that true. I know of MANY atheists in the RP -- as well as agnostics and what-have-you.
As an example, many believe the war on drugs is an unconstitutional failure, and that you *should* be able to buy a *pack* of J's down at the corner store.
Now, the Republican politicians haven't kept up with the times -- they still try the same garbage that supposedly gets people to vote for them but it works better as a way to get them detested. This is why Romney is so soundly hated in his own party. He's just more of the same.
The woman in question Ms. Fluke is a very busy leftist democrat activist.
Her appearance in front of that committee was merely an extension of the leftist mantra of the near Marxist regime now ruling America. That will change in time as well.
The whole contraceptive argument is a Saul Alinsky type of democrat push to change the subject of the failed leadership of Mr. Obama and his staff of tax cheats, socialists, marxists, and communists.
Rush's words were a poor choice to describe perfectly the entire leftist mantra of Ms. Fluke in her testimony. 3000 dollars was mentioned as the amount of money needed to provide Ms. Fluke he contraceptive needs during her tenure at George Washington university. That seems a bit much to me.
Frankly, I don't know who or what Citrix is or was, but I will buy none of their products knowingly after their shortsighted slam of Rush.
"Slutgate" sounds pretty actionable to me. Maybe the wannabe paid liars will be filing against the Reg? Is Sarah Bee is one of those lying bastards who is working to be a paid liar? I'm glad that beeitch is gone. She acts just like these free-loading bimbos who want other folks to pay for their contraceptives.
This has been a put-up job from the get-go. The "23" law-student, Fluke, is more likely 30. She graduated with her undergrad degree in 2003. A WaPo story on her BEFORE she was to testify has this excerpt:
"Fluke came to Georgetown University interested in contraceptive coverage: She researched the Jesuit college’s health plans for students before enrolling, and found that birth control was not included. “I decided I was absolutely not willing to compromise the quality of my education in exchange for my health care,” says Fluke, who has spent the past three years lobbying the administration to change its policy on the issue. The issue got the university president’s office last spring, where Georgetown declined to change its policy."
If the story about her anonymous cherished "friend" who lost her ovary due to the pernicious policies of the Georgetown administration are even true, it begs several questions:
1. Why did Women's Contraceptive Rights Champion Sandra Fluke do nothing to assist her?
2. Why did she not go to Planned Parenthood or any of the numerous free clinics in the DC area?
3. Where were the woman's family and friends during this time?
So we are to believe that the woman had a serious medical condition, went to the university clinic, got turned down, and went "gee, I guess that's that." ?????
Come on sheeple. Whatever your opinions of Rush Limbaugh, this entire story stinks. And it isn't the unkind words of Rush Limbaugh that are smelling up the place.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019