Rush Limbaugh Finally Sh**ts The Bed.

Mark Greene has a message for Rush Limbaugh and the men who are beating up on women over birth control: You are cowards.

We are looking at a turning point in the career of Rush Limbaugh. I know its been said before, but his latest tirade against women who are asking for access to birth control in their health plans is stoking a backlash against women that is vastly more hypocritical than any of his previous forays into the toxic realm of wedge-issue politics.

The man has outdone himself. And I think I know why.

The likes of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and other commenters of their stripe used to have the divisive, binary world of extra crazy single-issue politics to themselves. (I won’t label these guys as right wing because the right/left political divide is just more binary labels designed to set Americans against each other.) But regardless of how you label these guys, things have changed. The GOP Presidential field has raised the anti-government, anti-immigrant, pro-birther, election-by-paranoid-wedge-issue ante so high that folks like Rush Limbaugh need to push even further into crazy land just to be heard above the general din of hyper-religious, hyper-reactionary political rhetoric that has taken over the Republican Presidential primary.

But Rush really did shit the bed this time. Why? Because he has made the point several times that Americans should not have to pay for birth control for “sluts”. Did I get that right? I think I got that right.

But let’s let Rush speak for himself. In the following quote, Limbaugh responds to testimony by Sandra Fluke before an unofficial Congressional panel. Fluke was talking about the challenges of paying for contraception at a Jesuit University which will not provide it as part of student health plans.

“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. What does that make us? We’re the pimps.”

First, I will quickly note that Sandra Fluke gets health insurance because she is a student at the university and has opted for that coverage. She is not asking for people to “buy her birth control”. She is asking that it be part of her health plan. A reasonable request.

But forget that. That’s like, a sane argument in an insane world and I’m not gonna get bogged down in talking logic to the crazy squad. I have seen more INSANE posts on the net this week by men who are “not going to pay for sluts to have sex”. These rants are everywhere. And what I note more than anything else about these posts is the rage. I mean these comments boil over with rage; rage that is way out of scale with the issue of birth control. Rage by men against women.

And let me take a moment to say something very clearly here. You guys who are saying this stuff? You are not men at all. You’re cowards. Because real men don’t beat up on women. Ever. You can share your opinions if you like in a civil and gentlemanly way, but this stuff you’re doing is disgusting.

As for Rush destroying his career, he’s unleashed a firestorm of woman haters. And he’s unleashed it on the issue of sexual intercourse between unmarried men and women. And ten thousand raging nut jobs are out there are now insulting every woman on the net.

And this is my favorite part: Its all being linked to the Republican Party. Why? Because the GOP refused to allow Fluke to speak before their house committee on contraception and religious liberty. A panel that created yet another twitter firestorm when the folks who were allowed to address the issue of contraception before this Republican controlled committee turned out to be all men. The photo of those five schmucks circulated ten billion times. And women love that “men telling them what to do with their bodies thing”. They just love it.

So here’s Rush and that big bed of his that he has so thoroughly shat. The problem Rush has unleashed is two fold. One, is the INSANE level of hypocrisy that is landing right at his front door. Rush says women who are requesting birth control as part of their health coverage are sluts. And this begs a very clear and simple question. Has Rush Limbaugh ever had sex out of wedlock? Ever? Did he ever fumble with some girl’s bra strap in the back of his dad’s Ford? Did he ever find his way into some women’s bed in college? Did he ever engage in sexual intercourse with any one of his four wives BEFORE he entered into the blissful state of holy matrimony? It is four, right?

And two, Rush has managed to crystalize the horror of a Republican world for every woman in America. The issue of abortion rights has always been a darker more ambivalent issue for many women. But birth control? These guys want to take away birth control? And thanks to Rush we can see the agenda for what it is. We can see the ugly anti-women mindset that lurks behind the “religious freedom” argument. It ain’t about religious freedom, it’s about sluts, whores and prostitutes.

And having birthed this refreshingly honest display of his ilk’s true attitude toward women, Rush is going to get what’s coming to him. The media elites are going to do their cold cynical math on this one. They’re going to calculate the damage control, look at the numbers and they’re going to cut bait on Rush Limbaugh. Because he just lost them the 2012 Presidential and Congressional elections.

And here’s an added note on the cost of providing “universal free birth control” via private or public insurers.

Maggie Mahar writes the following over at

“if an insurer makes birth control totally free for all of its customers, it avoids having to reimburse them for countless unplanned pregnancies and births. Overall, then, it’s cheaper for the insurer to pay a little upfront to save a ton down the line.”

Read the article here.

So good luck Rush, and don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out to fuck-all-nowhere. Cause it wasn’t nice knowing you. Not at all.

For more on Rush Limbaugh’s sexist tirades, read Matt Crowder’s “A Dad Defends Danica Patrick

For more on Politics and Birth Control, read Lauren Hale’s “How Did We Get to Where We Are in the Political Birth Control Debate? A Short History.”


Photo: AP/Brian Jones

About Mark Greene

Executive Editor Mark Greene’s articles for the Good Men Project have received over 250,000 Facebook shares and ten million page views.

Greene writes and speaks on culture, society, family and fatherhood. His work is a timely and balanced look at the life affirming changes emerging from the modern masculinity movement.

Greene writes and speaks on men’s issues for the Good Men Project, the Shriver Report, the New York Times, Salon, the BBC and the Huffington Post.


  1. I think the message that Rush put forward about Ms Fluke was lost in the absurdity he was making. I think any woman that wants birth control should use it whenever they want. The issue I have with Ms Fluke, is why is it societies responsibility to pay for your birth control? If the man your lying down with can’t afford to provide you birth control, you may want to reconsider lying down with him. What if the birth control fails??? He will be the father of your child!

    Honestly people, taxes are collected from human beings to fund our government. Our government has spent way more than it can collect and we have people like Ms. Fluke that thinks we all owe her birth control? Whatever happened to personal responsibilty?

    • Sandra Fluke was advocating that birth control should be covered by health insurance (which policies are paid for by the insured and/or their employers) not that the government should GIVE her FREE birth control. It had nothing to do with “government handouts” or “free” anything. Honestly, try getting the facts straight before being so condescending to everyone on the comment board with whom you might disagree.

      • Poester99 says:

        You seem to miss the cause and effect. The government mandating that all private insurance cover birth control (meaning no organization can “opt out”) is exactly the same as “government should (be/is) GIVE(ing) her FREE birth control”, by proxy. To explain, If the government mandates that something MUST be included then it is making it effectively FREE for the recipient while making someone else have to figure out how to pay for it.
        I dunno, maybe they can toss that less important prostrate cancer screening.

        • Except the government isn’t mandating specific premiums for health insurance policies. So perhaps it’s a difficult regulatory burden forcing insurers to come up with a cost structure that will be competitive enough to keep customers, and still include mandated coverage (even though all insurers will bear the same burden). It is NOT however a handout, and it is not “effectively free:. Insurance companies always have and always will pass on costs to the insured–and contraception costs a hell of a lot less than pregnancy and childbirth anyway. Besides, whatever rhetorical twists you apply, you can not make anything that Sandra Fluke said mean that she wants the government to give her free birth control.

      • Thanks for jumping right to name-calling when you don’t agree. The government forcing all of us to insure ourselves is another form of taxation but, If you insist, I stand corrected. Let me re-phrase my post again …..

        I think the message that Rush put forward about Ms Fluke was lost in the absurdity he was making. I think any woman that wants birth control should use it whenever they want. The issue I have with Ms Fluke, is why is it societies responsibility to pay for your birth control? If the man your lying down with can’t afford to provide you birth control, you may want to reconsider lying down with him. What if the birth control fails??? He will be the father of your child!
        The reality is, if Ms. Fluke wants her health insurance to cover her birth control, it is only as far away as her next premium. There are tons of plans out there that cover your birth control BUT the premium is higher! Compare this to your Auto insurance. Most of us can’t afford to cover our car for ANYTHING that can go wrong with it. Most of us insure our cars with accident coverage. There are policies out there to insure your car for any other failures but they are very expensive. Honestly people, health insurance premiums are collected from us and other human beings to fund our health insurance programs usually as a group. There is as many different health plans out there as there are companies. The real issue here is getting politics involved. If Ms. Fluke is trying to get politicians to make a law to save her money, that money she is saving comes out of another person’s pocket.
        I’m old enough to know that it is my responsibility to take care of my family. I know it is my responsibility to raise my kids. I know it is my responsibility to take my kids to the doctor when they are sick. And, I know it is my responsibility to settle the cost with the doctor after a visit. The idea that I am entitled to the money in someone else’s pocket is not Freedom. Freedom comes with being responsible for yourself and family. If you want the government to control all, this is not freedom. It can fall into many different categories such as, socialism, communism, tyranny, dictatorship, ect. SO be careful of what you ask for ….. you may be enslaving your future generations to a government that is not free. America was started to hand their freedom in for a far reaching government and I see lots of my fellow Americans wanting to give freedom up, just to save a feww bucks, to an all powerful government. FREEDOM and Government are opposites. The more you have of one, the less of the other. Any government big enough to take money out of my pocket and give it to someone else is big enough to stop providing protection for you at anytime and give it to someone else.

  2. Ah, yes, the “anti-Planned Parenthood” movement…they only netted (profited) $18.5 million in 2010.

  3. Linda Rosenthal says:

    I can’t take time to read every comment here in case this has been covered… Even though I am generally in favor of Ms. Fluke’s position, it is possible to work for, or study at, an institution that does not have the same feelings as the Catholic Church along these lines.

  4. That Guy says:

    I don’t understand why this particular incident is the one where Limbaugh “jumps the shark.” Out of all the things he’s said over the years, THIS is the one that’s gone too far? Is it like the straw that broke the camel’s back kind of thing, or is there actually something distinct about this particular brouhaha?

    The public has a goldfish memory about things like this. I expect this will blow over and he’ll just keep right on talking. For years he has constantly crossed the line, generated controversy, took some flak, and then makes even more money the next year. Then we’ll rediscover how obnoxious he is a few months later and wonder again why he’s still on the air. Then repeat.

    He’s made a very comfortable living going too far. Why stop now?

  5. wellokaythen says:

    I think we should treat Rush Limbaugh’s speech and behavior the same way we’ve treated Charlie Sheen’s speech and behavior. Mr. Limbaugh has admitted to being addicted to prescription drugs. He’s clearly been struggling with the effects of substance abuse, just like Mr. Sheen has. He is of course responsible for his own actions, but what we’re watching may be an individual tragedy played out publicly, someone falling apart in front of the whole country. I feel a bit of compassion for him as a human being. Whether he deserves it beyond being a human being is another question.

    Anyway, maybe when he talks it’s the drugs talking?

    • Exactly. Rush Limbaugh is an admitted drug addict and a Vietnam draft dodger…Which is to say he’s an inveterate liar and a coward. No wonder so many people who voted for Bush II support him so vociferously.

      • welokaythen says:

        Technically, everyone’s a liar and a coward, so I can’t quite see the usefulness in saying he is. I was too young to be drafted for Viet Nam. I’m pretty sure I would’ve tried everything I could to get out of going to Viet Nam if I were in that position. I’m not in a position to judge that part.

        (I happen to know a man who dodged the draft, got caught, and got sent ot VN anyway. He’s a draft dodger AND a Viet Nam vet. The ethics of conscription can get pretty complicated.)

    • That Guy says:

      I concur with wellokaythen. I was about to post the same thing.

      This is really just another version of the Lindsay Lohan/Charlie Sheen story. An entertainment celebrity with substance abuse problems acts out in public without much accountability, and we watch the continuing self-destruction of someone who’s emotionally disturbed. Mr. Limbaugh has admitted to being addicted to prescription drugs, so perhaps this story will generate a discussion about drug abuse, though I’m not holding my breath. I’m also guessing that any mention of the birth control pill might trigger Limbaugh’s complicated love/hate feelings about pharmaceuticals.

      If you think of Rush Limbaugh as a political spokesman, then his antics are unforgivable, but if you think of him as an entertainer, which is basically what he is, then it doesn’t look so out of the ordinary. He’s a sit-down comedian. Lohan, Sheen, Limbaugh. Same stuff, different medium.

  6. Richard Aubrey says:

    Your comments are spot-on.
    In addition, normal human beings think it’s kind of odd that Greene and his symps won’t post their contemporary records of their outrage at Maher, Schultz and Letterman.
    You’d think, if they had principles….
    What, am I crazy?

  7. Cindy Binns says:

    I definitely agree that Rush Limbaugh stepped way over the line of civil discourse by calling Ms. Fluke a “slut” and the degrading tirade that ensued thereafter. However, now that this issue of inflammatory and degrading comments directed towards women by those in the media has caught ALL of our national attention, I am curious as to why you wouldn’t take this opportunity here in your column to call out ALL degrading comments by other men in the national media who use the same kind of language…..Bill Maher calling Sarah Palin the C-word several times on his show, and Ed Shultz on MSNBC calling newswoman Laura Ingraham a “right wing slut” are just that come to mind right now. Why isn’t their behavior just as egregious for them as it is for Rush? You are free to write your article with what ever slant you want, but just curious why you are only outraged at Rush and not the others? Or is your intent here only to demonize and marginalize Rush?
    Secondly, you state that…”She is not a asking for people to buy her birth control, she is asking that it be a part of her health plan, a reasonable request.” Of course she is asking “we the people” to buy her birth control!! What do you think this issue is about? Obamacare mandates that I have to buy health insurance. and since female contraception is included in all the plans, the premiums go up. I cannot opt out for another plan under federal order, they are all mandated to offer the same things. This is being FRAMED as a health issue, but you could frame anything as a health issue…let’s see…eating McDonalds could be a health issue…I want to the “you the people” to pay for my gym membership because I ate too many burgers at McDonalds! Where does it stop? What ever happened to personal responsibility?
    And no one is denying women access to birth control…they are free to go get it at Planned Parenthood for free actually, contraception is about $9 at Walmart!
    Let’s not forget another aspect to this issue. Ms. Fluke CHOSE to go to a Jesuit School that because of its religious beliefs does not include contraception as part of its health plan! And now she wants the school with the help of the Obama administration to change this for her! I think it is called separation of church and state! The state cannot intrude on the beliefs of the church, anymore than the church can impose its theology on the people!! I say to Ms. Fluke…go to another school while you still have the freedom to do so….who knows that freedom may be encroached upon soon too!

  8. Poester99 says:

    Well, we now know what the most powerful lobby and voting block is in America today, and it’s not men.

    Funny how the powers that the powers that be have convinced us that we actually have soooo much power, yeah the power to do our duty to be a real man and work till we die of a heart attack…

  9. Richard Aubrey says:

    Mark. So did Ed Schultz, about Laura Ingraham. Maher said Palin was a “cunt”. Your outrage then is on record where? Post it up here. Also, should Obama return Maher’s million bucks?

    And what happened to slut pride, anyway?

    Several years ago, Limbaugh was fixing to buy into something about the NFL. Some folks, including sportwriters, faked up a story that he’d said something like blacks might have been better off in slavery. Not true, but by the time the story ran out of gas, his attempt to become affiliated with whatever NFL thing he was looking at was done for.
    So if you have a principled issue with false accusations, you would have been then and would be now outraged. Snort.

    Goose, meet gander. And quit whining when the same thing you guys do is turned back on you.

    Name calling is not unilateral. Feigned outrage, however, is. And obvious as hell.

    • Artemis says:

      “And what happened to slut pride, anyway?”

      Yeah, you’re not getting that idea.

      I am not allowed to call people the n-word, I am not allowed to call them c*nts, b*tches, or sl*uts. I can’t call anyone a slur at all without being a horrible human being. People are allowed to call themselves whatever they want and take pride in it. So I can call myself a slut and I can refer to my birth control pills as my slut pills and take pride in it. You don’t get to call me a slut unless I say you can.

      So no, you fail at that.

  10. Richard Aubrey says:

    Mark. It is about contraceptives. See Fluke’s words. It’s about the other stuff only in your own mind.

    Who do you think you’re fooling? Jeez.

    The question remains, should Obama return Maher’s million dollars?

  11. Kirsten (in MT) says:

    Yes, Rush Limbaugh has made yet another idiotic statement. I don’t know why we think this is a “shit the bed” moment, though.

    It seems much lower on the totem pole than his call for the death penalty for drug abusers, subsequent to which he himself was able to buy his way out of conviction and punishment for prescription drug abuse. If his career of assholery and idiocy can go on in spite of that, I suspect this won’t do much to harm him either. In fact, this article and all of our comments are probably little more than free publicity for him and a boost to him when he was getting stale.

    • Well, Kirsten. We’ll see. Attacking drug addicts is easy. No one really cares about them. (Sad but true.) Rush’s latest trick is about attacking women. I see it as having a MUCH bigger downside politically for Rush and by extension, for the GOP.

      Oh, and you get the AWARD for posting a comment on that actual subject of my article. Most of these guys posting here are trying to divert the thread to a discussion of contraceptives.

  12. Federal funding for recreational sex? Selective condemnation in the of Bill Mayer? Done Here!!!!

    • Kirsten (in MT) says:

      Federal funding for recreational sex would not be new if birth control were to be covered. I refer to you, for example, to Medicare coverage of Viagra for men, mostly who are not using it for reproductive purposes:

    • Richard Aubrey says:

      Now that I think about it, Maher called Palin a c&*t. Should Obama return Maher’s million bucks?
      Clear point is, when libs do it to conservative women, the ostentatiously sensitive are otherwise engaged. Thing is, they think nobody notices.
      BTW, if public health is an issue that the feds, or at least employer-sponsored health plans must address by providing it free, where’s my red wine allowance?

  13. Richard Aubrey says:

    As I said before, I think it got posted, Bill Maher called Palin a “c^&t, and Eddie schultz called Laura Ingraham a slut.
    Keith Olberman has been a cornucopia of abuse.
    Nice to see your sensitivities finally woke up.
    Melissa. Medical conditions are a different matter. See Julie and Mark and others talking about contraception. You need to get them to knock it off before the cat’s out of the bag.

  14. Melissa says:

    First of all, in her testimony she does not mention the word sex once. The closest she came to that was mentioning a married student who was worried about not being able to afford birth control .. so you would have to have a problem with a married person having sex and then you would refer to a married person who used birth control a slut. Obviously Rush after 4 marriages with no offspring must me either married sluts that use birth control or he is sterile. There are quite a few married students in the world .. both my sister and I were married while going to college.

    Secondly the main thrust of her testimony dealt with women not being able to get hormonal treatment (which is what birth control pills were and are used for, actually they were used for hormone treatment first for several years and then when doctors realized that a side effect was birth control they were then prescribed for birth control) because the insurance companies and employer refused on the grounds that they could be used for birth control. This had nothing to do with sex at all. As I well know since my first ovarian cyst that ruptured was when I was 9 years old and had no sexual contact in my life.

    • Can’t help noticing that no one really cared about this post even though it hit the nail RIGHT on the head. In addition, one of the stories she told in her testimony was about a *gay* friend who certainly wasn’t using contraceptives in order to prevent pregnancy (I hope I do not have to explain what that is…).

      In all of the debates I’ve been watching on this, everyone is hyper-focused on the “sex” part and couldn’t care less about the many, many medical uses that women need. How shocking really…wanting your health insurance to cover a *medical* cost. Soon you’ll be demanding that it cover your allergy medication or the cast for your broken arm…SOCIALISTS!

  15. Richard Aubrey says:

    Regardless of Limbaugh’s take on the pill, the point was that Fluke wants somebody else to pay for her contraception.
    The people in question–Catholics apparently chosen as a target here–don’t like the idea.
    There are several issues: Why shouldl somebody else pay for her contraception? Why should a religious institution be forced to do something against its doctrine when things have been going along pretty well without it?
    Is there anybody who actually believes this is about women’s rights? (ed. No.)

    • Aubrey. Ms. Fluke does not want “somebody else to pay for her contraception” any more than I want “somebody else to pay for my allergy pills”. What we want is for the services we value to be part of our health coverage as we are paying into a risk pool and we would like for our preventative care to be covered. By speaking out, Ms. Fluke wants to encourage all of us to arrive at a public consensus that says birth control is considered of value to enough people (NOT 100%) but enough people that it is included in the coverage she has.

      Your religious issues notwithstanding, more people support her in this than oppose her.

      At this point, I am sorely tempted to offer you two dollars a month to stop talking about your money, because, it is weirdly self-absorbed and does nothing to contribute to the kind of cooperative effort civilized societies need in order to provide health care to all of their citizens.

      • Like.

      • Richard Aubrey says:

        Mark. The money can’t come out unless the money goes in. Hence the absolute, real-world fact that somebody is going to be paying for this, and if it’s the employer, that’s somebody else. Not the employee.
        I don’t have a religious issue about this. Nice try at obfuscation, though. I’m a Presbyterian. For us, even pedophilia is to be understood. Not like voting republican, though.
        Now that I think about it, I may have to repeat this. The money can’t come out unless the money goes in.
        You’re talking about additional money coming out so that means additional money going in.
        You don’t just decree an additional benefit and have it appear from nowhere.
        The money can’t come out unless the money goes in.
        You have any ideas other than shaking the money tree? Running thousand dollar bills through the color copier?
        The catholics object to putting the money in for something they think is sinful.

        Interesting start, “What we want….” Sounds like some of the more juvenile SDS folks I knew back in the day. Never, “what we’d like to figure out how to get for ourselves”. They believed in the money tree, too. And anybody who said it didn’t exist was a Big Meanie.
        So I’m a big meanie. If you want more money to come out, more money will have to go in, and if yoiu’re not putting the money in, somebody else is, and that means they’re paying for whatever it is for you.

        • The money is going in to be spent. Spend a little on birth control. Spend a lot on unwanted pregnancies and abortions. We report. You decide.

          • Richard Aubrey says:

            Mark. You need to figure out a better way to explain this. BC hasn’t been covered. The birth rate has been whatever it has been. Now that BC may not be covered at catholic institutions, the birth rate is going to explode?

            • Richard. There is no rational reason for birth control to not be covered under health insurance. Religious institutions have no rational reason. Who cares what religious insitutions have to say on any topic? Their irrational, prescientific bronze age goat hearding supersitious morality provides no insight into women’s health and health insurance policy. Your bizarre statement that women have been getting along fine without coverage is equally beyond reason. Government intrusion? Government intrusion into government policy? What? How about religious and mysogynistic intrusion into women’s ovaries?

            • Actually birth control is covered by approx 36% of the current insurance programs. Which isn’t enough, considering the cost of birth, abortion, etc in comparison. However, it’s a $$ game to the ins. co’s. They know that individuals and/or the social welfare system will pick up what they decide they don’t have to cover.

            • Richard,
              I don’t understand your post. The birth rate has been what it has been? Yes. And how many unwanted pregnancies have occurred? And worse, how many abortions? Do you want to reduce the number of abortions or not? Because people are having sex. Right now. All over the place. And your belief that its wrong isn’t going to change that. And what’s worse, is by denying them simple, easy access to birth control, THROUGH EVERY POSSIBLE MEANS, you are triggering a higher occurrence of marginalized children and worse, abortion.

      • “What we want is for the services we value to be part of our health coverage as we are paying into a risk pool and we would like for our preventative care to be covered.”

        You’re basically advancing Aubrey’s argument for him. Why should anyone else care about helping to provide services you value other than people who share those same values? Catholics don’t value those services because they have other, insurmountable, values that contradict them. You ARE asking him to pay for women’s birth control, but, as you’ve just pointed out, you’re asking him to do way more than that, which was his ultimate point all along.

        “By speaking out, Ms. Fluke wants to encourage all of us to arrive at a public consensus that says birth control is considered of value to enough people (NOT 100%) but enough people that it is included in the coverage she has.”

        Yes, and certain religious groups are trying to encourage all of us to come to a public consensus that says using birth control is a sin. It’s like you’re admitting that this is not an ethical argument or a scientific one, but simply a marketing game.

        “Your religious issues notwithstanding, more people support her in this than oppose her.”

        So what? By using this argument, you’re allowing that it was equally justified that in previous times, birth control was illegal because that was the majority opinion. And culture never becomes static. The cultural tide could swing wildly away from your standpoint and you would have no reason to complain because of the arguments you’re using now.

        “At this point, I am sorely tempted to offer you two dollars a month to stop talking about your money, because, it is weirdly self-absorbed and does nothing to contribute to the kind of cooperative effort civilized societies need in order to provide health care to all of their citizens.”

        Um, make that two dollars for every single citizen that doesn’t want to subsidize bc. Also, if anyone is to be accused of self-absorption, it’s not Richard.

        • I didn’t make Aubrey’s argument for him. You just read it that way. And no matter what I say you will continue to argue it as a weaker position than yours. And guess what? I’m gonna do the same thing. So, shall we just keep doing that or maybe, wise up and call it a day? Like, you know, not go on yet another rhetorical date, so to speak.

          • This is a really bizarre response. If we all should agree to disagree, then why on earth would you write an article concerning controversial topics on a website that ostensibly is supposed to encourage discussion on its comments section?

            You did make his argument. His point all along was that this was never about providing birth control to those who need it and cannot afford it; it’s about forcing a segment of the population into supporting an ideology which is an anathema to their beliefs. That is what this is about. You said so yourself.

      • She and her friends should have checked out what their Jesuit university covered and didn’t cover and “shopped around” accordingly, but then I’m an old fogey who was still on parental-insurance while off at college and did the pay-as-you-go at the Infirmary there. As I said in a YT video [] Fluke & Company could schlepp-on-down to the local Planned Parenthood (less than 2 miles away) and get their pills on ye-old sliding scale of “$15-50 per month”. Come on. That Capitol Hill appearance was nothing but Political Theater at its finest.

    • sharlet says:

      Combined w/ the anti-Planned Parenthood, anti-Abortion movement- yes- the entire anti-Reproductive Rights movement definitely is aimed more at women than men. Because biologically- this is the way it works, and these are the primary “clients”. But men should be concerned about it too; because they will be ultimately footing the bill under current legal systems that are pretty good at finding dead-beat dads that don’t want to support the kids they’ve helped create. And every tax payer foots the bill for CPS, CWS & all other public systems that pay for the medical costs & care of unwanted, neglected children. We simply, logically, can not have all these things working together.

      And trying to pin a bunch of rhetoric on Catholics is BS also. It’s a fundamentalist movement, regardless of religion. To quote from (Republican) Joseph Cotto:
      “A survey from the Public Religion Research Institute, published (in February) revealed that almost 60 percent of American Catholics agree with the idea of employers being forced to provide birth control measures. Even among self-described voters, this number totaled out at 52 percent. In any case, the eminently dominant majority of mainstream Catholics are not backing the furor caused by their fundamentalist counterparts. It would seem that there might not be a Catholic exodus from the Democratic Party, anti-religious war, or tyrannical regime after all.

      This entire matter is a fine example of what happens when the fringe gains control of the dialogue. According to some men and women who received ample news time, a Second American Revolution with a Catholic twist was coming into play. Instead, we see that it is nothing more than a certain element speaking up for others without their consent. This sort of thing goes on frequently in politics, but it is truly a shame when partisans opt to drag religion down into the gutter as well.

      Read more:

      • There is this funny thing about the Catholic Church. They aren’t a company. They don’t do new products with features and benefits. They don’t tweak the Eucharist to make it more tasty. They are what they are. Matters of faith and morals (from the point of view of the Church) are immutable. This is why you don’t see women as priests. (by the way, celibacy of priests is a discipline not dogma and differs from rite to rite within the RCC) This is why the Church is against abortion. This is why the Church is against birth control. It doesn’t matter that 60% of American Catholics (a distinct minority in a global institution of over 1 billion) want something.

        Basically this debate centers around a TINY slice of people. To be affected a person:
        1. Must be employed by the Church.
        2. Must want birth control
        3. Must not have a spouse who works for another company (good luck trying to support a family on what the Church pays)
        4. Must not be able to take a position with another company (because you know the Church is the sole employer or employer of choice in so many areas in the USA)
        5. Must make so little money that they cannot afford something that is the equivalent of a freaking cable bill. Not all Birth control pills cost $100 per month- that’s the most expensive version but for some reason its the only price point quoted by advocates. (want birth control? cancel your cable. I cut mine way back to help pay for my son’s new preschool. )

        So, if we take percentages of percentages. We might find a few people who are impacted. Even if we leave off number 5 (because its now anti-American to pay your own way) I’d bet we’re talking an absolutely miniscule number of people. How about you free birth control for everybody advocates set up a paypal account for them and leave the Church and the rest of us alone?

        • Artemis says:

          “Must make so little money that they cannot afford something that is the equivalent of a freaking cable bill. Not all Birth control pills cost $100 per month- that’s the most expensive version but for some reason its the only price point quoted by advocates. (want birth control? cancel your cable. I cut mine way back to help pay for my son’s new preschool. ) ”

          Not all birth control pills work equally well for women. I was on a birth control pill that was cheaper than my current pill, but it made me severely depressed. So I switched to different pill that has very minimal side effects. However, that one would cost $90/month without my insurance (with insurance it is $25).

          And what? I don’t have any cable. You are assuming that everyone has the luxuries you do. A s a graduate student, my money goes to food and rent and I live in one of the smallest apartments in the city with my boyfriend. I don’t drive to class, I take the free bus. So I should cut back on… food?

          You are assuming everyone is in the same situation you are, but they aren’t.

          And please tell me why certain employers are allowed to discriminate and others are not. I am morally opposed to people smoking, does that mean if I am an employer, I can cut coverage for smoking-incurred diseases and health problems? The only reason the catholic church is even being considered in this is because they are a privileged religion and they have more power than any other religion in our country.

    • Can you believe the audacity of old people? Wanting someone else to pay for their medications and replacement joints? Bastards. They don’t even work anymore.

      • Richard Aubrey says:

        Jake. I believe the old folks you are talking about have insurance, such as Medicare.
        Which is different from Medicaid. You forgot to condemn Medicaid.

        I believe they also used to work. Except those who lived their lives on welfare. You forgot to condemn those who lived their lives on welfare.

        Think this stuff through before you get snarky.

    • Kirsten (in MT) says:

      Richard Aubrey: The catholics object to putting the money in for something they think is sinful.

      Catholics have been paying WAY more for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan which they think are sinful than this latest thing would cost them. Yet I haven’t heard nearly the outcry from Catholics about these sins that involve killing actual human beings as I have about merely the sin of prevention of human life from beginning which has a much sketchier Biblical foundation.

      Is there anybody who actually believes this is about conscience? I don’t. Until I get a refund back for all the money I’ve been forced to pay for things that violate my conscience-almost everything the U.S. military does, the War on (Some) Drugs, the TSA, and so on- and everyone else gets to opt out of paying for things that violate their consciences, this selective conscience complaint does not fly.

      • Agreed!

      • Actually the Church (as an entity) didn’t pay a damn thing for the war. You know that whole render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s thing?

        The birth control question is entirely different. This is about forcing the Church as an entity to directly pay for something it finds morally objectionable.

        I hope you can see the difference.

        • sharlet says:

          But every Catholic in the country (myself included) has had to pay for these things via our taxes. And I am far more oppose to killing living populations than I am to preventing unwanted pregnancy. A lot of moot points are being argued here, because the Catholic Church offers insurance to its employees- although it is not paid for 100%. But neither is the majority of any insurance offered by any other business, institution, etc. I”m sure the circular arguments will continue, however…..

          • Well, as a Catholic surely you remember that the Pharisee’s tested Jesus directly when they asked him about paying the Roman taxes…

            You think this point is moot because of a shared contribution? huh?

      • Yes- Bravo!

      • Richard Aubrey says:

        WRT catholics and war. See the Just War Doctrine, regularized by two biggies in the RC pantheon, Augustine and Aquinas. The RCs are not a pacifist church. That said, the American biships generally oppose any war not fronted by outrised, upraged peasants brandishing AKs.
        As to your money, the issue here is catholic institutions, to which I presume you do not belong.

  16. “She’s having so much sex she can’t afford the contraception.”

    Does… does Rush actually know how the pill works? He does know it’s not like a condom right? You can’t just pop one before you have sex and BAM! no baby for you! If you’re having sex twice a day or once every three months, you need to take ONE pill every day for it to work. It’s going to cost the same amount per year for every woman who uses it, whether she’s participating in daily orgies or she’s the Virgin Mary and just happens to suffer from particularly painful periods.

    I honestly think he doesn’t know how the pill works…

    • sharlet says:

      Yes- thank you for this. And for women who are peri-menopausal & going through extremely painful periods as well as extreme hormonal fluctuations, various forms of the pill are also often prescribed.

      The problem w/ people like Rush is that they have no concern over factual information; it’s all about creating shock value to get more attention & make more money. One of the best things that happened w/ Sarah Palin’s drama was when people stopped paying attention to it. So I’m signing the petitions to the advertisers asking them to stop supporting Rush’s show. The $$$- or lack therof- votes. (sad but true)

  17. Richard Aubrey says:

    Julie. I drink Folgers because I learned coffee in the Army and besides, other things are more important to me for the money. You make your choice and others are entitled to speculate about it. But not necessarily required to pay for it.
    BTW. I almost forgot, mostly because the self-celebrated SPIW (semi professionally incredibly wonderful) didn’t see the problem and so we didn’t hear much about it:
    Fast Eddie Schultz called Laura Ingraham a slut and Bill Maher referred to Palin as a c&*t. All depends, doesn’t it?
    No biggie.
    But, for those who are reminded of it, as I was, there is a lesson there.

  18. Richard Aubrey says:

    Julie. I didn’t see a reply box on your comment, so I had to scroll down to the end

    “So are you saying a month of BC costs as much as a jar of folgers? Maybe with copay it does. Mine’s 10 per month. But without it would be 90. Ok, you say, so don’t have sex.
    Who does that? Honestly? We’d have about 6 billion less people on the planet if people thought rationally about sex. Personally I think the most rational thing possible would be to teach people how not to get pregnant (sex ed) and provide men and women with oral BC to prevent pregnancies, and amazing prophylactics to prevent the STDs and then things would be much more groovy.”

    Proves what I’ve learned talking with activistis, particularly feminists: Anything that starts with “So you’re saying,” or “Oh, you’re saying” or something like that is guarandamnteed to be a flat lie. A major, deliberate, beyond excuse, misrepresentation of what another person said. As I said to Artemis, I don’t know how that’s supposed to work, since what I said is right there for everybody to see, and since I’m the one who said it, I’m not likely to be confused. I just don’t get the logic.

    Reading comprehension: No. I said that you can quit Starbucks and use Folgers and the diff will pay for a lot. If it’s that important to you. Using your math, not that you individually frequent Starbucks, that’s a $3 cup of coffee per day. From time to time my sister gives us a Starbucks gift card and I am astonished at how fast it goes.

  19. Richard Aubrey says:

    Difference is that this particular issue offends certain religious communities. The cost is insignificant, see PP, and the supposed results–pregnancies–are a fiction. Women have been managing without coverage for this for some time. All of a sudden it’s going to change because we keep not paying like we’ve been not paying all along?
    It’s about the intrusion of the state.

    • “Difference is that this particular issue offends certain religious communities.”

      Then they don’t have to pay, as Obama has already advanced a compromise for this saying insurance will cover the difference if religious institutions object to covering birth control. What is the argument now?

      “It’s about the intrusion of the state.”
      Really? Because to me it looks like intrusion of religion into the doctor-patient relationship of their employees.

      “The cost is insignificant, see PP, and the supposed results–pregnancies–are a fiction.”
      Please continue to explain to me how $90/month is insignificant. That is what I would pay for my birth control (the only one I have found that does not make me depressed) if my insurance didn’t partially cover the cost. And really, the resulting pregnancies are a fiction? Citation needed.

  20. Artemis says:

    All the people who say it’s a cost issue, it’s not. There are many costs involved in health insurance, a lot of coverage for other people’s needs that you will never use. To say it’s about money is a distraction.

    What other parts of insurance would you like to get rid of or never require? Or is it only the coverage that deals with non-reproductive sex?

    Because Obama’s health care act mandates coverage of MANY preventative care measures. And yet I see little protest in covering immunizations, cholesterol screening, diabetes screening, or colorectal cancer screening.

  21. courage the cowardly dog says:

    Mark I think you posting did it. Rush Limbaugh I hear has apologized for his offensive remarks. Now can we debate the issue and leave the lunk head behind. I promise I won’t listen Rush anymore, even though I didn’t listen to him much before.

    • Limbaugh thrives on “creating a national stir.” Even the extra attention to losing advertisers and his apologies gets him off.

  22. courage the cowardly dog says:

    Newt Gringrich is articulating quite well my view on this contraception mandate issue on Meet the Press this morning.

  23. The phrase “Shit the bed” actually is used to describe someone dying a rather quiet death. You see, when something dies, the muscles relax and anything that was in comes out.

    I think the proper pop culture phrase for the headline should be “Rush Limbaugh Steps on His Dick.”

    • Thanks, Ron, when Glenn Beck steps on his, I’ll definitely use that. (And you know he will.) As for now, I’m committed to the don’t poop where you sleep metaphor. I feel it would indicate a lack of literary resolve, not to mention moral fiber to abandon bed shitting for dick stomping at this point. Maybe stepping on his own dick and falling down in his own shit? No… Alas. I’d better stick with what I’ve got.

  24. Anthony Zarat says:

    The Obamacare bill contains 142 special programs, offices, privileges, comissions, and services ONLY for women. It contains ZERO (0, none, nada, zilch) for men, boys, or fathers. Here are just a few of these 142 sexist, bigoted provisions of Obamacare:

    1) Free birth control for women, but not for men (for example, tubal ligation is paid for, but vasectomy is not)
    2) Free breast health for women, but no prostate health for men
    3) Free smoking cessation for women, but no smoking cessation for men
    4) Free cancer vacination for girls, but not for boys
    5) Dozens of health comissions, offices, and programs to make sure that feminists are in charge of every aspect of health care in the united states, from consumer protection agencies, to research at the federal and state level, to the work of the CDC, also the work of the FDA, drug approval, covered services, etc.
    6) Violence prevention for women, but not for men
    7) An enormous federal initiate to help mothers, but no program or money for fathers

    Obamacare is an abomination, an act of hate the likes of which this nation nas never known. Vile feminist sexist, and bigotry on a level that is almost inconceivable.

    And you complain because you don’t like a radio commenter’s TONE? What tone do you tink is appropriate for a government that declares an open war of genocide against men, boys, and fathers — and a national media that completely ignores this, and twists it to appear as though the issue is actually WOMEN’S rights?

    The issue here is fundamental human rights and dignities, including the most basic equal protecftion provisions, and Obamacare, the democrats, the media, and YOU are completely on the immoral and inedfensible side of bigotry, sexism and institutionalized hate.

    • Actually, if all this is true I agree with you. But I wouldn’t take away services for women, just add them for me. Please note, I said “if”. So, we’re in agreement.

  25. And how is this supposed to be so much worse than all the disgustingly racist things Limbaugh has said over the years? Ridiculous.

  26. Great article! Also…funny pic of Rush.

    • Anthony Zarat says:

      Great! Lets talk about irrelevant tone issues, instead of substance! Why bother mentioning that:

      1) Obamacare contains hundreds of programs, services, provisions, comissions, oversight boards, comittes, and insitutes for WOMEN ONLY, and ZERO for men, booys and fathers.
      2) Obamacare pais for virtually every conceivable expense for women, including birth control, and pays for NOTHING for men, boys, and fathers
      3) Obamcare puts feminst bigots in charge of every health related federal and state organization, ensuring that men, boys, and fathers will continue to experience disenfranchisement and dehumanization for decades to come

      NOBODY is talking about the real issue here, and this “great” article is just more smoke and mirrors.

      All this fuss because Republicans want some women, some of the time to be treated exactly like all men are treated, all the time?!?!?!?

      Are you kidding me?

      • I’ll point to Mark Greene’s reply where he says….alright if that’s true then we should add those services for men.

        • Richard Aubrey says:

          Money’s got to come from someplace. I get the impression that I’m talking to a bunch of Linda Evans–the weather underground Linda Evans, not the Dynasty Linda Evans–whom I knew in college.

          • Alrighty I’ll point to what everyone else here has been saying in response to your discussion about cost.

          • PursuitAce says:

            That’s nice. It sounds like you agree that vasectomies should be covered. Not sure why condoms have to be a prescription to be paid for. If planned parenthood can supply millions of condoms then the problem is already solved.

            • “Not sure why condoms have to be a prescription to be paid for.”

              To be paid for by insurance, specifically….because insurance doesn’t pay for anything you can buy over-the-counter. But yes, the problem of the cost of condoms is pretty much solved, considering you can get them for free.

          • PursuitAce says:

            Money’s not the issue. The Fed can make all we need.

      • Chris in NC says:

        Please let me start by asking where you got your facts about “Obamacare” (it irks me that such a derivative name stuck, but I guess that’s what happens when echo-chambers constantly repeat it). From which review of the law? Secondly, women DO require a larger degree of care as a result of the fact that, while it takes two to tango, they carry the product (babies) around in their bodies for a little over 9 months. As it is human nature to a) want to reproduce and b) continue the species, I have no qualms about an imbalanced care system where we try to ensure that women get the proper care they need to ensure they have healthy babies. Please describe to me how I’m disenfranchised by this imbalance. So we need an equal number of “insitutes” for us men, regardless of whether its necessary or not? What would you say to coverage for condoms, then? And as far as I know, Viagra is at least subsidized, if not included, in some plans. There is some mania over this man versus woman discussion that I find not to be representative of being “good men.” And no, I don’t believe being a “good man” is simply kowtowing to the needs/desires of all women, but there’s an air of the culture wars here in this comment board that seems to smell of men’s discomfort with an age in which women aren’t simply homemakers anymore, cooking up bacon for us in the morning before work and keeping our houses as tidy as we want ’em, damnit.

        • PursuitAce says:

          So what is the real name of this plan? And you’re making women sound like the weaker sex who need more help. Stop it please.

  27. Dorine Moore says:

    One of the best articles I’ve ever read. Powerful and poignant.

  28. sharlet says:

    Thank you for a well written article. I’d like to see more & more people stand up against the “shock jocks” and the trashy reality shows that invade media. It’s nothing but garbage created for 1- Them to make a lot of $$$; 2- To stir up antagonism.

  29. Artemis says:

    Okay, by Rush Limbaugh’s standard, I am a slut. Women who have sex are sluts (please note that men who have sex are not sluts, because only women are expected to be all pure and whatnot).

    Great, so that makes… 99% of American women sluts. Because 99% of American women have used a form of birth control in their lives.

    So, I’m just going to point out, chances are he called every single one of your mothers sluts.

    As long as the GOP continues to associate themselves with the likes of a man like this who thinks it’s okay to call women sluts and prostitutes for enjoying sex and not wanting to have children (which, uh, men do too), I will not vote for a single Republican for any office. I also will not have sex with a single Republican. (not that it’s very hard, as I’m in a monogamous relationship with an non-party affiliated man)

    • PursuitAce says:

      I think they’re called man-whores. But they need their own word. Man-whore shaming isn’t a powerful enough phrase. Nor does man-whore walk work very well. We need a masculine version of slut.

      • Why wouldn’t they be sluts and whores also? If men are going to own up to the slut title, I will gladly welcome them into my slutty arms as fellow sluts.

        Also, after a while, that word starts to remind me of Jabba the Hutt. (because he’s slimy and a hutt…)

        • Extreme sluttiness is considered an inherent trait of being male, and therefore, in our society, a male slut is thought of as a redundancy, which is why it’s so hard to get people to take male rape seriously or to even acknowledge that it exists.

          • THANK YOU! This is true. Stereotypes kill the true behavior of men overall. The spectrum of slutiness spans across the entire board of measurement for BOTH men and women and grouping the stereotype to one gender is destructive to society. When you treat someone as an individual based on their character and behavior they typically get a fair assessment from the assessor. For women who say men are ‘whores’- think of your father, grandfather, and if you are old enough your son. They fit in the ‘all men’ category as well

          • @matera: I know, it sucks, that’s what I was getting at with my comment. Our society is messed up when it comes to gender and sexuality.

            “The spectrum of slutiness spans across the entire board of measurement for BOTH men and women and grouping the stereotype to one gender is destructive to society. ”
            usfspa: there is no spectrum of sluttiness. Because sluttiness is completely and totally arbitrary, as Rush Limbaugh has demonstrated here. According to him, using birth control is what defines a slut from a non-slut. For other people, it is wearing revealing clothing, or “slutty outfits.” For some, it is being flirtatious. For others, it’s having sex once. There is no real definition of being a “slut” because the word “slut” is just a slur used to shut someone up who you don’t agree with, who is speaking out of place or doing something you don’t agree with.

            TL;DR? “Slut” is not a real thing. It is just an insult and has no relation to actual behavior, it is just used to silence a person when they are saying something the insulter doesn’t agree with.

  30. 100% percent of the people who favor abortion weren’t aborted themselves. Why do their lives get spared but they can kill a child within themselves?

    I am pro female and anti misogynistic.

    One garaunteed why to not get pregnant is to not have sex. As a US sailor of 23 years we are all taught that during port visits in Thailand (or any port for that matter) the best way to not contract an STD is to not have sex.

    Women can’t use this get out of jail card to get what they want. The behavior needs to change, that finding a means to remedy the behavior.

    Would you feel good knowing the school district your child was attending cut classes because your tax dollars were diverted to care for men who were extremely promiscuous and practice unprotected sex?

    • Artemis says:

      Is this a troll? If it is not a troll, I have a nice long explanation as to why he doesn’t make sense.

      For now:

      “I am pro female and anti misogynistic.”
      I laughed so hard I cried. Well, at least I can tell you’re anti-sex, good to know you didn’t deny that.

      • @ Artemis. The point i’m making is that since I am against the government paying for birth control there is the automatic assumption that I am anti female. WRONG Women are great but pay for your own birth control. It’s as simple as that. Change your behavior and don’t make other tax payers cover your ass. Don’t make this a gender thing, this is a personal responsibility issue. men and women are equal and should be treated as such. If YOU CHOOSE to not want children and have sex, then YOU need to take action to ensure you don’t get pregnant, not me and my fellow tax payers. So now that I made you cry are you going to use the VAWA card on me?

        • I’m a tax payer. What if I want to support universal access to birth control with my tax dollars? You speak as if you are the only tax payer in this discussion.

          • And you have the right to voice your opinion on that. Just as I do…and am doing. As for me saying i’m the only taxpayer – that is a foolish statement, knowing fully well the majority of us on here probably pay taxes so I understand you pay taxes just as I do. This is a behavioral and moral issue that takes precedence over the tax issue. I should not have to pay the price for a women OR a man who wants to have sex and prevent the chance of having a baby being conceived. Again, I am for women’s right, and not anti female, I am person who believes in equality across the bored without regard of gender, color, sexual orientation but am a firm believer of what the Bible says.
            Sex is great but do it as the Bible intends it to happen. That takes away birth control, condoms, unwanted babies, STD’s, and the like. Sometimes we as people need to aimlessly (faithfully) follow what God tells us to do instead of thinking we know the answer because we are the most sophisticated being on earth. (God to me is what is in the Bible as a Christian and if someone else wants to follow another religion, oh well) I won’t fault them for that because that is their belief but I know what is right in my mind and heart and will continue to live my life that way.

            • “Again, I am for women’s right, and not anti female, I am person who believes in equality across the bored without regard of gender, color, sexual orientation but am a firm believer of what the Bible says.
              Sex is great but do it as the Bible intends it to happen.”…(God to me is what is in the Bible as a Christian and if someone else wants to follow another religion, oh well) I won’t fault them for that because that is their belief but I know what is right in my mind and heart and will continue to live my life that way.

              These two statements are contradictory. You won’t fault them for their beliefs but you want the policy that influences their ability to choose, and that they will pay for to be based around you belief system??

          • Richard Aubrey says:

            Mark Your tax dollars aren’t going to support very much universal access to BC. The correct question is, ‘Who are you to object to my wanting to spend your tax dollars on universal access to BC?’
            Meantime, hold a bake sale. Less overhead. More efficient. But no transfats. Public health issue, you know.

        • “So now that I made you cry are you going to use the VAWA card on me?”

          I’m not crying. It’s just been raining. On my face.

          (everyone who gets that reference, gets an internet hug. Except for this guy and Richard, because they are mean and don’t deserve any internet hugs ever)

  31. Rush just set people on fire…I expect more to come of this…!

  32. Chris in NC says:

    (Additionally, I might add, while Obama has not been the best President we’ve had, he’s certainly far better than he’s been characterized by one side. Much of what I find to be opposition to his policies tend to be opposition to the man rather than the ideas; whether it’s because of his party affiliation or his pseudo-foreign ethnicity, I cannot tell, but there are plenty of people who seem to put the cart before the horse and rationalize not liking his policies simply because they don’t like the guy)

  33. Chris in NC says:

    One other item I’d like to take to task for the sexually repressed in the crowd: this notion that the taking of birth control pills by a single woman equals promiscuity. I’ve known plenty of women who are “of high moral standing” who were taking the pill while out in the dating world. It wasn’t BECAUSE they were bringing home men left and right. It was for that time when they may either a) bring home the “good man” or b) the occasional time they might engage in what some might consider “casual sex” which was usually as part of dating that person. You can judge all you want and sound like the man who’s essentially saying “well they’re not having sex with me, waahhh” or you can man up and just deal with it. All told, there are far worse strains on our medical system than the supplying of BC pills to millions of women. How about millions of people with COSTLY procedures in the hospital EVERY DAY that could have been prevented by other life-style choices. If we want to make this about who is straining what, we need to look at everything rather than microscopicly zoom in on BC.

    • Artemis says:

      “How about millions of people with COSTLY procedures in the hospital EVERY DAY that could have been prevented by other life-style choices. If we want to make this about who is straining what, we need to look at everything rather than microscopicly zoom in on BC.”

      I completely agree. Our medical system is drastically inflated, for one. Health coverage for a single person costs way more in the US than in any other developed country, for the same amount of care. Our health care system is pretty broken and fixating on coverage of one form of preventative care is not going to fix anything.

  34. Replying to earlier comments.

    According to Antz’s analysis (accessible here: vasectomies are not covered under Obamacare. Tubal ligations and all other aspects of female-exclusive heath care are.

    Rush is an ass, but he’s not being sexist. At least not when it comes to policy.

    • Artemis says:

      “Rush is an ass, but he’s not being sexist. At least not when it comes to policy.”

      Huh? What?

      • sharlet says:

        Yeah- apparently no-one was listening some years ago when he said the “…women’s movement was started by women who were too ugly to get married….” He’s always been a sexist pig. Or generally, just a mean-spirited pig.

  35. Richard Aubrey says:

    You’ll note that Leviathan is getting involved in many of the issues you discuss. See the lunch nazis in West Hoke elementary. Salt in NYC. Sugar, say some scientists, is a terrible drug and should be restricted.
    About the only lifestyle choice the government isn’t going to get involved in is sex. Despite the horrid expenses of STDs, especially AIDS.
    Something not quite normal here.
    That said, this is not about the cost. It’s about the power of the state. Does anybody here think anybody anywhere doesn’t know this?

    • “See the lunch nazis in West Hoke elementary.”

      Please do not compare people regulating lunch nutrition to Nazis.

      I really hope I don’t have to explain why that is offensive.

      • Richard Aubrey says:

        Artemis. Do feminists have a sense of humor? THAT”S NOT FUNNY!
        “nazi” is an old meme as in “food nazi”. Like the time when I told a person I knew to be a food nazi that an old Brit had mentioned that, when he was a kid, mothers mixed brandy with grape jelly and rubbed it on the gums of teething children and it worked. The food nazi said, predictably, “Do you know how much refined sugar there is in jelly?”
        I have a number of relations who were shot in various countries dealing with the Nazis. As a kid, I tried to pick up a little Geman because I figured it would be my turn next. Surprised the jr hi Geman teacher. Put up his hands, he did.
        So don’t pull the more-offended-than-thou schtick.

        • I do have a sense of humor, thanks for the concern. Generally I am amused by things that are funny. I didn’t see anything amusing in your post, though, so I am not sure what you are referring to.

  36. Jean Huston says:

    Mr. Greene, I read your post just in the nick of time. I was about to fall into a bottomless pit of despair after reading all the internet commentary and the pro-Rush statements that have gotten only crazier and more hateful over these last three days. I can’t tell you how grateful I am to you for 1) confirming that I’m not the only one horrified by the state of “dialogue” in the U.S. and 2) reaffirming my faith that there are thinking men out there who are just as offended by Limbaugh’s ignorant rants as I am, and willing to stand up against the bullying.

  37. Great article Mark. My only comment is: Aren’t we all expecting a little too much from Rush? I mean, the guy’s not exactly dealing with a full deck. If somebody handed a ten year old (who routinely overindulges in oxycontin) a microphone, I am not surprised by what comes out of his mouth.

    • Deanna Ogle says:

      That doesn’t excuse his behavior. We need to hold him to the same standards as everyone else. He doesn’t get a pass for going on air and saying women-hating stuff just because he does oxy.

      Mark, you make a great point. Bravo, great article!

  38. Oh, Mark, I want you to be right so badly. I just wish it didn’t have to be this awful (and very possibly get worse) before the scales tipped.

  39. I agree that what Rush Limbaugh said is abhorrent and cowardly and deserves no place in any type of discourse. Notwithstanding, I do not agree with Fluke’s position. Obviously when it is a medical necessity (she referenced a friend who had to an ovary removed), birth control should be covered. But forcing insurance companies to pay for something that she has elected to take because of a personal preference seems a bit much. Should insurance also pay for cosmetic surgery? They’re both elective procedures.

    • If it was only forced coverage for medical conditions, all of a sudden every woman who wanted it would have said medical conditions, and rightfully so. The pill is used for irregular or excessive periods, and countless other aspects that it is effective at controlling. You can’t make an exception for those medical conditions and honestly expect use to go down.

      This fight was a mistake by the right and they will pay for it. Viagra is generally covered still. Just saying.

      • So they shouldn’t cover heart attack treatment for people who eat fast food? Cancer screening and treatment for people who smoke? Looking at liver enzymes in people who drink? What about men who want to elect to have sex but are suffering from erectile dysfunction? What about the effects on the body of people who drink sodas, eat red meat, and preservtives? And you’d rather have the state pay for welfare for the kid?

        • Those are all medical conditions. Being fertile isn’t. You literally have no argument in that rant. It’s just a list of diseases.

          • Then let me list two other conditions: endometriosis and ovarian cysts. Those two are female reproductive issues that are treated with birth control. As in the pill. Birth control should be covered to help women with these issues stay fertile.

            • I was talking about the ‘elective’ part of it. Good luck paying for that kid for 18 years, then. Or having your tax dollars go to prenatal care, welfare for the child, and hospital costs for birthing.

              • Richard Aubrey says:

                Your presumption is that if somebody else is paying for BC, the woman would have it, use it and wouldn’t get pregnant, when if she had to pay for it, she would get pregnant. Lot of other factors involved here, including the minor cost of BC and the common sense of most women.
                Keep in mind that since the first Clinton campaign for health care reform, every poster child hauled out to make a point has been a fraud. Every one.

                • “Lot of other factors involved here, including the minor cost of BC and the common sense of most women.”

                  There we have it. Richard thinks women are too stupid to remember birth control. Silly women, with their lack of common sense!

                  Oh, right, and minor cost of BC? Were insurance to not cover my birth control, it would cost $90/month. Minor? Not even remotely for a graduate student.

                  • Richard Aubrey says:

                    Wrong again. Reading comprehension. Learn it. Love it.
                    The common sense of most women means that if they use BC and, for some reason find themseves without for the moment, they won’t have sex.
                    But mostly they’d be current with whatever BC they use.
                    I don’t get the math. You misrepresented what I said. Now, I would expect it if I had merely spoken it and you were misrepresenting it to people who hadn’t heard me. But you’re misrepresenting something down in black and white which anybody can look at. How’s that supposed to work?
                    Lot of grad students in Starbucks. Price a jar of Folgers.

                    • So are you saying a month of BC costs as much as a jar of folgers? Maybe with copay it does. Mine’s 10 per month. But without it would be 90. Ok, you say, so don’t have sex.
                      Who does that? Honestly? We’d have about 6 billion less people on the planet if people thought rationally about sex. Personally I think the most rational thing possible would be to teach people how not to get pregnant (sex ed) and provide men and women with oral BC to prevent pregnancies, and amazing prophylactics to prevent the STDs and then things would be much more groovy.

                    • “Wrong again. Reading comprehension. Learn it. Love it.”
                      Acting like an adult. Learn it. Love it.

                      Your writing reeks of condescension. Why should I respond to you with a mature explanation of how life works with a uterus when you don’t have the common decency to talk to me like a peer?

          • Being pregnant is indeed a medical condition. One that many men and women want to prevent. That’s preventative health care, avoiding STDs and pregnancy with condoms and a variety of BC.

            • Artemis says:

              Thank you, Julie!

              Birth control is considered to be preventative care because it prevents a medical condition (pregnancy) that is very costly, as it entails increased health care until birth and the costs associated with giving birth.

              • PursuitAce says:

                So condoms are covered? Or not? Vasectomies? Those would be the best bang for your pregnancy prevention health dollar. Feminists must be writing about this important issue this very moment. Less lousy people having kids they really don’t want.

                • Go to a planned parenthood. Condoms are free.

                • “So condoms are covered? Or not? Vasectomies? Those would be the best bang for your pregnancy prevention health dollar.”

                  Actually, IUDs are the best bang for your pregnancy prevention health dollar. If you don’t want to be sterilized (like vasectomies) and might have children someday at least.

                  Condoms would not be covered as they do not require a prescription. Birth control pills have a higher rate of success than condoms, also, and paying for Plan B after a condom breaks or is forgotten during drunken sex is also expensive.

                  Also, as a woman (the one who would become pregnant), I like to take care of my own body and make sure I don’t become pregnant, so I am not comfortable letting my birth control be in the hands of my partner. The Pill allows me to make sure I don’t get pregnant. A condom allows him to make sure he doesn’t father a child.

            • There is an ancient, cheap and reliable way of preventing pregnancy and STDs. It involves prefixing n- to big O and saying NO.

              • That must be why we have 7 billion people on the planet. Yep, that must be it. The ancients are the ones that invented condoms, pessaries, and discovered herbal abortificents.

              • That’s it? I thought it was an aspirin between the knees. I’ve been doing it wrong all along!

    • Artemis says:

      “Obviously when it is a medical necessity (she referenced a friend who had to an ovary removed), birth control should be covered.”

      And suddenly every woman informed her gynecologist that she suffered from crippling uterine cramps and a heavy flow every time she had her period.

  40. Tom Matlack says:

    Standing ovation, Mark. Who was it we shouldn’t be talking politics here on GMP? They were wrong.

    The one point you hit only glancingly but I think it crucial is that the real issue here for most Conservatives is abortion. Life begins at conception. I am okay with those that believe in that (though I don’t) as long as they don’t legislate that we all do. But even if we just grant that point for a moment, the thing you want to do if you believe life begins at conception is to stop unwanted pregnancy. For decades we have been saying, hey let’s maybe not focus so much on abortion since it’s such a hot issue but the causes of unwanted abortion which presumably we can agree on.

    Only a crazy person would say that proper use of contraceptives isn’t a good idea, particularly in light of the difficulties around abortion. We spend huge amounts of money in 3rd world countries trying to convince people to use contraceptives to prevent disease and unwanted pregnancies.

    And yet…and yet right here at home apparently a woman (or man’s) right to contraceptives is this fundamental issue causing women to become sluts and prostitutes?

    Another fun fact for you. Hey, Rush ever you viagra (answer, “yes”). Was THAT covered by your health care plan (answer “YES”).

    • CW Nahumck says:

      Tom, one could argue from a religious stance that the call for us to be stewards of God’s creation in the first chapter of Genesis means that controlling the growth of the population through the use of contraceptives in order to ensure that we don’t strip the planet bare of its resources is actually the religious moral imperative that conservatives should be striving for. Many younger devout Evangelicals actually hold to this position. Not than Santorum does.

    • Limbaugh in his idiotic assertions took attention from the real issue. Not whether women should have access to birth control but whether a religious institution should be forced to pay for something that is anathema to their beliefs. This is a constitutional issue-it is not about women’s rights. But now thanks to Limbaugh the smokescreen the President threw up is getting all the play. Contraception is available to anyone who wants it. I personally don’t think insurance should cover viagra, abortion or contraception. Insurance coverage used to be for accidents, operations and serious emergencies. Now it is for everything under the sun. Ironically, you can get coverage for viagra but not for lasik-which means an erection is more valuable than sight.

      • Artemis says:

        If insurance is not covering basic preventative care, what is it good for? If it can’t cover incredibly basic prescriptions, what are we paying for?

        If insurance covers prescriptions, why shouldn’t it cover hormonal birth control, a prescribed medicine? A great many women use hormonal birth control primarily for health reasons (such as to treat endometritis and ovarian cysts). Anecdotally, in the 5 women I personally have discussed birth control with (oh, and myself, including myself there), of the 5 who used hormonal birth control, 2 used it primarily for health reasons. And one was a lesbian, so I don’t think she’s worried about contraception.

        So you can say it’s a religious issue all you want, but allowing employers to ban coverage for certain prescriptions only women use can be construed as discrimination against women, and not a religious issue at all. Also, Obama has already reached a compromise saying that insurance companies will pay the difference if religious institutions have a problem with paying for hormonal birth control.

        • Richard Aubrey says:

          This is a joke, right?
          “If insurance is not covering basic preventative care, what is it good for? If it can’t cover incredibly basic prescriptions, what are we paying for?”
          You’re paying for what the contract says you get. As it happens, basic preventive care is not particularly useful in reducing expenses. HMOs found this out several decades ago. Free physicals were going to catch problems before they got expensive. Didn’t work. People don’t want to get exams, not before age fifty, at least. So, free or not, they didn’t get the exams. Funny thing was, HMOs were originally marketed to employers who paid the employees pretty well and who had recreational budgets substantially higher than what was necessary to pay for an exam. Money isn’t the reason I get, or don’t get, a prostate exam.
          Next, paying for routine expenses means paying out a predictable amount every year. You can’t do that without taking it in in the first place. Running thousand dollar bills through the color copier is illegal as hell, so you have to take in premium to pay for expected expenses.
          So if you expect the average family to spend a grand in routine stuff, you need to collect a grand for that category of expenses. Then, of course, you have to surcharge it for the administrative expenses. So the first grand of expected and predictable expenses would probably be priced into the contract at maybe $1100. IOW, paying for it yourself would be cheaper, since you’re going to be paying for it anyway. And if you have the routine stuff covered, and paid for, and you don’t need it, you paid for it anyway.
          You don’t expect your auto insurance to pay for oil changes or new tires. In fact, you could make the BC insurance argument wrt tires. “If he’d had new tires instead of bald ones, he wouldn’t have gone off the road and into that tree. So auto insurance should cover new tires.” Certainly auto insurance can, with a premium increase of maybe a third of the cost of new tires every year. Make sense? Hint. No.
          BTW. One of my last names is CLU.

          • “This is a joke, right?”

            Why should I reply in a respectful manner when you are clearly incapable of it? Learn to have a discussion like an adult rather than an egocentric teenager and then get back to me.

            • Richard Aubrey says:

              It was a joke, right? Or a rhetorical question? You do know better, right?

              • Well, thank you for talking to me as though I am a child. When you are ready to act like an adult and treat me as an adult (as we both are) then the discussion can continue.

                This: “It was a joke, right? Or a rhetorical question? You do know better, right?” Has demonstrated you are not ready for such a discussion.

                • Aubrey assumes we are all entering this conversation from the same perspective. He suffers from terminal cognitive bias syndrome.

                  • Richard Aubrey says:

                    Jake. If I did, I wouldn’t be bothering. My point is to explain to you that everybody, even somebody as old as I am, knows better.
                    I address the arguments as if they’re made in good faith not because I think they’re made in good faith, but to demonstrate that everybody knows better.
                    Two key arguments made here: If BC isn’t paid for by somebody else, as it is currently not paid for by somebody else, terrible things will happen. Fails the laugh test.
                    This is about denying women their rights. Fails the laugh test.

                    • Aubrey, you use words like everybody foolishly. If everybody agreed with your perspective (IE: knows better), there would be no debate on this, or any other topic.

                      Everybody agrees with Aubrey: Fails the laugh test.

                    • Artemis says:

                      Everybody knows better? Seriously. Okay, well two can play that game:

                      Richard, I am trying to explain to you, that I know better, that everybody knows better than you do. I just don’t see why you don’t listen to my enlightened words and change your ways.

                    • Aubrey, before you engage in any more arguments I strongly recommend a course in logic. At the very least, get familiar with the concept of weasel words:


    • Mark Ellis says:

      Tom, It was me who wondered if partisan politics might be a slippery slope for the site, in response to what I saw as a hateful piece about Rick Santorum. The subject was kicked around, and the upshot was that it seemed people did want some political discourse, so, I guess this is good.

      I remember in one of the debates George Stephanopoulis tried to bait Romney on the then-nonexistent issue of contraception and Mitt was smart enough to swat him down. Rush made a big mistake here, I know that because he has apologized, something he has not done in 20+ years of broadcasting.

      As dunderheaded as this was, I do believe Rush will survive this–I am already getting partisan emails from the other side of the aisle deconstructing Ms. Fluke as a long-time activist who is older than she has been presented to be. The wagons are being circled.

      Still, I agree with Greene, this is no way to win an election.

    • Here’s the thing about the abortion argument…

      You will never ever change the mind of a person who is pro-life, no matter how hard you try. I’m not saying that is because they’re stubborn or because they’re right.

      It’s because they believe, in their hearts, that abortion is killing babies. And you know what? None of us KNOW that life doesn’t begin at conception. You’re basing it upon some science (brain development, etc), but mostly upon faith – either way you believe – because you can’t know when the “soul” or the personality or the neural synapses or whatever it is that makes me different from you, from Lisa, from Mark, or from my one day old nephew, actually develops. When was I “me”? At eight cells, eight months gestation or eight weeks? Show me someone who knows for sure, and I’ll show you someone who is confusing facts for faith.

      So when you look at the pro-lifers, like you say, you can’t hate on them for wanting to stop the killing of babies. I’m not saying that’s even what it is, but that’s what they feel, and it’s very very real to them. And often they have good hearts when they do their activism. Not all of them are like the women screaming at Aaron Gouveira’s wife in “Confronting Life” ( Most are quietly in pain over the ordeal.

      I, myself, would be pro-life if we could find a way to get people easy, risk-free birth control, that they could afford. I also would be pro-life if we had support for every pregnant woman, as well as a system to care for the babies given up for adoption.

      Fact is, we do NOT have this system in place. Unwanted babies wait for years in a completely fucked-up foster care system, unable to be adopted if even one aunt or grandma says “I MAY want the baby SOME day”… Perfectly amazing families wait forever for babies, even disabled and non-white babies (there’s a myth out there that people could easily adopt non-white babies, but reject them, and that non-white babies wait forever for families while families wait forever for white babies. But this is NOT the case for most people I know.)

      So I wish we could have a national dialogue about what we CAN do to fix the quagmire of abortion… Shitboxes like Limbaugh and other high-and-mighty douchenozzles of his ilk think they can outlaw abortion while providing little to no services to pregnant mothers, no REAL sex-ed, and without fixing our adoption/foster systems.

      Slightly off-topic, but I think it’s a big part of what we need to be discussing.

      Oh, and PS Rush Limbaugh is a misogynist, self-entitled, closed-minded, elitist prick.


      • Yes, to this. Just yes. I am very much on the fence about abortion…I’m pro-choice but I’m not sure I wouldn’t become more pro-life if we had all those things you mention, Joanna.

        Which is why I see the stance against contraception to be more religious rather than logic-based. I used to have this pin on my backback when I was in college that said “contraception prevents abortion.” Cuz…well it does. If you’re taking measures to make sure you or your partner aren’t getting pregnant in the first place, then you aren’t getting abortions. (Yes no contraceptive method is 100%, but people will have sex. Even during the most sexually repressed periods in our history, people were still having sex and not always within the confines of marriage).

        On a purely logical, rational, look at the issues – you would think that pro-life people would be the most vocal supporters of easy access to contraception, really.

    • Richard Aubrey says:

      Tom Missed the point, again. It’s not about a woman’s right to contraceptives. I think you know this, but as an activist, you know about misleading and misrepresenting. It’s about who pays for it. Who pays for a minor expense in the life of most people.
      IOW, it’s not about the cost, because if it were, the cost is so small that it wouldn’t be about the cost.
      It’s about the intrusion of the state, covered by misrepresenting the issue as the right of a woman to have BC. Or is a right not complete if somebody else isn’t paying for it?
      As I keep saying, we know better, already.
      There’s a class of people you hear about on the local news from time to time. They decline to wear seatbelts. Seatbelts are free and instantly available. That is, once you get into the car, the belt is there, with no additonal discretionary expense necessary, nor any difficult process of acquisition. Yet some of these folks refuse to use the things. Anybody want to insist such things never happen in the area of BC? And with unfortunate results in each case?

      Given the ease of acquistion of BC, unwanted pregnancies which occur due to the woman not being able to afford it versus it not being used no matter how easily available and affordable is a number we ought to keep in mind when trying to fool people about the actual issue.

      Indeed, you bring in the issue of STDs, which the pill doesn’t prevent or even delay.

      We know better already.

  41. Richard Aubrey says:

    If Fluke was not allowed to speak, how come we know what she said?

    Julie. Part of your problem is that the government has been given by progressives mostly–war by the constitution–the power to do this stuff. That means tax for it. Wasn’t my idea. Problem is in the execution, so to speak. If there were a way for you to not pay the prison portion of your taxes, you could put a criminal up in your spare bedroom. You don’t get to do that and impose him on the rest of us. Other examples may occur to you.

    Without regulation, insurance policies could be designed to meet practically anybody’s desires, although some folks might be suprised at the cost of their desires. Which, naturally, means somebody else is supposed to pay.

    The slut walk folks might want to have a word with courage. “wrong”? Sheesh.

    • Cost was never the issue. Prenatal care alone costs more. Unwanted children end up in foster care where the government is forced to support them until they get adopted or age out of the system.

      The issue arose because hospitals with religious affiliations had a MORAL OBJECTION to birth control. It was not based upon cost. This stance is not shared by many doctors and nurses that work at these hospitials. Religious institutions are imposing their beliefs upon the private decisions made between doctors and patients.

      It is hypocritical when these same institutions have no objection to paying for Viagra, a pill that promotes sexual activity. There is also no way for them to police how these pills were used. They could be used for sex outside of marriage, sex for adultery, or homosexual sex.

      • PursuitAce says:

        Most kids these days seem to be unwanted. People should stop having them. The truth is that kids are so much better than adults. Adults generally suck.

    • I will answer two questions: one that you raise yourself and one that suggests itself through your writing.

      Firstly, Fluke spoke at the unofficial Congressional panel (see paragraph 5), but she was not allowed to speak at the house committee on contraception and religious liberty (see paragraph 11). These were two separate events; she was allowed to speak at one but not the other.

      This serious reading comprehension error coupled with your very garbled writing suggests the question “where can I improve my reading and writing skills?” I would start with a google search with ‘literacy and basic skills’ and the city in which you live, that should be a good jumping off point. Alternatively, you could go to your library branch where they’ll have brochures on local courses. I’m sure there’s something in your area.

      Good luck!

      The author of the article says, “I’m not gonna get bogged down in talking logic to the crazy squad.” This of course doesn’t apply to you. In this case I feel it’s unfair to make arguments that you may not understand.

      • PursuitAce says:

        Oooh. Someone steps right up to make my point. Thanks again.

      • Richard Aubrey says:

        Right. Fluke was allowed to speak. That’s how come we know what she said, as, I suppose, do the members of the committee.

        • She was not allowed to speak in the session of Congress at the hearing… which was where the issue of the amendment was supposed to be debated. An unofficial panel does not have bearing nor does it go into the congressional record.

          Moderator’s Note: Edited for ad hominem.

          • PursuitAce says:

            Why wasn’t I allowed to speak? I would have been the smartest person there. And someone who wasn’t a liar.

    • Artemis says:

      “Without regulation, insurance policies could be designed to meet practically anybody’s desires, although some folks might be suprised at the cost of their desires. Which, naturally, means somebody else is supposed to pay.”


      We are talking about private insurance, I am confused as to how other people would be paying. You have to pay for health insurance.

      • Richard Aubrey says:

        somebody has to pay for health insurance. taxpayers, employers, individual policy owners. But if it were possible to design your own personal insurance policy, and if regulations and prudent insurance practice did not preclude it, a company could give you a price.
        It’s what the bigs do. They design a plan and ask health carriers for quotes.

        • Everyone in private insurance is paying for their insurance. I pay for my insurance, no one is paying it for me. If you are saying that other people are paying for my birth control, then by that rationale I am also paying for other people’s cholesterol medicine and routine check-ups. That’s the nature of employer-given insurance. Why are you taking an issue with covering birth control when you are already paying for many things that you don’t use, but other people on your plan do?

  42. courage the cowardly dog says:

    OK, let me go on record and say that it is wrong to call anybody a slut for any reason. You don’t need to write blog piece on that, it goes without saying, But Mark mentions the issue of contraception and whose made to pay for it and by doing so it becomes part of the issue. Sandra Fluke is not a slut. Ok, I still think I should not be made by my government to pay for (even pennies a month) coverage that violates the free practice of my religion and diversts my precious little resouces from things I and my family need.

    • And I don’t think I should be made to pay for anyone who can’t kick depression on their own, or who smokes or who eats too much, huh? Who do I see about that? I don’t think I should be made to pay by my government when they farming out contracts to pay drug wars, prisons, mercenaries and wars over oil. Who do I see about that?

      I don’t. And it’s either all of us, or none of us, that’s how this works. You aren’t sinning, CTCD. You aren’t. Those people like me who take BC and have sex out of wedlock are the only ones god, if there is one, will be dealing with. Rest easy, you’re golden.

      • courage the cowardly dog says:

        Julie a distinction can be made to the references you make and birth control. You are talking about conditoins people are already afflicted with. People who make unhealthy personal living choices do end up paying more on their insurance preimiums. I know before I got my health insurance I had to go for physical. I know my blood pressure was elevated (as it is now LOL) and I am overweight. My premium reflects those medical issues. I think the solution to this problem is mandating health insurance carriers to offer a contraception rider if you will–there would be a separate premium– for this coverage. Those who don’t want it can opt out and not incur the additional premium expense and can feel they are complying with the doctrines of their faith. Those who want it can elect to get it, but they would have to pay an additional premium for it. And I have heard this proposed, the problem is the femiinists know that the market for this kind of coverage would be so small that insurance companies to make it worth their while to offer would charge an exorbitant premium for it and thus the feminists want me to share in that expense so it reduces their costs. Sorry no can do.

        • NoT just feminists, millions of women and men in this country across all religions including those that prohibit it. I wish there was a pill for men too as do many gmp readers. My pre existiting condition is not pregnant and I’m going to keep it that way and I’m going to have sex whether you think it’s a sin or not

        • “You are talking about conditoins people are already afflicted with.”

          I’m afflicted with fertility! I need my medication to prevent the onset of a much worse medical condition that would be soon to follow – pregnancy!

          (I’ve given up arguing with these people rationally. I can only assume that they are all virgins or only have sex to reproduce)

      • courage the cowardly dog says:

        Yes you should be able to have sex without consequence and those damn people suffering from major depressive disorder should be given guns so they shoot themselves, right? That is sarcasm. If you can’t see the difference between sex without consequence and major depressive disorder, heart disease or lung cancer, I can’t explain it to you.

    • Adsum Ozar says:

      It seems to me a couple of folks making statements here just want to impose their religious views on woman under the disguise of “free markets” and “paid taxes”. They don’t want to support contraception or real sex education, they’re also against abortion, and if uneducated teenagers without coverage get pregnant they want them to see it as God’s will. And as they proudly thump their chests, holding whatever book they deem holy, they still refuse welfare for many of these uneducated mothers and their children. The fallacy of their arguments is laughable at best and they should ask their god for wiser thoughts, or speech restraint.

      • Adsum Ozar says:

        “Ok, I still think I should not be made by my government to pay for (even pennies a month) coverage that violates the free practice of my religion and diversts my precious little resouces from things I and my family need.”
        Cowardly Dog: You are one of the best reasons for total separation of church and state.

        • courage the cowardly dog says:

          I agree there should be a separation of church and state. That means the state should not be able to encroach on the free exercise of my religion.

          Lets we were talking about the right of muslim woment to where the head to toe covering known as a berka (the French actually tried to outlaw it) I wonder if the attacks on that religious practice would be as sharp as they have been on my defense of Catholicism.

          • Artemis says:

            Your right to swing your fist ends when it hits my face.

            You have the right to practice your religion until it encroaches on the rights of other people, especially those who do not share your belief.

            If you don’t believe in using contraception, then don’t use it. But you can’t say other people are not allowed to use contraception or are denied equal access to contraception because of their boss’s moral beliefs. And equal access does involve monetary access.

            Were I an employer, and my moral beliefs included not having blood transfusions, why would it be fair for me to only offer an insurance plan that does not cover the cost of blood transfusions for my employees?

            • courage the cowardly dog says:

              So I have to pay for your contraception. Do I understand you correctly? My cardiologist recommends I play a minimum of 9 holes of golf every week. Will you pay my greens fees?
              Yes should pay so you can have casual sex without consequence? I don’t think so.

              • Artemis says:

                An activity is not a doctor-prescribed medicine. Were your cardiologist to say, “You should take these pills” then yeah, I would cover that cost. As it is, I pay way more for my insurance than I get out of it, because all I use it for is birth control, yearly gynecologist visits, yearly dental visits, and regular checkups.

                We all pay for things we don’t use in insurance. Why are you picking contraception to take issue with?

                And why do you assume that all non-reproductive sex is “casual” sex? I’m in a committed relationship. My mother took birth control way back in the seventies, and she was married, her husband didn’t want children (she eventually did and later divorced him and remarried). Considering she only had 3 children, I am guessing she used some form of contraception in her second marriage also.

                Essentially: married people use contraception. Are they having casual sex?

      • courage the cowardly dog says:

        You are wrong. I advocate for people denied SSI and SSD benefits. l ask God for wisdom every day. And no I don’t believe in the restraint of free speech, which is why, while I find Rush’s comments about Ms. Fluke to be repugnant, I will fight to the death for his right to speak against what she advocates for.

        • Adsum Ozar says:

          So you are definitely confused aren’t you “cowardly dog”. You ask God for wisdom but you’re ok with Limbaugh spewing sh#t about women that stand up to government officials and their hidden agendas that only satisfy folks of your creed? Insurance companies have made more than enough money at tax payers expense, and the minute women want better coverage you paint a picture of concern for the monetary costs in the beginning, but in the end you show your true colors and talk God talk. Limbaugh is not even half the man people think he is, and women enjoying equal benefits and power as men in our society scares him to no end. I wonder how you feel about that… By the way, I’m all for free speech too and I was just saying to you that you should ask God for restraint -which is supposed to be a virtue- when you are not sure whose side you are on.

          • courage the cowardly dog says:

            I am quite clear on whose side I am on. At least a half a dozen times I have condemned Limbaugh’s attack on Sandra Fluke. It was inappropriate to call her a slut, but his attack on the principle she espoused has merit and for some reason, people can’t separate out those two things. Which is a very strong argument for refraining from calling people you disagree with inappropriate names because your audience will focus on the inappropriate aspects of your argument and not on the part that has merit.

            • Adsum Ozar says:

              Ok. Let me try this again “courage”. Do you think Limbaugh’s attack on the “principle she espoused” has merit on religious grounds or capitalist? Is it more egregious to express oneself and demand from insurance companies to cover basic contraception items that could very likely contribute to a better outcome than an unwanted pregnancy? Or is it more effective for a radio agitator to spew disgusting vitriol that persons as yourself can find defensible on both constitutional, and -somehow- religious grounds without batting an eye as you defend your protection from the government infringing on your religious freedom turn around and try to impose your given freedom of religion on the rest of us by way of the government doing what you deem… what was it? Capitalistic or religiously righteous? I am respectfully waiting for your response “courageous”.

              • courage the cowardly dog says:

                It is both religious liberty and economic liberty. I think the concept is too complex for you to understand. You don’t strike me as the brightest bulb in the shed. I have explained it in simple terms here multiple times. Go back read my threads and see if you can figure it out, but I doubt you will.

  43. CW Nahumck says:

    Here’s the thing with living within a society. We all have to pay for things that we find morally or religiously objectionable.

    If my religious beliefs are such that I am a pacifistic, and can give you evidence of my faith traditions long standing beliefs of pacifism, then, according to this same logic of religious objection, I should never have to pay taxes, since a portion of every penny goes to the Military and supports the governments active participation in the killing of other, which my faith would say is a sin. (I don’t hold this belief, and am thankful for those who serve in the military).

    Part of being in society means that other people will make choices that I will disagree with. For example, Rush’s ability to speak. This is not about religious freedom, its about control. Fluke was not allowed to speak. She didn’t have a voice. That is control. Your religious freedom does not equal my responsibility to follow your rules. You have the right to believe whatever you want to believe. You have the right (with some restrictions as specified by SCOTUS) to say whatever you want. But I have the right not to listen, to not be forced to listen.

    If you are in community, then we are equals. Which means that I’ll do things that you don’t like, and you’ll do things that I don’t like. Its part of being a citizen. Welcome, enjoy your stay.

    • courage the cowardly dog says:

      Taxes are different than making private insurers do something that affects the price structure of their premiums. It is interfering with free enterprise and a government intrusion into the free market. The fact is my tax dollars go to support Planned Parenthood, which practices abortions. I don’t like it, but if I don’t pay my taxes I am going to jail. The Obama Health Care Plan is new enough to stop the kind of mandates I find objectionable. I have let my congressman know in no uncertain terms that I find government support of Planned Parenthood extremely objectionable on religious grounds. So far it hasn’t done much good. The time to speak out on this Obama Mandate is now before it becomes too established law and cannot be undone.

      “Fluke was not allowed to speak. She didn’t have a voice.”
      Really? What do mean? Fluke spoke to a congressional committee. It was on all the networks. I did hear her speak. I never actually heard Rush speak. I saw some discussion of it on the News and saw him quoted here.

      • CW Nahumck says:

        She got to speak after initially not being allowed to. They attempted to take away her voice. Thankfully, that was rectified. The only reason she was allowed to speak was because of the outrage that her initial denial caused.

        And, there is no such thing as a “free market.” Because if there was, then we wouldn’t have things like child labor laws and minimum wage. The government has always helped to be the balance to capitalism that seeks only profit by giving voice to that other side of us, the citizen.

        And, your insurance pays for people who do not have it. As someone in the health care field, I know that hospitals and the like have to treat people with no ability to pay. That’s why acetaminophen costs $200 dollars for a pill or something outrageous. Your health premiums are always going to pay for other people’s care in some ways. I don’t see the issue with everyone being required to have health insurance, just like everyone who drives needs car insurance.

        Again, this is about control, not religious freedom. I understand that you find Planned Parenthood to be extremely objectionable on religious grounds. I could list you a host of things that I find objectionable on religious grounds. Here’s the thing: it’s part of being in a democracy. Deal with it. None of us are happy with the end result, because we all have to give up something.

  44. Richard Aubrey says:

    ashe. Your reference to your use of BC seems to be promoting the nonsense that if insurance doesn’t provide it, it’s not available. We both know that’s silly. So what’s your real reason for commenting?
    twinbabiesdad. Right on, sir. I was wondering where that slut pride had gone to. All of a sudden it was a bad thing to be a slut. Now we’re back on track.
    Chris in NC. wrt cheeseburgers, I think the feds are fixing to do that for you. You may as well start on people having promiscuous sex. Lots of STDs get going that way, and they’re not free, either. Um. The more I think about it, the less I think you want to go there. If you’re going to be principled, I mean. That’s not mandatory, though.
    ashe.. To help the poor avoid unwanted pregnancies…. The poor usually don’t have jobs, or if they do, they don’t have benefits. So whether the insurance covers it or not is not relevant. But you could set up car pools to get the folks to the nearest PP office where the stuff is free. You might also talk to social workers and others dealing with the really poor. A young woman in a disfunctional home may find that her best bet, realistically and not ideally, is to get pregnant as soon as possible, get a case of her own and get separately supported by the state. So it’s possible, or almost certain, that a number of the pregnancies amongst the poor are intended. Or involve people with inadequate skill at self-organization where available BC isn’t used anyway.

    • I tried to write a response to this, but instead just sighed.

      Can’t argue with someone who doesn’t believe in logic.

  45. I think men are angry because they have far less reproductive rights than women. If we lived in a world where Choice for Men was a sacred right, boys who were statutorily raped weren’t forced to pay their rapist, and a woman couldn’t take semen from a thrown away condom, impregnate herself and hook a man for child support for 18 years, I don’t think men would be as adverse to the advancement of women’s rights.

    “And let me take a moment to say something very clearly here. You guys who are saying this stuff? You are not men at all. You’re cowards. Because real men don’t beat up on women. Ever.”

    And let me take a moment to say something very clearly here. This is outrageously, disgustingly sexist.

  46. My take on the issue is that those who want to play risky games (sex) should get their own protective gears (birth control).

  47. Chris in NC says:

    Quite succinctly, I don’t understand what all the fuss is about. My insurance premium covers all sorts of drugs/pills that are either related to people’s current choices or past choices. Health care on the whole, could be discredited by the argument of “why do I have to pay for that for someone else?” Yet that is the way the insurance company works. You pay in and some years you get more out than what you’ve paid in and in some years you don’t use all your coverage but someone else is. My insurance premiums cover cancers (some of which are related to tobacco and alcohol use/abuse over many decades), cover abortions, prenatal care, angioplasties, bypasses, all of which can be attributabed to choices people make. Why is this particular choice (to have sex and prevent having children when one is not ready or wanting) of so much concern over the other choices people make. Next time someone fat eats a cheeseburger, I’m going to call them a slob and say I shouldn’t have to pay for their eventual medical needs from their decisions.

    • Exactly. But we do. And perhaps someone should bring that up to Limbaugh considering his insurance if it hasn’t already has probably paid for him to have a bypass for his choices.

      • Not to mention Viagra…..

        • AnotherDude says:

          Condoms, and pills should all be covered. It just makes good economic sense. I don’t know about Viagra.

          But the debate gets less clear to me when people start saying that Birth Control (for either gender) ought to be a right. I am not so sure about that. Most rights that the constitution affords are geared towards: a) protecting individuals from the excesses of the state, or b) towards providing access to services which people have no option but to consume, but may not have the resources to pay for.

          Birth Control, for the purposes of avoiding pregnancies (for men or women), meets neither category.

  48. twinbabiesdad says:

    Fellas, this is not about insurance or even contraception. It’s about calling a young woman a slut because she stood up and said “I would like, and think I should be allowed, to contribute to the conversation around an issue that impacts my life.”

    I had sex with women in college. Those women were on the pill (thank God). Neither they nor I were sluts. When my daughters choose to have sex, I hope that we can have open communication (no matter how uncomfortable I feel in the moment) about healthy sexuality and sexual safety.

    If they choose to stand up for what they believe and are excoriatedfor it, I will stand beside them and tell the world how proud I am of them. Because if my kids are strong enough to stand up for their beliefs, I will know I have done my job right — regardless of who they are f*ckin.

  49. Richard Aubrey says:

    M. Who’s forcing PP clinics to shut?
    Pills are one thing, rubbers are another. Diaphragms, IUD, foam. Pills you need consistently, some of the others you need on hand for the incident. Condoms should be provided by the guy, unless he buys the assertion that chivalry is misgynistic and patronizing.
    Morning after pills you pop each time and not in between.

    One might make the point that BC increases health care costs. It allows people to be sexually active as they wouldn’t be without it, but its primary effect is to delay, not prevent, the onset of infection or pregnancy. One or the other or both will happen. Take that to the bank.

    • I am married and on birth control. I would definitely still be sexually active without the pill, but having an option as a woman that allows me to control my own body is what it’s about. As a man, having the choice to put on a condom is how you can take matters into your own hands and see to it that you are not prematurely a father. As a woman, I want security and equal liberty to make this decision just as my partner can.

      Promiscuity has existed since the dawn of time. Birth control will not change people’s sexuality, but rather reduce how often a baby results. To all those people that you think should be making better use of their time, wouldn’t you rather that they don’t end up with a child on top of everything and then apply for welfare and barely raise the kid up? It’s better we help poor individuals prevent pregnancy, because sex will happen.

      Sex is part of life. Every species does it. It’s totally, completely normal, and not some sort of trend that can be choked out by taking away birth control.

      We’ll just start seeing many, many more unwanted “oops” babies.

  50. Mark, as a woman, I just wanted to say thank you. Thank you for being as outraged by this as I am. I’m so angry that I cannot even formulate a response to this directly, so I was glad to read your words and see that you said what I was thinking.

    You are right on every single observation.

  51. Richard Aubrey says:

    M. The issue is not how BC works. It’s the planted axiom that it’s so expensive that society has to pay for it. IOW, everybody, not just sexually active women, has to participate in paying for the BC for sexually active women.. Everybody knows better. And that BC is so expensive that sexually active women will continue to be sexually active even without BC because it’s so expensive. Two points: It’s not all that expensive in the first place, and if you can’t afford it, you probably are in a situation where being sexually active is a poor use of your time. And if you’re in that position but intend to be sexually active anyway, you probably don’t have an insurance plan anyway, so the coverage issue is meaningless. OTOH, you can pop round to PP and get your choice of colors and flavors for free.
    I hate to look as if I actually believe you believe this is about the expense of BC. But I figure that by doing so, I can make the point that you’re not fooling anybody.
    Look. I got an extremely modest GPA from Enormous State University. After that, I was a grunt, and then I peddled insurance. If I know better than this, how about all the smart people, which is pretty much everybody?

    • I don’t know about all the expenses of Birth Control. They may recommend different amounts of hormone depending on if you have a serious problem or not. Which may vary the cost.You are right Birth Control may not be all that expensive. I go down to PP. It’s not that expensive, they work on a sliding scale as well. But a lot of clinics like PP are being forced to shut. How this may affect someone without insurance and without the availability of clinics I don’t know. But anyway Limbaugh and others seem to be making the comment that you pop one every time you have sex. His comment about having so much sex that you can’t afford the birth control certainly implies that train of thought.

    • You are a moron! You don’t know what the difference between birth control PILLS and condoms are, do you? You think birth control comes in FLAVORS?

      You are just way too ignorant to even have an opinion on this subject. You need to go read a book.

    • Nobody is asking for condoms to be covered. When people talk about birth control, they’re talking about The Pill. Women are asking for The Pill to be covered. Hormonal treatment. Something you need a prescription for. And one of the reasons why we’re asking for it is because it treats other medical conditions besides preventing pregnancy, like endometriosis, ovarian cysts, irregular menstruation, and severe menstrual cramps.

      Ovarian Cysts:

      You will probably skip over these links and not bother to do a little research. But you know, I bet that if you had such issues, this whole covering birth control wouldn’t be one.

    • Pet peeve. Why do people keep insisting that poor women can go to Planned Parenthood when Republicans are also trying to take that away? That leaves women paying for an expensive hormonal treatment that may help those with endometriosis and ovarian cysts, and if they can’t afford it, then they’re at risk for more expensive surgeries or infertility.

  52. amberbug says:
    Here is the actual transcript of her testimony, which she was at first DENIED giving on an all male panel.

  53. As I’ve heard said in other places: Limbaugh and others don’t seem to get how birth control works. You don’t take one before every time you have sex. You take it once a day. And it does reduce health care costs considering how much a child costs. Moreover, given that Georgetown receives funding from the government shouldn’t it abide by the governments laws? Like discriminatory policies?

  54. amberbug says:

    “She claims to have been pretty active so far “. Where the hell do you get this? She testified about a lesbian friend of hers who had a medical condition which birth control was necessary to treat. Are you that gullible? Or just looking to spread gossip?

    • We might as well never have had the sexual revolution. We’re back to square one. Sigh. And its important to note that no one is ranting about the men who have sex.

  55. amberbug says:

    So far Rush has had 6 sponsors pull their business from his show. First Glen Beck, then Pat Buchanan, and now we’re taking Rush down a few.

  56. Richard Aubrey says:

    She can afford it herself. The cost isn’t a problem. You know it isn’t. I know it isn’t. I know you know it isn’t, and it isn’t the point.
    If she wants to avoid pregnancy, she can get her own birth control. Your planted axiom–transparent, I should say–that if she isn’t afforded BC by her insurance, she can’t get it. Wrong. Again, you know, I know, I know you know, and I know you know it isn’t the point.
    And, in fact, it doesn’t reduce health care costs, since births to young educated women are not supposed to be unplanned. They’re smart. Right? Have agency and autonomy, right? The insurance company isn’t going to be calling her reminding her to take her pill, or following her on dates with spare rubbers if she or the other person forgot them.
    So the use of BC, the availability, paid for by others or not, doesn’t change the likelihood she’ll get pregnant. She claims to have been pretty active so far and you’t think she’d either be pregnant because she hasn’t been able to afford BC, or broke because it costs so much, snort.
    Mark, friend, buddy, listen to me. You’re busted. This isn’t about BC and insurance. We know it. You just have to get right with the idea that…you’re busted.

    • I’m happy to let our arguments stand and let others decide who they agree with. Cause baby, I’m feeling pretty good about my team on this one.

    • “You know it isn’t. I know it isn’t. I know you know it isn’t, and it isn’t the point.” …HAHAHAH! I knew you were going to pull this line Aubrey.

      Aubrey logic: Aubrey, you know your fiction sucks, I know your fiction sucks, you know I know your fiction sucks, you know I know you know I know your fiction sucks. You know everybody knows your fiction sucks. Why write your fiction?

  57. Richard Aubrey says:

    Greene missed the point, probably deliberately because he couldn’t afford to address it.

    Point is, are other people required to pay for what Ms. Fluke could easily afford herself? In addition, she needs this because of an activity she participates in voluntarily.

    Since Fluke can afford this–law students at a top-tier school ought to be able to afford something that costs less than a cup of Starbuck’s cheapest–the issue is not about cost but about the social and legal requirement that society–other people–pay for this. And paying for this is not a matter of leaving Fluke with a couple of extra bucks in her jeans for a Baby Ruth. It’s a matter of dragging society one step closer to that which many in society would oppose.

    Greene also knows how insurance works, but he plainly hopes others don’t.

    • She is asking for the opportunity to have birth control added to her existing coverage which she opted for at her university. Your argument that adding birth control to her coverage will somehow drive up the costs for all of us is false. Access to birth control reduces health care costs because less women get pregnancies, wanted or otherwise.

      This point has been addressed over and over in the press and elsewhere.

      • courage the cowardly dog says:

        Its not false. It is economics. Insurance companies are in the business to make money. They don’t make money if they give away free coverage. I have worked for insurance companies so I know of what I speak.

        • It makes more sense for insurance companies to cover birth control than it is for them to shell out lots of money for an unintended pregnancy.

          • courage the cowardly dog says:

            “It makes more sense for insurance companies to cover birth control than it is for them to shell out lots of money for an unintended pregnancy.”

            First let me thank you for referring to it as an “unintended pregnancy” vs. an “unwanted child”. The latter rankles the hell out of me. An “unintended pregnancy” can turn into a blessed miracle. With regard to the gist of your argument, nobody would buy insurance if it didn’t cover pregnancy care. It is a matter of competition that compels the offering of that coverage. Not everyone needs or wants contraceptive care. Let the free market decide whether or not that is coverage an insurance company needs to offer to stay competitive, but don’t allow the governement to make insurance offer the coverage. That is really the core of my argument. The government mandate is government telling private insurance what they must offer and in turn I believe that government mandate is unconstitutional to the extent that it encroaches on my religious liberty.

            • If that’s the argument, about the govt’ telling businesses what they can and cannot offer, then what’s to stop other groups from pushing back, as mentioned for other drugs/services that not everyone needs or wants? If this was for something like….dry eyes medications, where a relatively small portion of the population needed/wanted to utilize the drug (for one can live, albeit uncomfortably with dry eyes) and there was a group of citizens raising an absolutely ruckus over pennies of their income going to that drug would anyone pay attention at all?
              I don’t think so. This is about sex, sexuality, women having the control over when they have kids and have sex, and this is a fundamental dynamic that the church is against.
              I have had numerous conversations with very close Catholic friends, and cannot make heads or tails of it because their beliefs are predicated on “belief” and I don’t believe the same way they do.

              BC is a public health care issue, preventative medicine. And you mentioned earlier that God works in ways you can’t predict right? His plan is unknown. Why is out of the realm of possibility that he/she wants us to use our minds to come up with solutions to issues like over population? People do not stop having sex, they just don’t. Why not allow the non believers to stop having babies so that the Catholics can have more? Why push your agenda on the rest of us?

              If you don’t want BC covered because it isn’t medically necessary, then get rid of all the rest of coverages (Like viagra, as it is not medically necessary-no one ever died from not getting an erection right?) of other lifestyle drugs.

              See how far that gets us. The insurance and pharmaceutical industries wouldn’t stand for it. It’s only BC people are throwing fits about and that’s because it about sex.

    • Here comes Aubrey the assumer, king of the comment trolls. Regal us all with your expertise on what Mark does and does not know Aubrey…And what his article is really all about…And what we should all think about it.

    • “law students at a top-tier school ought to be able to afford something that costs less than a cup of Starbuck’s cheapest”

      My hormonal birth control costs $90/month if it is not covered by insurance.

      Where is Starbuck’s cheapest drink worth over $90, because that had better be the biggest, most fantastic cup of coffee the world has ever seen.

  58. Robert Spence says:

    Great article, Mark. Rush has been sh*tting the bed from the outset. I really hope you’re right; that this is it for him. It’s about frikkin’ time.

    In a more reasonable world he would have been gone 2+ decades ago. You know the crap that Ann Coulter and Michael Savage and the other corporate disinformation media thugs have been getting away with. It’s hard to say if this is the worst Rush has done because believe me…

    But I’m with you. I hope this is the last straw. And I hope he is useful insofar as he is a liability to the GOP.

  59. Miz Smarty Pants says:

    Thank you for composing a terrific piece of writing. Thank the Universe that there are great men like you.

  60. courage the cowardly dog says:

    Rush’s comments were over the top, but he has a valid point. That start may result in this post not being made public, but I will explain why his underlying point has merit.

    Mr. Greene you obviously don’t understand issue or how insurance works. Ms. Fluke was speaking against the “Blunt amendment” which was an amendment which would relieve health insurers from a mandate in the the Obama Health Care Program which compelled private insurance companies to provide coverage for contraception. Women have an absolute right to contraception, but they don’t have the right to have me underwrite the cost of that contraception, especially if my faith says you shall do nothing to interfere with God’s power and authorithy to create life. Connecting that to insurance, Insurance companies determine what they will charge for their premium based on what they have to cover. If the government says you must cover contraception, private insurers will provide the coverage, but the cost of that coverage will be distributed amongst all the policyholders, not just those who benefit from the coverage ie I, a devout Catholic, am paying for Ms. Fluke to engage in conduct that interferes with God’s power and authority to create life. I am indirectly violating a basic tenant of my faith and I am paying more on my health insurance policy and even if that works out to be $2 to $3 a month– that is one less ice cream cone I can get for my kids while also indirectly committing a sin.

    With regard to Rush Limbaugh– his business model is bombastic outrage, making comments, that many of his listeners, and he has a lot, quietly agree with, though maybe not in the manner that he delivers them. He has been on the air for a very long time. He is not going anywhere. He makes too much money for too many people.

    • “Connecting that to insurance, Insurance companies determine what they will charge for their premium based on what they have to cover.”

      To my knowledge providing birth control REDUCES health costs. That’s why insurance companies often “give it away” at no cost to insured when they are allowed to. Birth control is preventative care. Your insurance costs GO DOWN when universal birth control is available.

      Not only that, birth control prevents unwanted pregnancies. Something I would hope we can all agree is a good thing.

      • courage the cowardly dog says:

        Yes, contracepion may reduce the cost of Health Care, it doesn’t necessarily reduce Health Insurance Premiums. While health care providers (different than health insurers) may give away contraception (the pill is not among those “give aways”) health insurers do not. You are getting health care providers (doctors, hospitals, clinics etc) confused with health insurers. If health care providers want to give that kind of thing away, great I don’t have to underwrite the cost and I am completely in compliance with my faith, an issue which you completely ignored. But faith to the faithless is a bothersome topic and not one comfortable to deal with.

        Health Insurance carriers know something that maybe you and Ms. Fluke don’t really want to admit and that is even those you might be consumers of contraception don’t always use them (they forget to take the pill or a condom is not handy or whatever) and the Health Insurance Company is on the hook for the Maternity care etc and under the Obama mandate they have to cover the contraception anyway. So they work into the cost of the premiums maternity care and with an Obama mandate the cost of contraception too– which is borne, in part by me. I find that objectionable. Sorry.

        Unwanted pregnancies can be dealt with by absintence and even if you become pregnant when you think you don’t want a child, it may part of God’s plan for you to be blessed with a child– so don’t presume that that child is necessarily unwanted. I am sure when you found out your wife was pregnant you were scared to death. I know I was. But my children turned out to be the greatest blessing of my life, maybe my only blessing. I know from the comments you have made on this blog you consider your children a blessing. So lets not think of any child as unwanted.

        • And now, my piece about how Rush Limbaugh made liberal use of the word “slut” is deftly shifted to a discussion of the inner workings of health insurance premiums. LOL

        • I can’t wait for a religious group that is against medication for depression or against medication for impotence or against medication for heart surgery to get enough power to insist that they don’t want any of their money indirectly going to those medical issues, and so those things will be out of pocket. I’ve been thinking about forming one myself. I mean, why stop at contraception? We all pay for things in our insurance coverage that we may or may not agree with. We all pay taxes that may go to funding prisons or wars we don’t agree with. Can’t have those nasty fat and sodium eating gluttonous sinners getting heart surgery after committing a deadly sin for so many years, not on my dime!
          If god is so powerful, I think he/she will understand that you, CTCD, are not contracepting, not aborting and not supporting it. Or you could do the noble thing opt out of insurance. Cause the rest of us want the coverage.

          • courage the cowardly dog says:

            I should opt out of coverage for my heart condition so you can practice sex wihout consequesnce? Really?

            My prayers are with you.

            • No, we both should get coverage fully for all our needs. I was employing sarcasm. Of course I don’t want people to go without health care. That would be inhuman. But im sure there are religious vegans who believe that heart disease caused by meat eating is a consequence of a sin. Should they fight back? Why is sex so different? Because your religion says so but your religion is not my religion. Sex is a good thing and being able to control boirth lowers costs and helps sustain this very finite earth. People have sex no matter what religions try to do to stop it . Pray for me if you like but know that I don’t need them. I’m good. You seem good with god so don’t worry about the rest of us.

              • People have sex, but they won’t die without it, whereas someone would die without heart medication… Birth control is elective, heart medications are not.

                • Then viagra drugs shouldn’t be covered. Or pms meds or countless other lifestyle drugs.

                  • Perhaps yes, but again, the comparison doesn’t hold. Viagra is because of a disease, whereas birth control is not. In cases where it is medically necessary, then yes it should be covered, but to me these are two different debates.

                    • sharlet says:

                      Viagra is for a “disease”? Please describe what disease this is, other than aging……

                      PMDD, endometriosis, ovarian cysts, breast cysts and aging-related menopausal pain w/ hemorraghing are all diseases that women can be affected by & are often treated w/ various forms of the pill. Some of them are deadly.

              • courage the cowardly dog says:

                Sex is a very good thing when performed in the proper context. In the context of love and commitment. Sex should never be practiced to exlpoit someone else for one’s personal pleasure or entertainment. Sex is the means by which God blesses us with children. We should not interfere with God’s blessings or God’s plan. And I don’t pretend to know what that is. I leave it up to God.

                • For you. Not for literally billions of others. You get to have the sex life you choose and I’d never stop you. You don’t get to choose mine.

                • Artemis says:

                  “Sex is a very good thing when performed in the proper context. In the context of love and commitment. Sex should never be practiced to exlpoit someone else for one’s personal pleasure or entertainment.”

                  Are you saying that people who don’t want to get pregnant are not having sex for love and commitment? I have sex for love and commitment frequently. I also don’t want babies because I am still in grad school and will not be starting my career any time soon.

                  • courage the cowardly dog says:

                    What I said was that sex should be practiced in the context of love and commitment, the kind of love and commitment that if you and your partner were confronted with a challenge that affected you both equally over a long period of time your love and commitment to each other would allow you and your partner to handle that challenge in a responsible manner overcoming whatever hardships you had to deal with. That is love and commitment. I tell my sons before you have sex with a woman ask yourself this question, can I live with this woman in harmony and support and participate in the raising of a child with her for the next 18 and a half years. If the answer is anything less than a robust and enthusiastic “Yes”, put clothes on and go home.

            • Well if you smoked, or ate a lot of fast food, never exercised and became overweight, or otherwise put your heart at risk, well then why should I pay for your poor decisions? I’m not paying for you to eat whatever you want and not exercise properly without consequences.

              See how this logic works?

    • @courage “the cost of that coverage will be distributed amongst all the policyholders [thus]… I am indirectly violating a basic tenant of my faith”
      This is a nonsensical argument that leads to a dangerous slippery slope. Should each of us with a moral objection to a government policy or action (such as the killing of civilians by drones) be exempt from paying taxes? Should a religious organization which operates a hospital or other secular institution have the authority to dictate what its employees (of any faith) can do with their paycheck since any money spent by the employee on an “immoral activity” is being indirectly paid for by the employer? Clearly if you live in this world, and haven’t chosen a cloistered existence, then you run the risk of being “indirectly” connected to the “immoral” action of others. Your discomfort and desire to avoid being “six degrees of separation” from the sins of others does not give you any special privileges. If you don’t want to be tainted by the world, then don’t live in it. Become a hermit, or refuse to buy insurance and pay the penalty, but don’t mask your desire to impose your views on others as religious liberty.

      • courage the cowardly dog says:

        As I have said taxes and a mandate on private insurers is different. I think I addressed this issue in another post and I will let that serve as my response to your post Jeff. There is a solution. Let contraceptive coverage exist as a separate rider–those who want it can get it, but must pay for it. Those who don’t want it– don’t have to get it and don’t pay for it. Simple.

        • okay, how about also have prenatal and neonatal costs as a separate rider? Or coverage for lung cancer treatments? Or coverage for heart problems?

          Because I don’t need those and I don’t want to pay for someone else’s pregnancy just because they were too forgetful to use contraception. Why should I pay for someone else’s care when they were too stupid to not smoke or not work out and eat fast food every day? I don’t do those things, why should I have to pay?

          • courage the cowardly dog says:

            If you can’t see the difference between lung cancer and sex without consequence I can’t explain it to you. You are beyond rational. Its when one is confronted by arguments like yours that frustation builds and some one makes over the top comments that are offensive. But your argument has no merit.

            • Artemis says:

              “If you can’t see the difference between lung cancer and sex without consequence I can’t explain it to you.”

              A potential side effect of smoking (a voluntary act) is lung cancer. A potential side effect of sex without birth control (a voluntary act) is pregnancy. Both cost money to treat. Both could be prevented. Not smoking would prevent the lung cancer, using birth control would prevent pregnancy.

              You are saying you don’t think it’s okay to ask other people to cover birth control. I don’t agree with people eating fast food all the time and smoking. Why should I have to pay for their treatments, but other people get a free pass in not covering my birth control?

              Just because you don’t agree with someone does not make them “beyond rational.” Your argument seems to me to be beyond rational, but I understand it is because we just have differing viewpoints and you are arguing from a moral standpoint while I am arguing from a practical standpoint. We just have different means of arguing.

              • courage the cowardly dog says:

                Lung cancer is not caused by smoking alone. My uncle never smoked a day in his life and died of lung cancer. Have you ever heard of Mesothelioma? It comes from exposure to asbestos, much of which occurred in the work place. Don’t equate that with casual sex. It is horribly painful and nearly 100% fatal. Far many more people die from Mesothelioma than from pregnancy. Most of the time the result of a pregnancy is the miraculous creation of life. Most of the time Lung Cancer ends in death. Don’t equate the two. You are ignorant.

              • courage the cowardly dog says:

                I don’t want to pay so you can have casual sex without consequence. I am willing to help pay for those who were sold by the tobacco companies to engage in a practice they were told was safe and once hooked couldn’t quit. Unless you are a sex addict sex is a behavior that can be regulated to conform with a woman’s ovulation cycle thereby obviating the need for birth control.

                • Artemis says:

                  “Unless you are a sex addict sex is a behavior that can be regulated to conform with a woman’s ovulation cycle thereby obviating the need for birth control.”

                  That is the LEAST recommended form of birth control. Anal and withdrawal rank higher than that in terms of success. I’d rather do those.

                  Also, wanting sex every day does not a sex addict make.

                  My point is, we are all paying for behaviors we may not agree with. Denying people care because you don’t agree with their behavior is judgmental and wrong. I don’t agree with people never exercising and eating poorly, when I exercise and watch my nutrition. But I’m not going to deny them health coverage. You denying sexually active people health coverage is merely discriminatory.

                  “Most of the time the result of a pregnancy is the miraculous creation of life. Most of the time Lung Cancer ends in death. Don’t equate the two. You are ignorant.”
                  Super respectful of you, thanks. You are true Christian, what with all the judgment, condescension, and lack of respect. Sometimes the result of pregnancy is death, so good job. And frankly, if I were to get pregnant, I would have an abortion, so what now? Wouldn’t you prefer I get my birth control and never get pregnant?

        • I’m not trying to pile on, but I don’t see how you’ve addressed my point: your claim that religious liberty exempts you from “indirectly supporting” what you consider to be immoral behavior is invalid. The 1st Amendment free exercise clause can’t reasonably be applied to indirect actions or else it becomes a free pass, allowing anyone to get out of obeying any law or regulation for which they can dream up a step-by-step six degrees of separation rationale for their moral opposition. There are possibly many reasonable policy alternatives (such as your optional rider idea) and there might be some great free market explanations for why the mandate is a bad idea. You certainly have the right to advocate and lobby against this rule. I’m merely saying that your claim that the rule violates your religious liberty is bogus. Neither you, nor the bishops, nor any other person, will be required to use birth control by this mandate. If the policy allows others to engage in behavior that you find immoral, that’s unfortunate for you, but in now way does it “prohibit the free exercise” of your religion. If the Catholic Church wants to offer group policies for its members that do not cover birth control, then that’s their prerogative (since the policy exempts churches and organization engaging directly in ministry) but secular institutions and other businesses (even if owned or operated by a religious organization) must follow the regulation, and no religious liberties are jeopardized by the policy.

          • courage the cowardly dog says:

            I respectfully disagree. My optional rider suggestion is the solution. This issue has a two fold component– one economic liberty and the other religious liberty. It is the heavy handed imposition of a government mandate that indirectly compels me to fincinacially support a practice my religion says is wrong. In a nutshell that is my problem with it and those who want to make me pay for something I don’t support. But I promise I won’t call you a slut.

  61. “These guys want to take away birth control?”

    Do these guys actually want to take away birth control or not fund it?

    Because if it’s the latter then I don’t see how that’s different then the situation for men currently in terms of birth control?

    • If a man wants a vasectomy, his insurance will cover it.

      • Do you have proof of this?

        And if vasectomies are covered, are tubal ligations not covered?

      • courage the cowardly dog says:

        You are missing the point. It is the government mandating the coverage. Not all insurance companies cover vasectomies. It is the idea that the government is imposing this on insurance companies and consequently making all policy holders pay for it. If the government is telling health insurers they must pay for vasectomies, I am against that as well. If there is a greater risk of health to oneself or spouse then I am ok with a vasectomy. For instance I read recently a case where a woman had gone through several high risk pregnancies and her doctor had suggested that the couple not have any more children because of the risk to the mother, but he also did not think it was good for the woman to have a tubal ligation because the effect on hormone production, so he suggested the husband have a vasectomy. I think under Catholic teaching that would be ok because it is for the protection of the mother, otherwise I would against that as well.

        • Artemis says:

          The reason contraception (and I agree, vasectomies should fall under this) is covered is because contraception is classified as “preventative care.” I am of the opinion that insurance companies should have some universal standard of care, and covering basic preventative care is something all people with health insurance should have. Otherwise, what is the point of health insurance?

          In case you are wondering why contraception is classified as “preventative care” it is because it prevents pregnancy, a medical condition with very high costs for prenatal and neonatal care.

      • courage the cowardly dog says:

        I said that was wrong, but you want to advance the underlying cause because of a bad actor. John Brown sought the destruction of slavery, and in the 1850s he advocated and practiced armed insurrection as a means to abolish slavery in the United States. He led the Pottawatomie Massacre, during which five men were killed, in 1856 in Bleeding Kansas, and made his name in the unsuccessful raid at Harpers Ferry in 1859. Later that year he was executed but his speeches at the trial captured national attention. Brown has been called “the most controversial of all 19th-century Americans” and “America’s first domestic terrorist.” The destruction of slavery was a good cause, but John Brown’s means of seeking to bring about the end of slavery was bad. Rush Limbaugh’s over the top comments should not diminish the merits of the underlying message and that is I should not (even if it is just pennies a month) be made to underwrite contraception for a variety of reasons that I have mentioned here already.

      • actually the Catholic Church does not cover vasectomies.


  1. […] Congressman Todd Akins “legitimate rape” comment, Rush Limbaugh’s attempted slut shaming of Sandra Fluke over access to birth control, and this most recent anti-abortion rationale by Illinois Rep. Joe […]

  2. […] message was carefully crafted. After months of massive GOP missteps on birth control and rape, Ann Romney’s job was to reach out to women and convince them that she understands […]

  3. […] First, what has come to be framed as evidence of the Republican “war on women” is Rush Limbaugh’s notorious attack on Sandra Fluke wherein he called her a slut for wanting access to birth control via her health care […]

  4. […] would support the GOP, as apparently all Republicans are sexist bastards. Rush Limbaugh certainly didn’t help that cause when he called Sandra Fluke a prostitute for wanting her birth control to be covered by her student […]

  5. […] ever reaching gender equality. Mark Greene brilliantly explains just how fucked up Limbaugh is in “Rush Limbaugh Has Finally Shits The Bed”. This isn’t going to change unless every man makes it his moral responsibility to stop slut […]

  6. […] using the birth control. It’s beyond slut-shaming. As Mark Greene has already pointed out here, Rush has gone around the bend, and the move was a business decision that has blown up in his […]

  7. […] the birth control. It’s beyond slut-shaming. As Mark Greene has already pointed out here, Rush has gone around the bend, and the move was a business decision that has blown up in his face. /* Filed Under: […]

  8. […] In this spirit, I have written this response to Mark Greene’s article: Rush Limbaugh Finally Sh*ts the Bed. […]

  9. […] Rush Limbaugh Finally Sh**ts The Bed. […]

  10. […] list of cultural awareness micro-adjustments, we’ve blown our cool entirely. Hence the whole Rush Limbaugh/Tea Party thing. But regardless of where you come down on the political spectrum, these are tricky […]

  11. […] For more on Rush Limbaugh, read Mark Greene’s “Rush Limbaugh Finally Shits The Bed” […]

  12. […] For more on Rush Limbaugh, read Mark Greene’s “Rush Limbaugh Finally Shits The Bed” […]

  13. […] Green thinks Rush’s career is at a tipping point: And having birthed this refreshingly honest display of […]

Speak Your Mind