1/7/2012: THE SET-UP BEGINS: During the Jan. 7 New Hampshire debate, George Stephanopoulos asked the presidential contenders if states have the right to ban contraception. Romney attacked the question, noting that no state was even considering it and it was therefore a non-issue. [1]
In hindsight, this seems to be coordination between ABC and the White House to start in motion a chain of events that surprised even the White House.
On Jan. 20 [just 13 days later], the question of contraception burst onto the national scene as a major issue when the Obama administration announced that religiously-based schools, hospitals and non-profits would be required to provide insurance coverage to their employees for contraception. [1]
Here is where the White House miscalculated. The entire Catholic hierarchy in this country stood up and declared this would not happen and that this was against the constitutionally protected right to freedom of religion.
Catholic bishops said [on 2/12/2012] that they would not support the Obama administration’s proposed compromise on a controversial rule that requires most employers to fully cover contraception in their workers’ health plans. [3]
2/22/2012: You recall, back in the January debate we had George Stephanopoulos talking all about birth control. We wondered why in the world contraception was mentioned – it’s like, ‘why’s he going there?’ Well, we found out when Barack Obama continued his attack on religious conscience. [2]
BACKGROUND ON FLUKE TESTIFYING: The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee convened a panel scheduled for February 16, 2012, entitled “Lines Crossed: Separation of Church and State. Has the Obama Administration Trampled on Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Conscience?” Republican members invited 10 panelists, all heads of religions or religious institutions opposed to contraceptive mandates, and Democratic members invited Barry W. Lynn, a prominent UCC minister and leader of the American religious left. Democrats asked the committee to substitute Sandra Fluke for Lynn. Fluke graduated from Cornell University in 2003 and been an activist for 5 years before entering Georgetown Law School. See additional professional bio here [5].
[Ed. Note: Ms. Fluke KNEW when she entered Georgetown Law that the university’s student health plan did NOT cover contraception.]
Committee chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) refused on the grounds that “she lacked expertise in questions of religious freedoms under federal law.” So the Democrats brought Fluke in to testify in the House DEMOCRATIC STEERING and POLICY COMMITTEE – which was not televised. Fluke argued in favor of requiring all private insurance plans to include contraception coverage. [5]
According to some reports, it was Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., who pushed for Fluke’s testimony. Maloney also initiated the call for Fluke to sue Rush Limbaugh for his on-air derogatory remark about Fluke, according to the Daily Beast. [4]
In addition, Rep. Maloney is tied to a progressive pollster, Celinda Lake, who recently ran extensive polling in an effort to gauge voters’ reactions to including birth control or contraception in insurance coverage. [4]
Lake heads Lake Research, which lists both Maloney and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi as recent clients. Pollster Lake said that she and other Democrats see the strong Republican opposition to contraception as a way to win women back after they swung right in 2010, even though they backed Obama in big numbers in 2008. World Net Daily has found that [Lake’s polling] is one of the driving forces behind the progressive strategy to use contraception as an election issue. [4] [My guess is that this entire controversy can be laid at the feet of the woman who wants to be Speaker of the House again – one Nancy Pelosi]
2/23/2012: ENTER SANDRA FLUKE: Sandra Fluke, a 2003 graduate of Cornell University and a third-year law student at Georgetown University is the former president of the Students for Reproductive Justice group at Georgetown.
Fast forward six days when Rush Limbaugh picked this up and ran with it.
2/29/2012: Limbaugh says on his nationally syndicated radio show:
What does it say about the college coed Susan Fluke [sic], who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex? What does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex.
Can you imagine if you’re her parents how proud of Sandra Fluke you would be? Your daughter goes up to a congressional hearing conducted by the Botox-filled Nancy Pelosi and testifies she’s having so much sex she can’t afford her own birth control pills and she agrees that Obama should provide them, or the Pope.
On March 1, 2012, Limbaugh offered what he said was a “compromise” to contraception coverage: purchasing “all the women at Georgetown University as much aspirin to put between their knees as possible”. He continued that he “[ran] some numbers” on contraception costs and arguing that contraception coverage was “flat-out thievery” that would force taxpayers to pay to “satisfy the sexual habits of female law students at Georgetown”.
Later, he dismissed concerns over lack of access to contraception coverage and mocked Fluke’s congressional testimony, affecting a baby’s voice and pretending to cry, saying: “I’m going broke having sex. I need government to provide me condoms and contraception. It’s not fair.” He asked, “Ms. Fluke, have you ever heard of not having sex? Have you ever heard of not having sex so often?” After mentioning that Washington, D.C., Department of Health “will send you free condoms and lube,” Limbaugh said:
So, Ms. Fluke and the rest of you feminazis, here’s the deal. If we are going to pay for your contraceptives, and thus pay for you to have sex, we want something for it, and I’ll tell you what it is. We want you to post the videos online so we can all watch. [5]
As a result of Limbaugh’s attacks on Fluke, a campaign was begun to get his sponsors to withdraw. As of March 3, 2012, Sleep Train, Select Comfort, Quicken Loans, GoToMyPC, Citrix Systems, Carbonite and LegalZoom have pulled their advertisements from Rush Limbaugh’s radio show. [5]
The Sleep Train’s public comment following this controversy:
“As a diverse company, Sleep Train does not condone such negative comments directed toward any person,” the company said in a statement. “We have currently pulled our ads with Rush Limbaugh.” [8]
The Sleep Train later requested to resume its advertising on the show on March 8, but Limbaugh declined the company’s request. [8] In an email to Sleep Train’s President, Dale Carlson, a representative of the show says that Limbaugh personally considered the company’s request, but denied it considering its public comments following the controversy. [8]
“Thank you for your requests last week and this week to restart your voiced endorsement in local markets of The Rush Limbaugh Show,” the email begins. “Rush received your requests personally… Unfortunately, your public comments were not well received by our audience, and did not accurately portray either Rush Limbaugh’s character or the intent of his remarks. Thus, we regret to inform you that Rush will be unable to endorse Sleep Train in the future”. [8]
[Last week, the Washington Post noted how the company (a Rush sponsor for 25 years) had only suspended its ads, not fully dropped the conservative commentator as a retail spokesperson. And while that may have left the door open for a reunion, that has now been rejected by Limbaugh.]
Wonder if Rush will buy a Kingsdown matteress and denounce his sleep number bed as a P.O.S. Too funny! But I digress….
Back to the story……
Limbaugh continues in his Friday show to crank up his criticism of Fluke and her demands. He called her a slut and a whore and the firestorm began in earnest. I’m assuming everyone who reads has read his inappropriate comments.
3/2/2012: NEVER ONE TO MISS A CHANCE FOR A POSITIVE HEADLINE, OBAMA CALLS FLUKE TO OFFER SUPPORT OVER LIMBAUGH COMMENTS, stating that her parents must be proud of her. [6] [Ed. Note: my parents would have probably left the country! LOL…. They are supportive to a point – this passes that point!]
Obama “wanted to express his disappointment that she has been the subject of inappropriate, personal attacks, and to thank her for exercising her rights as a citizen to speak out on an issue of public policy,” said White House spokesman Jay Carney. [7] [Ed. Note – I missed Obama’s call to Gov. Sarah Palin when Bill Maher called her a ‘cunt’ and a MILF on his TV show]
3/3/2012: LIMBAUGH RELEASED AN APOLOGY ON HIS WEB SITE.
For over 20 years, I have illustrated the absurd with absurdity, three hours a day, five days a week. In this instance, I chose the wrong words in my analogy of the situation. I did not mean a personal attack on Ms. Fluke.
I think it is absolutely absurd that during these very serious political times, we are discussing personal sexual recreational activities before members of Congress. I personally do not agree that American citizens should pay for these social activities. What happened to personal responsibility and accountability? Where do we draw the line? If this is accepted as the norm, what will follow? Will we be debating if taxpayers should pay for new sneakers for all students that are interested in running to keep fit? In my monologue, I posited that it is not our business whatsoever to know what is going on in anyone’s bedroom nor do I think it is a topic that should reach a presidential level.
My choice of words was not the best, and in the attempt to be humorous, I created a national stir. I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for the insulting word choices. [7]
In typical liberal fashion, Ms. Fluke said his apology was not accepted. Could this have been simply to keep the flames fanned?
3/4/2012: Never one to miss a chance to pile on, Republican candidate Ron Paul said Limbaugh’s apology was ‘not sincere and was made only because it best served Limbaugh’ [9]
3/4/2012: FAIRNESS AND BALANCE: Writing for the Daily Beast, Kirsten Powers (Fox News Contributor and former girlfriend of Anthony Weiner) has authored a piece that could open another can of worms – that being the complete, total, and unashamed liberal bias in the press. ‘Rush Limbaugh Isn’t the Only Media Misogynist’, Powers writes [and I quote extensively]:
Did you know there is a war on women? Yes, it’s true. Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, Bill Maher, Matt Taibbi, and Ed Schultz have been waging it for years with their misogynist outbursts. There have been boycotts by people on the left who are outraged that these guys still have jobs. Oh, wait. Sorry, that never happened.
Boycotts are reserved for people on the right like Rush Limbaugh, who finally apologized Saturday for calling a 30-year-old Georgetown Law student, Sandra Fluke, a “slut” after she testified before congress about contraception. Limbaugh’s apology was likely extracted to stop the departure of any more advertisers, who were rightly under pressure from liberal groups
But if Limbaugh’s actions demand a boycott—and they do—then what about the army of swine on the left?
During the 2008 election Ed Schultz said on his radio show that Sarah Palin set off a “bimbo alert.” He called Laura Ingraham a “right-wing slut.” (He later apologized.) He once even took to his blog to call yours truly a “bimbo” for the offense of quoting him accurately in a New York Post column.
Keith Olbermann has said that conservative commentator S.E. Cupp should have been aborted by her parents, apparently because he finds her having opinions offensive. He called Michelle Malkin a “mashed-up bag of meat with lipstick.” He found it newsworthy to discuss Carrie Prejean’s breasts on his MSNBC show. His solution for dealing with Hillary Clinton, who he thought should drop out of the presidential race, was to find “somebody who can take her into a room and only he comes out.” Olbermann now works for über-leftist and former Democratic vice president Al Gore at Current TV.
Left-wing darling Matt Taibbi wrote on his blog in 2009, “When I read [Malkin’s] stuff, I imagine her narrating her text, book-on-tape style, with a big, hairy set of balls in her mouth.” In a Rolling Stone article about Secretary of State Clinton, he referred to her “flabby arms.” When feminist writer Erica Jong criticized him for it, he responded by referring to Jong as an “800-year old sex novelist.” (Jong is almost 70, which apparently makes her an irrelevant human being.) In Taibbi’s profile of Congresswoman and presidential candidate Michele Bachmann he labeled her “batshit crazy.” (Oh, those “crazy” women with their hormones and all.)
[Ed. note: WOW! I missed these!]
Chris Matthews’s sickening misogyny was made famous in 2008, when he obsessively tore down Hillary Clinton for standing between Barack Obama and the presidency, something that Matthews could not abide. Over the years he has referred to the former first lady, senator and presidential candidate and current secretary of state as a “she-devil,” “Nurse Ratchet,” and “Madame Defarge.” Matthews has also called Clinton “witchy,” “anti-male,” and “uppity” and once claimed she won her Senate seat only because her “husband messed around.” He asked a guest if “being surrounded by women” makes “a case for commander in chief—or does it make a case against it?” At some point Matthews was shamed into sort of half apologizing to Clinton, but then just picked up again with his sexist ramblings.
Matthews has wondered aloud whether Sarah Palin is even “capable of thinking” and has called Bachmann a “balloon head” and said she was “lucky we still don’t have literacy tests out there.” Democratic strategist Jehmu Greene, who is the former president of the Women’s Media Center, told Fox News’ Megyn Kelly in 2011 that Matthews “is a bully, and his favorite target is women.” So why does he still have a show? What if his favorite target was Jews? Or African-Americans?
But the grand pooh-bah of media misogyny is without a doubt Bill Maher—who also happens to be a favorite of liberals—who has given $1 million to President Obama’s super PAC. Maher has called Palin a “dumb twat” and dropped the C-word [that would be CUNT for the nouveau net] in describing the former Alaska governor. He called Palin and Congresswoman Bachmann “boobs” and “two bimbos.” He said of the former vice-presidential candidate, “She is not a mean girl. She is a crazy girl with mean ideas.” He recently made a joke about Rick Santorum’s wife using a vibrator. Imagine now the same joke during the 2008 primary with Michelle Obama’s name in it, and tell me that he would still have a job. Maher said of a woman who was harassed while breast-feeding at an Applebee’s, “Don’t show me your tits!” as though a woman feeding her child is trying to flash Maher. (Here’s a way to solve his problem: don’t stare at a strangers’ breasts). Then, his coup de grâce: “And by the way, there is a place where breasts and food do go together. It’s called Hooters!” [1O]
[Ed. Note: I know I put too much of Kirsten Power’s piece here but it is sooooo good I couldn’t help it! GREAT ARTICLE, Kirsten!!]
3/5/2012: RUSH OPENS HIS MONDAY SHOW WITH A 30 MINUTE DISSERTATION-EXPLANATION OF WHY AND WHAT HE APOLOGIZED FOR. (See also his on-line apology posted over the weekend.)
3/8/2012: BILL O’REILLY JOINS THE FRAY: He believes this entire controversy was manufactured to divert headlines away from the disastrous decision to force religious institutions to provide contraception – which MAY be unconstitutional. Bill is wondering who is taking Sandra Fluke around the media world, because since her testimony, she has been on 8 national news outlets and oddly [hahaha] has not been challenged at all on her stance. O’Reilly continues:
Now, late today we found out that Ms. Fluke is now being repped by the progressive PR agency SKDKnickerbocker where Anita Dunn, the former Obama communications director is the managing editor… a-ha!
So, this whole deal comes back to the White House, at least indirectly. So, let’s run down what we know. Sandra Fluke is a former head of the group “Georgetown University Law Students for Reproductive Justice.” On February 9th, a group called “The Feminist Majority Foundation” arranged for Sandra to appear at press conference criticizing the Catholic bishops for objecting to President Obama’s contraception mandate.
A man named Mike has booked her on a few programs, but we can’t even get his last name. And Mike doesn’t provide call-back numbers to those with whom he speaks. So Mike, who are you? And why the subterfuge?
After that, Congressman Elijah Cummings, the former Chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, invited Sandra to testify in front of the House Oversight Committee. But she was turned down by the chair, Congressman Darrell Issa, because she had no expertise in the church/state subject matter.
Nevertheless, Ms. Fluke went to the hearing and afterward complained to ABC News that she had been denied. A week later, Nancy Pelosi staged a mock hearing starring Sandra. After which Rush Limbaugh made derogatory comments elevating her to left-wing martyrdom.
So it seems there is a powerful presence behind Sandra Fluke. [11]
Another close Obama associate, John Podesta, is currently the visiting professor of law Georgetown. [Another possible connection between Fluke and the White House???] [4]
The sad thing about this is…. Limbaugh, forever using absurdity to SHOW absurdity, dove headlong into an issue [the left wanting taxpayers to pay for EVERYTHING] which he and many on the right see as government encroachment into our lives. THIS was an outrageous example because this woman feels entitled to contraception at the expense of others. Rush no more thinks this woman should put videos of herself having sex with free condoms than he thinks the sun won’t come up tomorrow. This issue was contrived by Pelosi and her minions to take the growing heat off the administration’s unconstitutional demands that Catholic employers provide abortion coverage as part of the benefits package of employees. Rush’s assertion that Fluke’s demands are absurd is totally correct. Fluke was/is an activist looking for a cause and a pulpit. The two ‘met’ and there was a perfect storm – a far worse storm than the left could EVER have imagined. Rush was wrong to call Fluke a slut and a whore and he was right to apologize. The left was outted when Fluke refused to accept the apology. They want the ISSUE!
And the issue is pure demagoguery – REPUBLICANS DO NOT HATE WOMEN AND THEY ARE NOT AGAINST BIRTH CONTROL. The VAST majority of employers do offer birth control coverage in their health plans. Catholics, for one, do not because it’s against their beliefs. They are protected from having that right revoked by a two-page document called the Constitution of the United States. And THAT is the issue – a president who hates that document and ignores it when he feels like it.
[Funny thing is – the left COULD have done tremendous damage to the Republicans in the fall with this false idea that Republicans are against birth control in particular and women’s health issues in general – simply by starting the engines in early September – when the Republicans would have been helpless to stop the train with the truth in time for the elections. But Obama jumped the shark with the absurd ‘compromise’ he offered the Catholic Bishops, and Nancy had to pull the trigger on Fluke deflect attention away from Obama. And if you think ABC / George Stephanopoulos were not complicit in this grand plan back in January then you may want to place your head where it can get some sunshine.]
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
[3] http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203646004577217181415407806.html
[4] http://www.wnd.com/2012/03/is-this-why-sandra-fluke-testified/
[5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandra_Fluke
[7] http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2012/03/obama-vs-limbaugh-money-and-politics/1
[9] http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57390236/paul-limbaugh-apologized-for-personal-gain/
[11] http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/oreilly/2012/03/09/bill-oreilly-who-running-sandra-fluke
I doubt this will change anyone’s mind either way.
People who weren’t going to vote for Obama still won’t because of this.
People who were, still will.
By November, no one will care.
I think, had the left saved this entire ‘Republicans want to take away your birth control’ (much like the old mantra of ‘Republicans want to take away your ________’ [fill in the blank: Medicare, Social Security, WIC, Food Stamps, etc]) until closer to the election, so there wouldn’t be time to get the truth out – it WOULD have made a difference. They just pulled the pin too soon and it may yet blow up in their faces.
“In typical liberal fashion, Ms. Fluke said his apology was not accepted. Could this have been simply to keep the flames fanned?”
If someone called you a slut and a whore on national radio, how quickly would you forgive them? To be specific, someone who knew nothing about you and your sexual activities, who called you a slut and a whore to get good ratings? You are a lawyer. Is this defamation?
“THIS was an outrageous example because this woman feels entitled to contraception at the expense of others. ”
Nope. Guess you still did not read her testimony. She pays for her insurance. She would like to have it covered on her policy.
” The left was outted when Fluke refused to accept the apology.”
Really? When was the last time someone called you a slut and a whore? Did they have good cause to do so? Did they do it in front of 20 million people? Go ask your father how he would feel about someone calling you a slut and a whore on national media.
Apology? I was trying to be funny? You really think this is an apology? Is there any level to which you will not sink in defending Rush?
Steve
Its all tribalism, Steve.
Is this defamation?
Perhaps not. See the following:
citmedialaw.org/blog/2012/no-sandra-fluke-does-not-have-valid-defamation-claim-against-rush-limbaugh
volokh.com/2012/03/09/gloria-allred-calls-for-criminal-prosecution-of-rush-limbaugh/
Thanks MI. I had not realized how broadly the public figure bit was interpreted. If I am reading this correctly, if someone’s 20 y/o daughter talks with a reporter on TV or radio, she then becomes a public figure and can be called a slut or whore by anyone.
Steve
The Catholic Church already has its religious exemptions for its churches and parochial schools, which are exempt from providing contraception to employees. Where the Church’s conscience argument runs into trouble is when the stated purposes of some its organizations are to serve the general public, and then when these same organizations employ lay people to carry out these non-religious purposes. The Church’s insistence that it should also be exempt from federal law in these cases doesn’t hold up as well. Perhaps the Church needs to get out of the hospital business, unless it is going to stop accepting federal funds and employing lay people, in which case it could claim its institutions are truly religious.
Point 1: The Catholic Church already has its religious exemptions for its churches and parochial schools, which are exempt from providing contraception to employees. They do, for now – it wis Obama who is trying to cancel the waiver – that’s what started all this IMHO – when the Catholic hierarchy stood up to him, he turned tail and ran.
Point 2: Ed Schultz called Laura Ingraham a slut on his TV show last year.
“….. the ladies of ABC’s The View were tremendously sympathetic to Georgetown University law student Sandra Fluke’s tale of woe and misery having been called a “slut” by conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh…
Yet as Laura Ingraham pointed out on Tuesday’s Fox & Friends, her being called a “slut” by MSNBC’s Ed Schultz last year was a source of great amusement on The View with Barbara Walters acknowledging to great laughter, “Joy Behar on this program has called me a slut” .
http://youtu.be/YriSB0nwzgw
Schultz later apologized, Ingraham accepted, end of story. A perfect example of the double standard practiced by the left and their water carriers in the press. I repeat – Fluke and her backers want the ISSUE, not an apology. There is nothing Rush could say to make his apology acceptable. Look what the left did to Don Imus, who also said something totally inappropriate and stupid – he went on an apology TOUR. And now Gloria Allred has come out of the woodwork to keep the ISSUE front and center.
Rush was wrong; he admitted he was wrong; move on.
“…when the Catholic hierarchy stood up to him, he turned tail and ran.” –>Actually, no, churches and houses of worship were exempt, and still are exempt. The problem started when the exemptions weren’t granted to a broader definition of religious institutions, such as universities and hospitals, and that’s when the administration came up with the compromise that insurers would cover the costs (which the insurers were probably happy to do, since they save money when people don’t have unwanted pregnancies).
And I would be PROUD if Rush called me a slut.
1) Ingraham is a professional pundit. She is fair game.
2) Schultz was actually suspended for this. Limbaugh, demonstrating the right wing double standard, has been lauded for what he said. He definitely has not been suspended.
Steve
that’s when the administration came up with the compromise that insurers would cover the costs
Obama’s ‘compromise’ is nothing more than a shell game! Who do you think is paying these INSURERS for this wonderful coverage, if not the EMPLOYERS?? Shaking my head….. there is no such thing as a free lunch, or free birth control.
Insured people pay premiums for their insurance, last I heard.
I agree with JE that this is NOT a major issue.
It certainly WILL NOT advance the anti-1st Amendment view that religious institutions should, or even can be mandated to supply contraceptive and abortion services….the 1st Amendment bars that and there is no one currently on the SC that appears to oppose the 1st Amendment as written.
YES, it may alienate Independents, BUT the economy is far more likely to do that…but there is a LOT of time between now and November and a lot can happen that may help or hurt either side.
Moreover, while Romney no doubt possesses a superior skill-set on the economics, but he is still safely part of the Progressive caucus in the U.S. Progressivism began with the Republicans (Teddy Roosevelt who started the 1st Progressive Party and Herbert Hoover, “the first Progressive President of the U.S.”) and was later adopted by anti-Tammany Democrats. Today, the Progressives and their Corporatist agenda control BOTH major political Parties.
To this point, the Obama administration has done a great job of delivering the 3rd term of G W Bush….foreign policy-wise; Gitmo still open, Afghanistan ratcheted UP even after OBL’s death, rendition up, drone attacks way up, we’d still be in Iraq if they hadn’t forced us out and engaging in another front (Libya) without Congressional or UN support), and on the economy, merely continuing the Bush-Pelosi-Reid bailouts, stimulus spending and public investment in favored pvt entities. It’s doubtful McCain or Hillary would’ve done much (if anything) differently…in fact, McCain would probably have been less hawkish in terms of the War on Terror.
It’s highly doubtful that a Romney administration would do much different than Obama or G W Bush did…and it’s equally unlikely that should an actual non-progressive, like a Santorum, a Gingrich or a Cain, they’d never get much, if any part of a non-progressive agenda through a predominantly Corporatist/Progressive Congress.
Putting all arguments aside – 2012 is about SCOTUS. There are four judges on the court born in the 30′s. Obama has put two liberals on the court – one to insure that Obamacare becomes law, and one to win the Latino vote. This country cannot afford for him to pick four more LIFETIME left-wing judges. Most everything Obama has done can be reversed over time. SCOTUS appointments are for life, and it would take this nation two generations or more to reverse what an Obama court could/would legislate from the bench. Period.
I noticed you didnt respond. I assume you are ok with people referring to you as a slut and a prostitute, as long as they apologize a couple of days later?
Steve
Actually I’m NOT good with it, because I’m neither a slut nor a prostitute. I don’t fuck for dinner and I don’t have round heels. But if I did, you can bet I wouldn’t sit in a congressional hearing and reveal that I need $1000 worth of contraception a year and then demand that my STUDENT health care plan provide it. If it was that important to me, I would go to a university that DID provide it. I guess I’m different – I went to college for an education – not to fuck around for 7 years.
Having said that, if I should choose to have recreational sex, I would expect my partner to provide the protection since I’m providing the playground.
Is that enough of a response for you, Steve?
FB
Why is STUDENT in all caps? Do you mean to emphasize that someone who is a STUDENT shouldn’t be having recreational sex?
I went to college for an education, and while I was there, I had sex for recreation — this would make me a “slut” in the eyes of some people these days. I expected the health insurance for which I paid a premium to cover the costs of preventing any unwanted pregnancies — hey, it would have paid for me to have a baby, why shouldn’t it have paid for me to avoid having a baby? It seems logically consistent.
Since a federal mandate for maternity coverage will also take effect in 2014, it’s best (and good business!) to cover the other equally valid reproductive choice.
Why is STUDENT in all caps? Do you mean to emphasize that someone who is a STUDENT shouldn’t be having recreational sex?
Oh heavens no! I wouldn’t dare imply that! I’m emphasize ‘student’ because most colleges offer a ‘student health coverage plan’ that is vastly different from a health plan required for parents with small children, for instance. Student plans generally are designed to meet student needs, such as coverage for illness or accidents, in an effort to keep it affordable. Pre-existing conditions or a catastrophic health issues are not usually covered by student insurance. Perhaps when Obamacare kicks in, colleges and universities will have to provide maternity and erectile dysfunction care. And I’m sure all a student has to do is tell their parents they want birth control, abortion, and maternity coverage while they are in college, and their parents will be more than happy to pay the additional cost.
I would indeed be more than happy to pay for birth control/abortion/maternity for my children, through the insurance premiums I pay on their behalf.
“I expected the health insurance for which I paid a premium to cover the costs of preventing any unwanted pregnancies…” (L)
.
.
YES, you have every right to expect (and shop around) for health insurance that covers abortion & contraceptive services and pay a premium on it.
You DON’T have a right to expect an employer affiliated with a religious organization opposed to those things to provide that.
ALL such services are already guaranteed via Title X and there are plenty of PP clinics and other such clinics that provide such services free of charge.
This whole “Limbaugh controversy” is a canard.
Yes, he’s a “potty mouth,” just like Bill Maher (the excuse Maher made for his misogyny) and he was wrong! Ms Fluke isn’t (necessarily) either a “slut” nor a “prostitute,” she’s an idiot, seeking Georgetown Law to pay for contraceptives she can get for free from PP.
I can’t believe the RC Church still has the wherewithal to operate all these inner city hospitals and AIDS programs and scholarship programs (that always seem to go to more well-off kids, like Ms Fluke, rather than more promising “needy” ones)…local governments should do all that.
See, my quibble here is with the definition of “an employer affiliated with a religious organization.” Should I ever be desperate enough for employment that I am forced to take my feminist views underground and accept a job at a house of worship, I would expect my employer’s exemption to preclude me from a policy that covered contraception (and I probably wouldn’t be able to wear my “Vagina Monologues” tee-shirt to work, either). But I don’t think the exemption should apply to a big university providing education far beyond a religion’s core teachings, nor to a healthcare facility providing care to all, and employing huge numbers of people outside the religion to serve these ends.
“…if I should choose to have recreational sex, I would expect my partner to provide the protection since I’m providing the playground.” —> This implies you’re not enjoying it yourself, and that it’s solely for the benefit of your partner. That would be quite a sad situation.
That would be quite a sad situation.
It would be very sad, if it were true.
“I noticed you didnt respond. I assume you are ok with people referring to you as a slut and a prostitute, as long as they apologize a couple of days later?” (Steve)
.
.
“Actually I’m NOT good with it, because I’m neither a slut nor a prostitute. I don’t fuck for dinner and I don’t have round heels. But if I did, you can bet I wouldn’t sit in a congressional hearing and reveal that I need $1000 worth of contraception a year and then demand that my STUDENT health care plan provide it.” (FB)
.
.
.
.
ALL of that misses the basic point here.
Darrell Issa was absolutely right to reject Ms Fluke because she “lacked any expertise on the subject.”
Contraception and abortion services are already federally available to ALL as per Title X. ALL Planned Parenthood and other clinics make that available.
There are no grounds on which the 1st Amendment’s religious protections (including the right of religious hospitals and schools) can be superseded.
I rarely do this, by I am certain that I can speak for all of us here that NO ONE supports refining the 1st Amendment’s religious protections. They serve all of us, ESPECIALLY the irreligious, like myself and a few others here.
The RC Church brought down Elliot Spitzer….the “John-6″ scandal broke just days after his meeting with a group of Catholic Bishops in Albany.
There is a very direct pipeline from the RC Church to various federal law enforcement agencies (most notably the FBI)….many agents come directly from RC educational institutions, like Fordham, Villanova, Georgetown and Notre Dame.
It would be suicide for ANY politician to take on that group. Rep Maloney of NYC is certainly pushing the envelope on that. I may not like the RC Church, but I have a healthy respect for them…as I have a healthy respect for a mountain lion, grizzly or rattler. They’ve proven many times how dangerous they can be.
Limbaugh was as goofy as Bill Maher in expressing blatantly misogynistic rantings, and he was erroneous. Ms fluke is a moron NOT (necessarily a “slut”). She mistakenly thinks a Catholic institution can and should be forced to provide contraceptive and abortion services as part of its healthcare plan.
In my view, she should be expelled from law school for her abject failure to understand to 1st Amendments religious protections.
Her “scholarship” to Georgetown should prompt that school to eliminate such scholarships; (1) they DO NOT go to “needy students” (Ms Fluke’s family is relatively well-off) and (2) poor,but very promising students don’t have to attend the likes of Georgetown and Harvard law, there are numerous City and State (public) law schools that are much more affordable and their is no shortage of student loans for poor but promising students.
Odd, I don’t remember the 1st Amendment mentioning anything about hospitals and schools. I would be up in arms if Catholic churches were required to offer benefits to their employees with which they fundamentally disagreed, but since churches are exempt, this seems to me to be less of a controversy about free religious expression and more of one about verging off from a core religious mission to one serving/employing the general public, and then claiming that the religious exemptions still should apply. I personally don’t see any reason why an institution that employs and serves the general public should be exempt from federal law.
ALL religious institutions hold that exemption L.
Boston’s Dioceses closed its adoption programs when Boston passed a Bill mandating that ALL who offer adoption services must offer them to gays as well as straights. Kids in need of adoptive services are the ones who suffered most.
The RC Church has every right to hold to its views and to espouse them WITHOUT being assailed for nonsensical charges like, “spreading hate.” Their “Love the sinner but hate the sin” seems cover enough on that score, for most of us. I mean, I take’em at their word and I know enough not to mess with that bunch.
I tend to agree with your implication that the RC Church should also be forced to shutter its hospital system. It should be redundant….after all, local government SHOULD cover that easily enough.
Most of those Catholic hospitals are found in so-called “under-served,” mostly inner city neighborhoods and they’re paid for (overwhelmingly) by donations from more well-to-do areas! They also run NYC’s largest and most extensive AIDS care facilities….the entire exercise (“saving the self-destructive from themselves”) is extremely dysgenic, so to say the very least….I’m not a fan.
Like yourself, I’d like to see those places shuttered once and for all.
When I worked in the South Bronx, the “crack epidemic” was a boom to the Fire Dept – GREAT for business! More crime = more fires!
And I deliberately sought to work their because of the fire duty.
The worst thing that ever happened back then (from my view) was then Mayor Rudy G listening to the hue and cry from the inner city “to DO SOMETHING about the scourge of crack.” As a result, they enacted harsher sentences for crack possession and subsequently both crime and fires plummeted.
We also opposed the “fireproof cigaret.” It too threatened our core business – fires. I never wished for fires, because they’re personal disasters for others, but I didn’t like it when government looks to enact measures designed to reduce its own “core business.”
We all know the score, right?
Governments are fueled by people….generally “poorer people. We grind them up in our “criminal justice” system to create tens of thousands of jobs for cops, firefighters, EMS workers, corrections and court officers, lawyers, judges, even Emergency Room staffs.
The great Clarence Darrow was undeniably right when he said, “Government is the tool by which the strong (rich) despoil (abuse) the weak (poor).”
Clarence Darrow was a very prescient man.
I agree, the RC Church has every right to hold to its views and to espouse them WITHOUT being assailed for nonsensical charges like, “spreading hate.” But when it refuses to place children with loving gay families, then I have to applaud when it exits the adoption business.
My youngest son was born in a Catholic hospital. There was a crucifix on the wall of my room, and a nun stopped in to say hello to me and fluff my pillows — but except for that, I might as well have been in a secular institution. My doctor even asked me if I wanted a tubal ligation after my c-section!
The Church can’t have it both ways — it can’t do secular work, and still claim religious exemptions from federal laws.
There was a crucifix on the wall of my room, and a nun stopped in to say hello to me and fluff my pillows — but except for that, I might as well have been in a secular institution.
And I’m sure if that same nun has begun to pray with you, you would have screamed that they were trying to foster their religious beliefs on you – suit still pending. YOU can’t have it both ways either. Do you want medical care available whether you can pay for it or not? Or would you rather die in the back of an ambulance on the way to a state-funded hospital?
Well said, JMK. I could not agree more. And with that, I shall bid you all a good night!
GO TARHEELS!
GO ROUNDHEELS!
Actually, the nun did pray with me. And what’s with asking about medical care “available whether you can pay for it or not?” This was a pricey private maternity hospital, and believe me, they aggressively billed me for their services. This hospital was in Japan, but don’t most Catholic hospitals in America accept state funding? From what I know, there’s a very blurry line there.
Political conflicts are merely surfaced manifestations. If conflicts arise you may certain powers intend to keep this conflict under operation since they hope to profit from the situation. To concern yourself with surface political conflicts is to make the mistake of the bull in the ring, you are charging the cloth. That is what politics is for, to teach you the cloth. Just as the bullfighter teaches the bull, teaches him to follow, obey the cloth.
William S. Burroughs, Interviewed in the Journal For the Protection of All People, 1992.
As our good Lynn has already pointed out
(My good JMK, you need to take it up with Scalia; he will be hearing any suit brought that gets that far, anyway.)
The Obama administration, of course, was well aware of the Scalia opinion and was equally well aware of any number of other ways it, via the ACA and HHS, could get contraceptives into the hands of any woman desiring them without picking the fight it did with the Catholic Church.
That it nevertheless did pick such a fight, in a political campaign year, has all the marks of a shrewdly and cynically calculated win-win political campaign gambit over and above any other explanation: had the RCC accepted the core exemptions without further fuss about extended religious freedom, the Obama administration would win by having the ACA and its HHS regulating function that much more broadly and firmly accepted. Had the RCC rebelled, which it did, the Obama administration was poised to profit from the obvious political narrative to be generated and mined: the War on Women by a Medieval patriarchal institution still redolent of soiled young boy.
Though a number of conservatives and Republicans across the blogosphere keep pointing out what a Tarbaby and mousetrap the religious freedom issue has always been – it was already a done deal once HHS could dictate a formulary of services to be covered by the ACA as the legally accepted “law of the land”; thus the only true remedy must be the wholesale repeal of the ACA, nothing less, and certainly nothing piecemeal – few have really listened, and so the Obama administration continues to out-politick the Republicans on this, having thoroughly taught them the cape, or, to continue to mix metaphors, what a writhing Hydra of political opportunism and peril the ACA will remain, and the more so any time the attempt is only to strike off a single head.
H. M. Stuart
Alexandria
Apparently, there are exceptions to Employment Division v. Smith’s rule regarding religious exemptions. See
mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/2012/01/the-taming-of-employment-division-v-smith.html
The part of Smith which DeGirolami apparently has in mind is its discussion of individualized assessments. See Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 882-85 (1990). This exception appears to be alive & well; see, e.g.,
mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/2012/02/failure-of-general-applicability-in-iowa-road-protection-ordinance.html
Hence, the plaintiffs challenging the constitutionality of the contraceptive mandate are relying among this exception. See pp. 7-9 of this complaint:
becketfund.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/CCU-v-Sebelius-Complaint-final.pdf
and this post:
mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/2012/02/the-mandate-free-exercise-and-rfra-1.html
The argument appears to be that, because executive waivers have exempted numerous parties from the ACA’s requirements, the ACA (and by extension, any regulation promulgated under its authority) is not truly a “generally-applicable” law, and therefore Smith doesn’t apply. I’m not well-versed enough in First Amendment law to evaluate the merits of this argument, so I take no position regarding the constitutionality of the contraceptive mandate. My sole point is that the constitutional question appears to be a bit more complex than Winkler suggests.
My good MI,
Having the PPACA declared not a “generally-applicable” law because it has been written such that its content can be created and destroyed on an ad hoc ongoing basis certainly would confound any number of narratives and pending plans.
H. M. Stuart
Alexandria
It appears that Catholic hospitals are obliged (legally) to act in concert with the sponsoring institution’s dictates.
There are many such “unwritten exemptions.” Mosques, Churches and many Orthodox Synagogues routinely teach that “homosexuality is sinful.” They are NOT in violation of any hate crimes statutes that bar “preaching hatred against homosexuality” because of the accepted “religious exemptions.” Moreover, we tend not to hold religious entities responsible for the actions of a few of their congregants.
IF a government were to insist that those institutions cease teaching what they do, or face criminal sanctions, they’d be (morally, I’d guess) bound to face those sanctions…that would, of course, never happen.
After all, the nation’s apoplectic over 1.2 million Americans in prison, we don’t have near the resources to attempt to enforce such sanctions on the 50 or 60 million devotees of the faiths that’d be outlawed.
But all of this is superfluous, as the ACA is reported to provide an out for ALL employers – a simple (and CHEAP) $2500/year per employee “fine” should they choose not to provide health insurance and let the government cover their employees!
One of the major issues that detractors put forth about “Obama-care”/ACA was that that relatively small fine incentivizes employers NOT to provide health care, leaving that ultimately to the public option/single payer plan. The fear of many public sector unions remains that the ACA will greatly incentivize Municipalities to simply stop offering health benefits, allowing workers to be covered by the public mandate at the relatively low cost of $2500/year per employee.
The idea that people feel “entitled” to attempt to force religious institutions into acting against their beliefs is foolish. It’s as foolish as Congress making a law that would require every U.S. citizen to have a gun in their home (as the Swiss must do) and spend a given amount of time each week on firearms training, regardless of whether they’re individual views preclude such actions.
I’m sure many in the NRA would welcome such a law, but you know there are some kooks who’d claim it “violates their pacifist beliefs.” I happen have 19 guns, most of them long guns, mainly for hunting) in my home and I DO take regular target practice…but I accept and acknowledge that some people are not nearly so passionate about things like hunting and home defense.
I can understand that and that’s why I’d think a law mandating firearms in every home is as bad an idea as trying to make religious organizations act against their own beliefs.
“…you know there are some kooks who’d claim it “violates their pacifist beliefs.”
I am not definitively a pacifist. However, I own no firearms and would resist to the point of being jailed were I ordered by the government to own one and to keep it in my home. I did not take a weapon when deployed to Desert Storm. I did participate in periodic firing of weapons in the Army to demonstrate my capability to do so and to do so with adequate accuracy (not a real high standard with pistols).
This is all to indicate that I am not at all certain that this is a valid analogy. We remain with a nation in which a significant number of legal citizens cannot possibly afford any level of health care (preventive, maintenance, or therapeutic) other than emergent/life saving since the latter is provided at no cost should one be destitute. A friend of mine who has virtually no financial capacity beyond food and lodging has recently undergone coronary artery bypass, rehabilitation, and two admissions for complications all through the aegis of Medicare. He is a far Right Libertarian Republican who constantly raves against the ACA. Yet, he is quite happy to have received these care episodes from the government that he rants is spending too much (including while still in the hospital). Had his problem arisen five years ago, he would have been “out of luck” or the hospital would have been out of 30 or 40 thousand dollars of salaries and supplies provided for free.