Sandra Fluke Vs Rush Limbaugh(Women's Health)

Background:

In her testimony, she argued in favor of requiring private insurance companies to cover contraception. She claimed that over the three years as a law student, birth control would cost an estimated $3,000. She continued that the lack of coverage would force many low income women to go without contraception and that women's free health clinics cannot meet the need. She then discussed the consequence of such policies, including a friend with polycystic ovary syndrome being forced to go without birth control pills, resulting in a cyst developing on her ovaries. According to Fluke, her friend was denied coverage, even with a verified condition from her doctor, and this is not a rare event for women with medical conditions. She then stated that she wanted equal treatment for women's health issues and did not see the issue as being against the Catholic Church


http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/statement-Congress-letterhead-2nd hearing.pdf


Later on rush calls her a slut for thinking that she wants the government to pay for it.

In poor taste!


Any how, How do you feel about it?

Me personally, I don't agree that the committee should be made up of all men. It should be half men and half women. I also think that she is right about the insurance company covering this(as long as they do the same for men). If Rush was actually correct, I'd agree on government not paying it. He is not!!!!!! She is simply arguing that it should be covered since she is paying for it. I, however, am interested to know if men's helathcare is covered. Apply the same to men as women. Ultimately, good luck if you are broke and got no insurance!


:smt043:smt043:smt043

 

Well, an update on the whole fiasco...12 advertisers and 2 stations basically gave Limbaugh a big "fuck you" in the face and he's losing a lot of financial backing. This is just beautiful!

And of course, goofy ass Michelle Bachmann rears her ugly head and try to compare this current situation with Fluke to Bachmann speaking scrutiny on conservative women. Apples to oranges here.

 

yeah, I saw M.B try to dance around the whole thing. the talking heads are screaming "well the libs do it".

the libs arent big haters of every group like the GOP. also they arent claiming to be christians at every turn

 

It's insulting on her part to compare her latent stupidity to a woman like Fluke who has a concern over her personal freedoms being infringed upon by a bunch of right-wing morons.

 

no doubt. if the GOP women are concern with govt mandating shit then lets take away paid maternity leave

 

That would never work. You know how those right wingers are.

Can't be having the government touch their social security...but hell if the government should actually do something helpful with the money...like feed hungry children.

I hope Rush's whole program gets cancelled. To say that a women is a slut and she wants the government to pay for her to have sex...wouldn't he be saying the same damn thing if she ended up pregnant because her BC wasn't covered?

 

LOL. no doubt. its cheaper to have a woman on BC than not

 

Yeah and i'm loving it..Fuck Rush Limbaugh with his fatass.I hope his sponors break his fatass down slowly... Michelle Bachmann she's a fucking joke..Dumb bitch!

 

His program most likely won't be affected audience wise. He still has a lot of blowhard, deluded listeners, so his income will still be in the seven digits at the least. Without the advertisers, he won't accumulate the $58 million he's been enjoying for a long time.

 

The old argument is that insurance covers Viagra because it treats a medical condition (ED) but birth control is a lifestyle choice (I've never known insurance to cover the cost of condoms either). However, BC pills can be and are used to treat medical conditions, so at the very least, insurance should cover them in those instances.

Limbaugh's comment was rude and unncessary.

 

MB, Tea Baggers and the entire right wing establishment cite Limburger's treatment as liberal media bias and try to defend his skewered tirades by asking why Democrats don't come down on liberal media mouthpieces...

An interesting opinion on CNN the other day somewhat explains the difference.....

http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/05/opinion/frum-rush-limbaugh-fairness/index.html

IMO, this will only fortify Limburger's resolve to spit twisted truths and outright inflammatory lies, draw him more "the world is flat" listeners, and will probably have little effect on his bank account.

 

no doubt.....Im sure the women he married used BC....he has no kids (thank G-d for that)

 

yeah this is my stance on it as well

viagra promotes a regular lifestyle

birth control for non-medical purposes promotes an unnatural one, by inhibiting naturally occurring phenomena in women. Might as well get the government to pay for your monthly bong parties.

a healthy woman trying to get the public to cop her BC pills, so she can have all the sex she wants without worrying about getting pregnant is questionable.

 

on another note, the proper counter-argument would include something which inhibited natural sperm production (much in a way BC does with ovulation). why people always point the finger at Viagra is beyond me. Kneejerk reaction at its finest.:smt011

viagra being covered is like females having a medication covered, which allowed them to maintain normal function.

 

I'm sorry. I'm going to open my big, fat, mouth.

Since you aren't a woman...you probably won't ever understand this..but trust me when I say...CHOOSING to get stoned and having to CHOOSE between having a baby or not having a baby are not even remotely anything like each other. At ALL.

Pot in NO WAY alters your life forever.

Having a child does. Having an unwanted child does more even so.

Having an abortion? Something most women have to deal with for the rest of their natural lives.

Getting stoned?

Not so much.

 

if u cant afford contraception, dont have sex?

why should someone else have to pay for your lack of self-control?

granted there are medical purposes for BC, many reasons revolve around this idea of self-indulgence.

if you can buy the shit yourself, more power to you. But like smoking a bowl, no one forces you to have sex in most cases.

 

im not a woman, but im not an idiot either

shit..the expectations around here are pretty low for some people

 

And in the cases of rape? Or does that not count as well? because after all...if she got raped, she must be a slut to begin with, right?

Isn't that what Rush the Pig would say? she deserved it? It's really nice that all the self control has to rest on the woman who shouldn't have sex because she can't afford birth control. But if a guy whips his dick out and decides to fuck a chick even if she doesn't want it, he is in no way held accountable for his lack of "self control" right?

:smt011

 

you're just using this to develop some sort of base for repeated argument (which I won't engage in..i don't chase my tail). as i said, in most cases (i'm willing to assume that more people have sex by choice than by force), BC is used so people can have wanton sex without worrying about getting pregnant. In those isolated cases of rape or medical purposes, BC and coverage should be both common sense and encouraged, if it helps someone.