Why Rush Limbaugh Was Right About Sandra Fluke

Definitely Not Decaf - Opinion & Commentary with Ira Pickett

As the most trusted media personality in the nation (2008, Zogby International poll),  Florida’s most powerful conservative voice,  Rush Limbaugh again became a liberal lightning rod this week after his commentary on Sandra Fluke’s testimony at the Hearing on women’s reproductive health and contraception before the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee (Feb. 23, 2012) set off a media firestorm and emotional outrage from democrats including the democrat-in-chief, President Obama. Did Limbaugh’s comments go too far? Perhaps, however he pointed out what the rest of the media failed to mention. Sandra Fluke’s testimony was completely absurd.

Listen to the live AUDIO version of this story.

Fluke, a law student at Georgetown University Law School (a PRIVATE Jesuit Institution), told a well scripted tale of “dire circumstances“, and “suffering, emotionally, financially and medically” because of a lack of birth control coverage in the insurance plans of female students.  She stated that the cost of birth control can be “over $3,000 during law school. For a lot of students who, like me, are on public interest scholarships, that’s practically an entire summer’s salary.” Additionally, she asserted that “40% of the female students at Georgetown Law reported to us that they struggle financially as a result of this policy.” Later in her testimony, Fluke goes on to describe that “Just last week, a married female student told me that she had to stop using contraception because she and her husband just couldn’t fit it into their budget anymore…” and of another friend of her’s who “After months paying over $100 out-of-pocket, she just couldn’t afford her medication anymore, and she had to stop taking it.” 

While most of the media is focusing on the controversial comments of Rush Limbaugh’s response to Flukes testimony, what is more troubling is that Sandra Fluke actually believed that what she was saying was true.  It appears that she believes that despite the fact that she is receiving a scholarship to attend the prestigious Georgetown Law School, she is entitled to even more from the government and YOU as a taxpayer.  As though receiving a $40,000+ per year scholarship is not enough, having to pay for her own birth control is simply too much to ask for Sandra Fluke and her like-minded peers. 

The absurdity of her testimony is highlighted by her over-dramitizating the burden that having to pay for birth control causes in young women’s lives. By Fluke stating that birth control costs $3,000 during law school (apparently assuming a 3-year term), she fails to mention that the figure actually works out to only approximately $80 per month using the assumption that the birth control being discussed is a medical prescription. For those using other forms of birth control, however, such as condoms, the cost is far less than a tall cup of coffee twice a week at your favorite corner java house (a typical box of 12 condoms sells for less than $15).  Sticking to the $80-a-month assumption that Fluke describes as a ‘burden’, however, is a slap in the face to the rest of America when that figure is only $20 a week for someone who is attending a private law school whose tuition, fees, room and board combined are higher than the average American’s annual household income.  

So, then why did Nancy Pelosi and the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee invite a student from one of the most prestigious law schools in the nation to testify about the hardships she and her peers face for having to pay for birth control, when they could have just as easily invited a working-class lower income woman who lives in subsidized housing in a failing midwest city who TRULY cannot afford prescription costs? 

The answer is simple and transparent.  Sandra Flukes testimony illustrates the extreme nature of the liberal lefts desire for a socialist state; an imaginary utopia where the government provides and cares for its people from birth to death.  A state where housing, child care, education, food, health care, transportation and all facets of life are provided and regulated by the government which is controlled by a small, elite group of overly educated thinkers who have no regard for personal freedom, liberty or the Constitution of the United States.  Fluke believes that she is entitled to everything, but responsible for nothing.  She believes that someone ‘else’ should be responsible for paying her way, regardless of the cost or burden to others.

A frightening theme of Sandra Fluke’s testimony can be seen in an entire generation of Americans that have seemingly forgotten what their parents, grand parents and great-grandparents fought so hard to defend 70 years ago when communism and fascism reared its ugly head on the other side of the earth, and threatened the very way of life and freedoms that we enjoy today. 

My grandfather who defended our freedom in Normandy would be rolling over in his grave if he heard the testimony of Sandra Fluke this week, and this new brand of expectations created by the generation preceding her and demanded by her and her peers.  Surely he would ask, as I am today, how did this great nation get to the point where paying for ones own birth control is no longer the responsibility of the individual, but instead that of everyone else?

Oh – and by the way, did I forget to mention that Sandra Fluke is actually 30 years old and has been a social activist for several years?  Read this story from The Blaze for another look at who Sandra Fluke REALLY is.

  • Rick

    It’s great to see this in the Lamestream Media,Bravo for you Sir! I totally agree with you 110%.If she wants to “play” let her “pay” not the American Public.

    • j

      WOW…the TRUTH is allowed to be published in the MSM??? These collage kids can afford $100 in drinks every friday night, but can’t pay for a condom??

    • Steve Taylor

      Man1 I almost cried reading something as fantastic as this coming from the mainstream media. Not all hope is lost!

    • Verheek

      Rick, you’re dead on!

    • Paul

      Not to mention the Free alternative. How about not participating in recreational sex for the duration of your school. Surely ones education is more important than ones sex life. I like an occasional beer when I go to school. Maybe that should be free too.

      • Dmac225

        @Sandra…. There are other ways to deal with the discomfort caused by the menstrual cycle. As far as any “cancer preventative” effects are concerned… I have never seen a study that said taking a 3 year break would decrease it’s “effectiveness” in that area.

      • Paul D

        You know spending 100% of your available income on school and housing is foolish. She should have sat out a year to work and save money, if her health is that important. Remember when people used to sacrifice to get by, rather than go to the government? I hope Georgetown ups their tuition in response.

      • CR

        Someone can afford to attend Georgetown, but can’t afford $80/month to keep their ovary. Moron…here is an idea….get a job!

      • Sandra

        You can be a virgin and still have to take the pill, for non contraceptive medical reasons. A study conducted by the Guttmacher Institute found that 1.5 million women rely on oral contraceptives exclusively for non-contraceptive reasons. Only 42% of women who take the pill use it excusively to prevent pregnancy

        While I think Ms. Fluke’s estimated cost may be high, I don’t know for sure because when I took birth control my insurance plan covered it, and it was a generic. (Not everyone can take a generic, and some need one specific brand).

        However, I think there’s a one of inaccuracies in this rebuttal too. She wasn’t asking for taxpayers to pay for birth control. She wanted her insurance plan to cover it and testified specifically about a friend at Georgetown who lost an ovary because she could no longer afford the pills her doctor prescribed to stop cyst growth, which her insurance plan at Georgetown refused to cover.

        And it’s neither here nor there to talk about how much it costs to attend Georgetown, as if that means all students are rich. “however, is a slap in the face to the rest of America when that figure is only $20 a week for someone who is attending a private law school whose tuition, fees, room and board combined are higher than the average American’s annual household income.”
        Uh, yeah, that’s exactly why they’re so broke after their salary, scholarships and loans pay their tuition! (Odd that the author seems conservative, and is deriding communism but is engaging in class warfare)

    • CF0U812

      None of you knows what you’re talking about. Non-Rx birth control ALL has a high failure rate, and certainly cannot be used to ease endometriosis, heavy periods that can cause anemia, or ovarian cysts. But Limbaugh listeners are known for being dimwitted… no surprises there. BTW, so far 26 sponsors have DROPPED Limbaugh.

      • SARIGHT

        Sorry, but you have your facts wrong CFOU812. Read up before you comment next time. Again you take what the mainstream media says as gospel. Rush, I guess I’m one of those dimwitted people. I’ll take that any day over the arrogance of the far left.

      • dixie lane

        Most of his advertisers are asking to come back and some are begging. It’s not my responsibility to pay for anyone else’s birth control …. get a grip liberals. Wrong cause at the wrong time.

      • Larry

        You have loony logic. First, if the contraceptives are for a medical condition, they would already be covered under most prescription plans. I don’t care for Limbaugh, but glad he shines a light on the entitlement lib’s who can’t get enough violins playing in the background when they plead their case.

        This reminds me of the people O’Bummer had crying on the networks that they needed the $40 per pay 2% payroll tax cut to pay their bills back in December. Duh! Simple math says that $40 is 2% of $2,000 per pay period. If someone who makes $2,000 per pay is crying over $40, they have bigger psychological issues than the $40!

      • 2GoodU

        uh, you’d better check your records. 26 may have dropped “local” stations, and in the course of business, happens ALL THE TIME. ONLY 2 SPONSORS DROPPED HIS SHOW, and one of them is returning. You are just a jealous idiot that spouts propaganda because you don’t have a mind of your own.

      • Roger Bulkley

        Idiot. Like a typical leftist you blabber statements originating from your own warped mind, and being founded on no factual confirmed evidence. My wife and I used condoms exclusively (twice to three times a week) for over thirty years until Menopause finally kicked in and never had another child after our fourth was born. Truth to liberals is what they want it to be, not what it is. Truth is not Truth if man can add to, or take away from it.

      • cjgray

        Got news for you. Prescription contraceptives also have a fairly high failure rate. The only one that doesn’t is abstinence.

      • Larry

        CF0U812 Your comment is the perfect example of an emotional decision maker who first makes a decision and forms a conclusion, then only sees or creates the facts which support their decision, all while being completely oblivious to any facts to the contrary!

        It is true that ” Love is blind!” Even love of a political ideology can create blindness.

      • Becky Covington

        If she was testifying to making the company’s pay for insurance coverage for medication for endometriosis, the media sure didn’t report it, and I didn’t see it in the testimony online. Where did that story
        pop up from? Ridiculous. And you can get prescription birth control for $8 month at walmart or Target. And they don’t have a high failure rate if you take them every day like you are suppose to. And the men can go get a rubber or have a vasectomy if they just want to use the women and don’t want to father children.

  • Susan

    I second that!!!

  • Rich Thigpen

    What’s most disturbing is that even 12.5% of the people in the 2008 Zogby poll thought Limbaugh was the “most trusted media personality in the nation.” Limbaugh is a vile human being and an opponent of civil discourse.



    • Fluke Me

      LMAO says someone allegedly named :Thigpen.” Good grief.

    • Verheek

      You have no idea what you are talking about. His comment may have been extreme but it got the nation once again thinking about an issue and focused on his show.

      If you don’t listen to the show, don’t comment

      • jtw

        What is all the hoopla about! Rush was right, he may have used some vulgar language, but he was probably to upset over those stupid statements.If she wasn’t in school she still would have to pay for the pills herself, so what’s the difference? Are they supposed to pay for her cloths, her gas, her food. Get a life and shut up!



    • SerfCityHereWeCome

      So, who exactly do you consider more trustworthy than he is? Dan the Forger Rather? Chris Tingly Leg Matthews? Diane Hussein Sawyer? The aptly-named Rachel Madcow? Dave Leninman? Stewart? Colbert? Williams? I’m hearing crickets… This country is vastly better off due to him, the millions he pays in taxes, the jobs he’s created, and the absurd lies he’s exposed from the State-Controlled-Media / Depressioncrat party complex. He also deserves some partial credit, some would argue, for there still being (some) fair elections in this country after 1992.

  • http://theroycroftreport.com/2012/03/04/sandra-fluke-obamas-poster-child-for-moocher-contraceptives/ Sandra Fluke: Obama’s Poster Child For Moocher Contraceptives | THE ROYCROFT REPORT

    […] Why Rush Limbaugh Was Right About Sandra Fluke (tampa.cbslocal.com) […]

  • J. Pickett

    A simple Google search provides a number of ways to get FREE birth control products in the Washington D.C. area. Apparently this third year law student and Ms, Pelosi, are both incapable or don;t have access to Google.

    • CF0U812

      Yet the right wing is trying to shut down Planned parenthood and anywhere else that actually helps women. You can’t have it both ways. This isn’t costing YOU a thing — this is about INSURANCE. Do you people really not get that???

      • JJinCO

        If it is about insurance, it does cost me. Planned Parenthood is an abortion mill.

      • Jenny

        An employer cannot be forced to pay for ANY health insurance, and then only the coverage the employer chooses to provide. This isn’t about insurance, it’s about freedom – liberals are just commies and they are against anyone having the right to live by their own principles. The only “choice” they support is murdering unborn children and the elderly, and deviant sex. What about the glories of a “diverse” culture?

    • S. Lesch

      I am betting Ms Fluke has a cel phone, as most students do these days ….. if she can afford a cel phone or cable tv or any other luxuries, perhaps she should give one of them up and pay for her own damn birth control. I have had to choose between things like cel phones and cable tv versus paying for necessities like rent and food ……. so please Ms. Fluke make your own damn sacrifices and if birth control is no necessary to your life, it’s time to make sacrifices elsewhere, like the rest of us.

      • Becky Covington

        You can even get a cell phone now, at no expense. Every cell phone plan in America now charges an extra $1 a month to fund free phones for the ‘poor’. Sick. You have no choice in the matter either. A new ‘govco’ program.

    • Rick

      Let her go to planned parenthood. Or buy a condom at Walgreens,they only cost a buck..

  • J.

    Contraceptive care is not just for people who engage is massive amounts of sex. It is also for women who have reproductive health problems and need the care to regulate their bodies. Access to contraceptive care can be lifesaving. By making access to necessary healthcare affordable we are sending a message to women that we value their reproductive health. This has nothing to do with moral values about sex. This is a health issue. We should fight for affordable access to ALL medical services for ALL people who rely on those services to be healthy.

    • Katherine

      Fluke was also in favor of sex-change operations. I’m I also supposed to pay for that? And by the way, anytime someone talks – sweet as they might want to sound- of “reproductive health” I know well that person doesn’t care a wit about anything but advancing the liberal agenda at the taxpayers expense. It’s just a cabal, like the global warming cabal, where liberals make money.

    • Jenny

      If this is only about a health issue, then why is it necessary to dramatize and lie about the costs of birth control pills? Not only is birth control available free to low income women, it costs less than $10.00 per month at places like Walmart, without any insurance! Does Ms. Fluke have a cell phone, buy more than two latte’s a month? A blouse or a pair of jeans cost more than birth control. This is just one more step in the long march through the institutions, tearing them down until we are under full dictatorship. Emotional Fools!

    • BC

      In most cases reproductive health issues are covered by Health Insurance. The problem here is taxpayers paying for someones choice. Planned Parents supplies Birth Control for free, or very cheap.

      • CF0U812

        This has absolutely nothing to do with taxpayers. It is about health insurance companies treating women equally. Birth control is basic health care for MOST women. Whether you like it or not. And they should not have to find a PP clinic and split their health care between providers! For many women, their ob/gyn IS their primary care physician.

      • centrist mom

        Ms. Fluke was advocating for her private insurance, paid for by her, to cover contraception – not taxpayers. Planned Parenthood funding is constantly under fire but does actually get some government funding.

    • Tom

      I hardly think that 40% of the women at that fine institution are in medical need of birth control.

  • centrist mom

    She doesn’t want taxpayers to pay for contraception. She wants her insurance provider, paid for by her, to cover it. But because it’s a Jesuit school, the only affordable group policy she has access to won’t offer it as an option. And for those who say “find another policy,” I assure you that affordable individual policies don’t exist.

    Both sides are now using this to charge up the base and increase turnout in November. Unfortunately, it will only hurt our ability to work together in January. Please tone down the rhetoric on the wedge issues so that we, as a nation, might actually have constructive discussions.

    • Katherine

      When somebody else is paying for your choices, I’m no longer a “centrist”. I think that a house on a beach on the Gulf in Florida would be good for my health…want to help me pay for that?

    • Travelassie

      Apparently, according to reports, this woman has a long history of activism in the areas of not just birth control coverage but she also wants insurance companies to pay for the sex-change operations of the transgendered. Says they’re discriminating against the transgendered in not considering these operations medically necessary.

      You go along with that?

      • centrist mom

        Only buy that one if same policy also covers my facelift because wrinkles lead to age discrimination. ;-)

    • Tom in NY

      Is she willing to have her premium go up by $1,000 a year? If not then she wants someone on her plan else to pay for her birth control, and do son in contravention of the moral beliefs of the university she attends.

      • centrist mom

        That’s the way insurance works – shared cost. Besides that, the arguement of increasing shared cost to others fails because the cost of pregnancy, childbirth and children’s healthcare is far more than the cost of contraception. I imagine that the policy does cover these things.

        So it boils down to the religious beliefs of the educational institution. Here is something to ponder. If the insurance company wants to give her access because it’s better for their bottom line, do you believe it’s appropriate for an employer or educational institution to dictate otherwise?

  • Rick

    Fluke is a Fake…………Another Liberal troublemaker,Also the work is that she is also Gay so why does she even need birth control? she is a ’plant’ by The Regime, as she has the same phony, deceitful characteristics that Obama has and admires.

    • Sayitlikeyoumeanit

      You loss all credibility when you talk like that:(

    • CF0U812

      Evidently you right-wingnuts will swallow ANY story you’re fed by your masters. Sit up and beg, now!

  • clearmind in memphis

    centrist mom – you say that she doesn’t want the public to pay for her birth control, but instead her insurance company. that is a typical socialist viewpoint. Who do you think pays the insurance company? JOHN Q PUBLIC! It’s no different than how you want our tax dollars spent. socialists think there is an unlimited pool of $$$$ that all of these resources come from. Why is it too much for her to pay the $20/week herself?

    • CF0U812

      Do you not quite understand that that’s precisely how insurance WORKS? The company collects premiums from lots and lots of people, pays out on claims (if you twist its arm, in some cases), and has enough left over for staff, overhead, AND profit? Don’t use the word “socialist” when you don’t even know what it means. You’re not remotely clear-minded.

      • Dmac225

        She is demanding that a service be added to her policy without any increase in her cost for said policy. Do you think the pharmacy is NOT going to demand payment from the insurance company for her pills? They certainly will. Therefore Ms. Fluke is demanding exactly that someone else pay for her contraceptives. How can you sit there and deny this obvious fact?

      • Katherine

        When the government tells insurance companies what to cover – that sounds socialist to me!

  • Tom

    Law School takes 3 years–so obviously it makes sense she was citing a 3 year term. At 80$ a month for 36 months ($2880)

    Clearmind–Yes, and how much does she pay into her insurance every month? The difference with tax dollars and insurance dollars is that there are no profits made on taxes. With Insurance I pay more into than I take out–that’s not true with taxes. I pay a limited amount into the national fund which is used for many goods and services costing more than my own contribution.

    She’s not asking for a handout, nor is she asking for socialism. She’s simply asking that her health insurance to cover birth control. This article completely twists the facts and doesn’t even come close to addressing the issues. The fact that it references the Nazis and the Communists in the same sentence is laughable from both a historical and a figurative sense.

    Furthermore, the fact that the author uses “group of overly educated thinkers” as a negative point in reference to government is very disconcerting. When did being intelligent become a bad thing? It reminds me something Neil DeGrasse Tyson said, (paraphrasing) Congress is over 50% Lawyers–a profession in which the purpose is to argue a point, not to be correct. For all the lawyers in Congress, there is a stunning lack of the rest of society. Where are the engineers, where are the scientists, where are the doctors, even the largest minority–businessmen–are lacking.

    I guess what I’m trying to say is this is a shoddy written strawman article where the author is simply throwing personal insults and misconstruing the facts to make it seem like Fluke is pressing for some evil gun-taking-anti-liberty-Nazi-communist state.

    Limbaugh was not only wrong about the way he went about the topic in terms of what he said, but also in how he thought about the issue.

    • S. Lesch

      Tom: I disagree and the reason being is that insurance coverage is a choice and a privilege, not a right. Ms. Fluke knew prior to starting at Georgetown that birth control wasn’t covered, so if it is sooooo important why would she choose Georgetown???? Does the fact she is a political activist have anything to do with it???? Hmmmm ….ya think?????

      She knew damn well that a Jesuit institution is not going to believe in offering birth control as part of there elected insurance coverages, so Ms. Fluke came in to rock the boat and shove her secular, femiist beliefs down the church’s throat.

      As a person who has lost her home, car, job, and now works a job that barely pays for necessities, I have given up luxuries such as Cable TV and cel phones, etc, so I could pay my own rent and food, instead of hitting up my fellow Americans to pay it through welfare and food stamps. I have no sympathy for a woman in a $40K a year school, who I would be willing to bet is not doing without her cel phone, cable tv or Starbucks coffee. So I say, hey Ms. Fluke give up YOUR luxuries and pay for your own damn birth control!!!!!!

      • Sayitlikeyoumeanit

        Good to see you kept your computer and your internet account. Insurance don’t have a problem paying for biirth control, they don’t want to have to cover the results of not supplying birth control. You are right about the government telling you what medical procedures you can or cannot do they should not! We should be able to pick the procedures we feel are medically needed without the government making any decisions for me so on that we can agree.

      • Kim B

        From her transcript:

        “In the media lately, some conservative Catholic organizations have been asking what did we expect when we enroll in a Catholic school? We can only answer that we expected women to be treated equally, to not have our school create untenable burdens that impede our academic success. We expected that our schools would live up to the Jesuit creed of ‘cura personalis‘ – to care for the whole person – by meeting all of our medical needs.

        We expected that when we told our universities of the problem this policy created for us as students, they would help us. We expected that when 94% of students oppose the policy the university would respect our choices regarding insurance students pay for – completely unsubsidized by the university. We did not expect that women would be told in the national media that we should have gone to school elsewhere.

        And even if that meant going to a less prestigious university, we refuse to pick between a quality education and our health. And we resent that in the 21st century, anyone think it’s acceptable to ask us to make this choice simply because we are women.”

  • Tom

    Expanding on my comments;

    I think even at $80 a month, it can hardly be considered ‘passed on’ to other people. Yes, the money is aggregated, but that doesn’t somehow mean I’m paying for her birth control–which is a misleading term but I’ll refer to that in a moment, digressing, the main factor not being taken into account is that she pays more into the health care pool than is being taken out.

    I have national healthcare (which even without Health Care is fantastically reasonably priced here in S.K.) but even so, last time I checked, health insurance cost more than $80 a month ($666/Month or $8000 a year, was the U.S. Average in 2009) So what is wrong with her using HER money that she already PAID to receive a medicine that she needs?

    Next, another key fact that is being completely missed–most likely due to the name is WHAT pill she needs. Yes, it’s birth control. That doesn’t mean she wants it for sex. As you know, many kinds of prescription birth controls also serve other purposes: (from Bradley Goldberg, MD.)
    “We now know that the pill has several uses other than just the prevention of pregnancy. In fact, probably close to 50% of the time that I prescribe the pill, it is for reasons other than the prevention of pregnancy. These reasons include: improving the menstrual cycle, preventing certain benign conditions, and the prevention of gynecologic cancers.”

    So while the pill can be used to prevent pregnancy, that’s not it’s only job. While yea, condoms are cheaper; condoms also don’t regulate cycles or help prevent cervical cancer.

    They’re not asking for the government to pay for abortions; They’re not asking for the government–nor anyone else to pay for a single thing. I don’t see how having an insurance option for this pill is any different than having insurance pay for blood pressure pills or diabetes medicine…

    • Dmac225

      @Tom…. A) The government already pays for abortions through Planned Parenthood. B) She is demanding a service be added to her insurance policy without an increase in the cost of that policy. Do you think the insurance company won’t have to pay the pharmacy for those pills? They certainly will. Therefore Ms. Fluke is demanding exactly that someone else pay for her contraception. C) No one chooses to have high blood pressure or diabetes. D) The most common reason for off-label use of birth control pills is to decrease cramping and flow during the menstrual cycle. In other words… for comfort and convenience.

      • Sayitlikeyoumeanit

        Sorry but that’s not the only medical reasons there are many more but I had to laugh at the “comfort” heaven forbid we try to may a women pain free. I don’t know if you realize how many women hours are lost due to cramping and painful menstration. Everyone here is just trying to enforce their feelings on contraception and abortion on everyone. First of all insurance companies would rather pay for the pill and not have to cover a pregnancy and child for 18 years. I also wonder if we are given the choice of what medical care we as employor’s could decide to cover or what I can deny my employee’s. I just heard a quote from one of those family’s with 19 kids that they take medicine to keep the uterus strong for her to continue having babies. I am morally against this, if God wanted you to have more children then he would keep your reproductive parts strong. So I would not want to offer that in my coverage. Just saying…

      • centrist mom

        A) Planned Parenthood receives only about a third of its money in government grants and contracts and by law, federal funding cannot be allocated for abortions. Yeah, it’s accounting magic but that’s the way accounting works in both business and government. B) There is logic in this arguement. However, it falls apart when you acknowledge that a compromise was reached in which the insurance companies agreed to provide contraception without impacting the institution. This suggests that it is more cost effective for them to cover the pill than maternity, childbirth and children’s healthcare. So, it goes back to: Should an employer/religious institution have authority over the healthcare available to an individual or should that decision be between doctor/patient? C) While “no one chooses to have high blood pressure or diabetes,” some people do choose unhealthy lifestyles that contribute to these conditions. D) Similarly, pain meds are routinely prescribed for “comfort and convenience” in treating a host of other ailments. The advantage with hormonal therapy is that your head stays clear and you can maintain a productive life going to work and/or school.

      • centrist mom

        P.S. Thank you for your maintaining civility even when disagreeing. It is the way to move forward.

      • Dmac225

        As far as your point in B) is concerned if providing lifetime contraceptive coverage for every female customer health insurance companies have was cheaper than covering the cost of pregnancy, for those who would get pregnant without such coverage, every health insurance company would provide it at no additional cost in every policy. I realize that is not really the issue in this case.

        This is about the right to freely practice religion. Maybe you can provide some information for me…1) Is the student health insurance included in the tuition or is a separate additional cost? 2) Does the university or church self insure or is the student health insurance administered through a third party? The answers to those two questions (which I do not know) are critical in being able to objectively come to a conclusion in this right to religious freedom matter.

        P.S. You are welcome on the civility and the feeling is mutual.

      • centrist mom

        Ms. Fluke stated that the students pay additional for their insurance. Not sure about self-insured or 3rd party question but wouldn’t matter in my opinion. Employer/institution’s religiosity (I think that’s a word) should not be mandated for employee/student. If the moral objection to this single provision is so strong (in this day and age) then perhaps it is time to use a 3rd party provider.

        A lifetime of contraceptives ($1000/yr is the # being thrown around) would be $20-25k? A single pregnancy and birth would be in excess of that not even counting the child’s healthcare. I believe typically, if maternity is covered, contraceptives are as well. The issue is whether to view this as preventive care and waive deductible as ACA has for other preventive care. (I had a “free” colonoscopy last year. Yea!) I’m on the fence here. I think it would be reasonable to have $5-10 co-pay.

        Thank you, again. I just wish everyone would stop screaming obscenities and insults at anyone who has a different point of view.

    • Travelassie

      From what I’ve read about the original mandate put out there by the Obamarama, contraception was to be covered in entirety, with no co-payments or deductibles, by the insurance companies to all covered employees, even those who worked for religious-based employers who didn’t believe in birth control or abortion. And included birth control pills and morning after pills intended to prevent implantation of an fertilized embryo. While I personally believe that insurance should cover prescribed birth control pills, I don’t see why they shouldn’t be subject to the same co-payments and deductibles as any other prescription drug covered by the insurance companies. If they’re entirely free by mandate, the insurance companies will recoup those costs by passing them along to all its subscribers. And I figure I pay enough for the medications I need, which aren’t subsidized by anyone, I don’t really need to assume the cost for someone else’s free birth control.

      • centrist mom

        My guess (and it’s just a guess) is that ACA waives deductible on all preventive care and that is the justification here. While pregnancy is not a disease/illness, it is an expensive health condition that can be prevented by contraception. I think I agree with you on this point. There should be at least a co-pay.

    • S. Lesch

      And Tom who are you or Obama or anyone else for that matter, that you feel you have the right to force a private enterprise (i.e. the insurance company) to pay for something that they do not have a legal contract to provide ….yes every coverage in a health plan is spelled out and bound by law. What gives you, Fluke or anyone else to (a) force a church or religious run institution to carry coverage on their insurance plans which go against their religious principles; (b) override a legal contact because someone doesn’t like what is or isn’t covered, after all there are other places to work and go to school which probably have plans that would suit them and finally (c) dictate to private businesses how to operate their operations, when they are operating within the bounds of established law.

      I know from my own experience that there are plenty of places to get meds and birth control for free or greatly reduced costs already ……a simple Google search should help those in such desparate need as Ms. Fluke obtain her needed contraception.

      • Tom

        S. Lesch,

        That’s actually a reasonable argument, thank you for your reply.

        Where is the right for the government to force private businesses to remove rat feces from their food products? Where is the right for the government to force private enterprises to not employ children?

        Yes, both of those are a little extreme and outlandish–and in many places, against the law (in regards to c), I realize this, but at the same time, my point still stands The government, on occasion has to step into the bounds of the private sector to enforce regulations for the betterment of the people. I would prefer this to happen as infrequently as possible, but sometimes it is necessary.

        Yes, I agree, there are always other alternatives. That’s a wonderful fact about America. However, it’s not as pragmatic as one would like. Yes, other top 15 Law schools in the country might also be nearby and offering scholarships and fellowships to her, but chances are they’re not. She could get a full time job in order to get health insurance to cover her, while still attending law school full time. Chances are though, that it wouldn’t be feasible.

        Nonetheless, you’ve raised the point that is at the center of the whole issue. Should religious institutions be allowed to deny people proper medical care because they simply don’t believe in it.

        That comes down to a mater of opinion. I don’t know if the church runs the actual insurance company or if they outsource their services–I don’t think the government should interfere with religion; in the first case, I would leave it up to the supreme court to decide on which side of the constitutional law it falls under–they know more about the first amendment’s clauses than I do. In the second case–whereas the school outsources their services to an insurance company, they have no excuse. The insurance company should be covering it.

        Sorry if this seems a little jumbled, it’s quarter past 7am and I’ve yet to sleep.

    • Tom

      *without insurance
      In reference to my South Korean national health care.

  • Jeannieology

    Rush is always right! And even if he appears to be wrong…he’s proven right in time.

  • Dottie

    From the information I have read and reported on TV Ads, Birth control pills have been know to cause cancer in women. Both of my sister’s developed breast cancer after being on the pill. I never used the pill because this information has been out there for a number of years. I am the oldest child and now that I am retired, I am happy to report, my mamograms are normal, my Pabst test are normal, because I was wise enough not to take a pill that has devistating conotations for anyone using this over a period of time. It is too late for my sisters, but not to late for young women out there to find alternative methods.

    • Sayitlikeyoumeanit

      Hi Dottie! I took the pill for two years then got off had three children and used other birth control. I breast fed all of my children, I never had an abortion but guess what? I got breast cancer! I find it demeaning to to those of us who did get breast cancer to have you folks telling us it was something we did, we just got it. I have friends who have been on birth control since they were 16, never had children, smoked and one had an abortion. None of them got breast cancer I should say yet as we are all just turning 60 now so there is still that chance. When you say things like you do it takes away from the real cause of this dreaded beast, we are women and we have breast.

    • CF0U812

      And THIS is the sort of brilliant specimen sitting there glued to every foul word that drops from Limbaugh’s gaping maw.

    • Kim B

      There’s a good chance your family may have a higher susceptibility to breast cancer than standard families and THAT is what you should be taking seriously and learning more about.

      There is some evidence that birth control can increase the risk in estrogen positive breast cancers only, and estrogen positive cancers occur more in high risk women and are not the norm in the breast cancer world.

      On a related note, the pill also reduces your risk for ovarian cancer – regardless of risk profile. While it’s a double edged sword for the high risk population (because of the links between BC and OVCA) it is great news for the general population.

    • centrist mom

      I think you mean Pap test. Too much Pabst might actually lead to the unwanted pregnancy – hard to walk a straight line let alone hold that asprin in place. ;-)

      As for the pill causing cancer – not always. I used it for over 20 years. Only side effect was no mood swings, cramps or irregular periods. Took a break when I decided timing was right for a couple of carefully planned children.

      Regarding government mandates on private insurance companies: they may be happy to cover contraception as it’s far less expensive than the unwanted pregnancy. And maybe it just goes back to the objections of the institution.

      The pill may not be right for everyone but the conversation should be between doctor and patient. It is inappropriate for employers and educational institutions to impose their values on others.

      • Travelassie

        There’s a thought that keeps going through my mind in reading all these arguments about birth control pills being covered by insurance companies. While I am disgusted by the determination of mainly left wing Democrats and supporters to turn this issue into a weapon to use against those they regard as adversaries, I actually believe that birth control should be covered by insurance companies to the same extent that they cover any other prescription medication. It’s been my experience that they don’t cover it, though, and I don’t believe it’s for religious reasons, Their policy is to include coverage only for 1) prescription drugs, that 2) are taken for eradication, control or prevention of a disease or condition. Birth control pills for contraception are excluded, as pregnancy isn’t considered an illness. They should cover birth control pills prescribed for medical reasons ( ie, polycystic ovaries, hormone irregularities, endometriosis etc) but often it’s refused by a insurance bean-counter on auto-pilot who only checks with a list to see what’s covered, and involves some arm twisting and fights with the insurance company to get it covered in the case of illness- shouldn’t be that way, but it’s been my experience too. I don’t know if there are some insurance companies out there who do cover birth control, but I know the insurance provided to us as federal government
        employees never has, nor do several with which I am also familiar. Nor do these companies provide any abortion coverage except to save the life of the mother. So I think it’s likely the Church or other religious group-associated employers might provide coverage to their employees from some of these companies who don’t cover birth control strictly for economic reasons, and it has nothing to do with the beliefs of the religious group. Just speculating here, and also offering the opinion that the Obama was overstepping his bounds in trying to mandate free contraception coverage, especially that which covered abortions.

      • centrist mom

        I appreciate your well reasoned and civil comments. Thank you.

  • Tom in NY

    BTW, was it really “testimony”? Was she under oath? Certainly it was a circus act orchestrated by Democrats.

    I have an idea that should make everybody happy. Instead of putting the burden on the insurance companies and the religious institutions, require all manufacturers of birth control medication and paraphernalia to provide them on demand ant no cost to individuals.

    Isn’t any dumber or more unconstitutional than what Obummer wants to happen, and far more honest.

  • John

    Rush should have phrased it this way, ‘ How much sex should the American taxpayer buy you, Miss Fluke?’

    • CF0U812

      Why? You don’t use MORE birth control when you have MORE sex. This is the problem, too often: Men talking about things they don’t know anything about. I see you’re no different. Besides: This has to do with INSURANCE COVERAGE EQUALITY. It has nothing to do with anybody’s TAXES, brain trust.

      • Dmac225

        Does the insurance company cover condoms or any other contraceptive items for male subscribers? If not then your whining about “equality” is not valid. The point you continue to ignore is that Fluke KNEW BEFORE SHE ENROLLED that the insurance provided to students did not cover contraceptives DUE TO THE RELIGIOUS affiliation of the university.

  • kevin

    Kevin illinois most have the story wrong. the girl Miss Fluke was talking about neeed the pill for medical reasons ,not sex.Since she couldnt afford the $600 a month it would of cost her she lost a overy……now.Rush who ? The pioneer whos career went down with two words { Little Monkey } Howard William Cohen.Better known as Howard Cosell.Born March 25th,1918.Past April 23rd 1995.Howard changed the way writing and broadcasting was done, with his in your face telling it like it was.Setting the stage for people like Rush and those alike but with true passion for what he did and not for the ratings.Cossell rose to prominence while covering boxer Muhammad Ali when he still fought as Cassius Clay, his birth name.He also stood up for Ali when he refused to serve in the Vietnam War,and was stripped of his championship title.You may also remember him agressivly yelling out from deep down inside ( Down GOES FRAZIER,DOWN GOES FRAZIER,DOWN GOES FRAZIER !!! ) as George Foreman struck him with intense force.Cosell was a all around reporter,radio,and tv icon,covering all sports,with his one of a kind voice and style for his time.During a monday night football game on Dec 8th,1980 as he found out John Lennon had just been murdered,shocking many with his announcement,was told in his ear stay with the game.He then went against the grain,and said it dont matter who wins or loses the game,because Lennons death was a true tragety people needed to know.Durining another monday night game on Sept.5th 1983.he used the then unheard of phrase to some “THAT LITTLE MONKEY GETS LOOSE,DOES’NT HE”.Those words were said to be racist,even though he also used them recorded in the past with white players,including his own son.That was the down fall of his career and the last year he spent in the booth.And now i ask again Rush who? He should be banned from all radio and tv in my opinion. March 6th 2012

  • kevin

    sorry forgot to put against the grain in caps in my artical but at least worked it in !!!

  • artv

    If getting this woman her contraception so she is less likely to reproduce then I’m all for it.

  • Alma

    I’m an older female. Nobody paid for my bc pills. And I didn’t expect anyone to do so! This “war on women” is totally laughable. What happened to the women who wanted to stand on their own and have no one responsible for them??? I have several medications I take to help my health. Who is paying for that…me!! Will you people who support “women’s health care” pay for plastic surgery so that I will look healthier? Will you people who support “women’s health care” pay for me to see a shrink to get me out of my depression? Will you people who support “women’s health care” pay for me to have a personal trainer so I can get my body back in shape? Will you people who support “women’s health care” pay for me to go to Weight Watchers so I can lose weight for my health? Where does it stop? I am honestly ashamed of you women (and men)….I stood on my own, why can’t you? If you need bc pills for medical reasons, I might have a different attitude, but most bc pills are for birth control. Nothing is free, somebody pays for it. What I want, I pay for and cut back somewhere else. Learn to do the same!!!

    • Jmags

      This isn’t about taxpayers paying for it. This is something that should be covered by HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANIES as part of HEALTH INSURANCE. that we as employees pay for from our paychecks. Your right that nothing is free and somebody should pay for it. She, as well as a lot of women out there are asking for it to be covered by the health insurance THEY PAY FOR.

    • CF0U812

      So you think health insurance is immoral, then? You’ve never had it or used it? Because if you did, somebody ELSE helped pay for any health care you got. Shared cost is the very foundation of insurance. Why should women’s basic health care be excluded from their insurance just because the upstanding Catholic Church (which hid pederast priests for decades) think BIRTH CONTROL is evil? They can get out of the business of hospitals and schools if they can’t figure out how to follow the law. …You don’t believe women should be treated equally under the law. You’re a disgrace to your sex.

  • David Whitmore

    Viagra is also a prescription medication. Why not force insurance companies to cover this, as well? Afterall, if a man is unable to perform “when the moment is right,” it will cause him anxiety and a feeling of inadequacy. This, in turn, could lead to other stress-related health issues, not to mention depression and other potential mental health issues. I mean, it’s all free right (well, the government will pay for it…so same thing)?

    • CF0U812

      The Catholic Church has no problem providing Viagra. Despite the fact that it is surely used by men who intend something other than procreating. Viagra doesn’t treat or prevent painful periods every single month (endometriosis), heavy bleeding that can result in anemia, ovarian cysts or any forms of cancer. Birth control is basic preventive health care for women. Viagra is not basic preventive health care for men.

    • SerfCityHereWeCome

      I think they already ARE forced to pay for it, which is EQUALLY RIDICULOUS, in case any NOW-types were thinking about screeching about that “unfair” subject.

  • David Whitmore

    At the end of the day it comes back to the same thing…..who’s going to pay for it? And where does it stop?

    • CF0U812

      Who’s going to pay for what? Contraception — or prenatal care, delivery, and all those babies from people not practicing contraception? Do The Math.

  • SerfCityHereWeCome

    Rush certainly should’ve stopped short after, “…what does that make her?”, without pursuing it further but if she’s (apparently) spending 15-18 hours per day on her back, then apparently the curriculum at Georgetown Law isn’t as demanding as it once was, and the scope of her sense of entitlement warrants institutionalization.

    • CF0U812

      Why would you conclude that Fluke is spending 15-18 hours a day “on her back”? Indulging in a little Rush-inspired libel yourself? And stupid enough to think that more sex = need for more birth control? You know, like Rush, who clearly knows zip about women?

  • Greg

    “While most of the media is focusing on the controversial comments of Rush Limbaugh’s response to Flukes testimony, what is more troubling is that Sandra Fluke actually believed that what she was saying was true…”





  • Greg

    I’m sure Rush is OK that oxycodone and hydrocodone are covered by insurance! Actually it might have been better if they weren’t, he might still have his hearing!!!!!!!!!!

  • teddy quackenbush

    sure wish he’d just keep eating till explosion,thats his real journey in life, TRUTH..and he pays for all of it.pigy pigy pigy….just my first amenment right,he’s a fat freaken pig……truth…

blog comments powered by Disqus
Vietnam Veterans' Bond Forged Again With Kidney DonationServing together in Vietnam, John Middaugh and Henry "Bill" Warner forged an Army-brothers bond they knew was profound and lasting. A world and nearly a half a century away from the war zone where they'd counted on each other, Middaugh put himself on the line for Warner this month in a new way: by giving one of his kidneys.
Dr. Paul Bearer II Tombstone Tales | Halloween EditionOn Sunday, October 25th, Dr. Paul Bearer II returned to the Tenement Castle for an afternoon of HORRORble movies.

Listen Live