Thank You Rush, For Re-Electing Obama

He called a young woman, a Georgetown Law Student, a slut and a prostitute for speaking before congress on the importance of birth control.

Folks don't realise how bad this is yet.

Just another example of Republicans showing the American people what a 12 century Clown Car this idiotic politard movement has become.

Bunch of racist, woman hating, pathetic jokes.

And Romney is a f*#king coward!

“Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman 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. 40% of the female students at Georgetown Law reported to us that they struggle financially as a result of this policy."

sat·ire/ˈsaˌtī(ə)r/
Noun:

The use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of...
A play, novel, film, or other work that uses satire.

It has to be funny to qualify as satire.

If she's f*#king and we're paying for it,










































What does that make her?

Why should you or I pay for anyone's sexual proclivities?

At a $1000 a year I hope she's writing it off as a business expense.

$3000 for two years worth of rubbers is 4 dudes a day.

limbaugh is an idiotic moron

Mr. Obama, don't bother getting up from the Presidential desk... you will be here for quite a while longer. It seems 50% of the voting population voted for you thanks to the way Republican men treated them.

Why should you or I pay for anyone's sexual proclivities?

“Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school."

and while we may not always agree on everything that body spends on, we have the ability to remake that body to reflect the consensus view of the country

He calls a Georgetown Law student a slut and prostitute for daring to speak about publicly funded contraception?

Lets not forget that it's a disease issue not just a pregnancy issue.

What?? So now the lefties are couching the argument in STD forms??? What?

If you wanna f*#k and not get pregnant, pay for that yourself.....

I can believe that you believe everything you hear, but can you be any stupider to actually believe that Obama telling insurance companies to cover contraception for women means something for your taxes?????

Again, idiot, hormones aren't just for birth control, there's a list of medical reasons women need them - all of which lower health care costs for everyone.

Got it now?

So, where in this statement Obama makes does he mention taxpayer dollars being used for any of the contraception mandate?

Who will pay???

Yes bluering, women take them for other reasons ...even women who cannot have children.

In fact, nobody has argued that the government should directly pay for contraception.

So either she has no health insurance, or you're lying, and her coverage pays for it.

Why pay for it when it's included in her coverage if she has insurance?

Co-pay, Johnson.

No I dont think it should be free. Just like viagara and condoms should not be free.

Also don't think it appropriate to call any woman a slut and request that she tape her sex and post it. Rush was wrong in his approach imo.

Curious where you heard that taxpayers were going to pay for it.

Also don't think it appropriate to call any woman a slut and request that she tape her sex and post it. Rush was wrong in his approach imo.

Edit:
Curious where you heard that taxpayers were going to pay for it.

But the left finds it much easier and indeed it is more comforting to do so, until you're caught up short by reality. So when a topic comes up like the foolish college student who complains she has to have her employer pay for her contraceptives because its too much work to travel a half mile and buy her own for less than 10 bucks a month, the left leaps on it with both feet, blissfully ignorant of how the rest of the nation perceives it.

So now Sandra Fluke is the left's new hero, a voice of the oppressed, a woman abused by cruel Roman Catholic social conservatives, who would deny her her right to have sex without getting pregnant. She's gotten dozens of interviews and even a call from President Obama. Because she says her contraception costs her $1000 a year.

To them she's a voice of the oppressed women everywhere, fighting against the patriarchal right who'd crush her liberty. To everyone else, she's a bit of a slut (how many times per day is she having sex to cost that much in contraception??) and idiotic, demanding people pay for her contraceptives as if that's some sort of critical human right. And they're so tone deaf to the rest of the nation, the left thinks this is a huge PR win, a triumph that will crush their enemies. Because they're so isolated, by choice, from the rest of the story.

Leader Pelosi, Members of Congress, good morning, and thank you for calling this hearing on women’s health and allowing me to testify on behalf of the women who will benefit from the Affordable Care Act contraceptive coverage regulation. My name is Sandra Fluke, and I’m a third year student at Georgetown Law, a Jesuit school. I’m also a past president of Georgetown Law Students for Reproductive Justice or LSRJ. I’d like to acknowledge my fellow LSRJ members and allies and all of the student activists with us and thank them for being here today.
Georgetown LSRJ is here today because we’re so grateful that this regulation implements the nonpartisan, medical advice of the Institute of Medicine. I attend a Jesuit law school that does not provide contraception coverage in its student health plan. Just as we students have faced financial, emotional, and medical burdens as a result, employees at religiously affiliated hospitals and universities across the country have suffered similar burdens. We are all grateful for the new regulation that will meet the critical health care needs of so many women. Simultaneously, the recently announced adjustment addresses any potential conflict with the religious identity of Catholic and Jesuit institutions.
When I look around my campus, I see the faces of the women affected, and I have heard more and more of their stories. . On a daily basis, I hear from yet another woman from Georgetown or other schools or who works for a religiously affiliated employer who has suffered financial, emotional, and medical burdens because of this lack of contraceptive coverage. And so, I am here to share their voices and I thank you for allowing them to be heard.
Without insurance coverage, contraception can cost a woman 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. Forty percent of female students at Georgetown Law report struggling financially as a result of this policy. One told us of how embarrassed and powerless she felt when she was standing at the pharmacy counter, learning for the first time that contraception wasn’t covered, and had to walk away because she couldn’t afford it. Women like her have no choice but to go without contraception. Just last week, a married female student told me she had to stop using contraception because she couldn’t afford it any
longer. Women employed in low wage jobs without contraceptive coverage face the same choice.
You might respond that contraception is accessible in lots of other ways. Unfortunately, that’s not true. Women’s health clinics provide vital medical services, but as the Guttmacher Institute has documented, clinics are unable to meet the crushing demand for these services. Clinics are closing and women are being forced to go without. How can Congress consider the Fortenberry, Rubio, and Blunt legislation that would allow even more employers and institutions to refuse contraceptive coverage and then respond that the non-profit clinics should step up to take care of the resulting medical crisis, particularly when so many legislators are attempting to defund those very same clinics?
These denials of contraceptive coverage impact real people. In the worst cases, women who need this medication for other medical reasons suffer dire consequences. A friend of mine, for example, has polycystic ovarian syndrome and has to take prescription birth control to stop cysts from growing on her ovaries. Her prescription is technically covered by Georgetown insurance because it’s not intended to prevent pregnancy. Under many religious institutions’ insurance plans, it wouldn’t be, and under Senator Blunt’s amendment, Senator Rubio’s bill, or Representative Fortenberry’s bill, there’s no requirement that an exception be made for such medical needs. When they do exist, these exceptions don’t accomplish their well-intended goals because when you let university administrators or other employers, rather than women and their doctors, dictate whose medical needs are legitimate and whose aren’t, a woman’s health takes a back seat to a bureaucracy focused on policing her body.
In sixty-five percent of cases, our female students were interrogated by insurance representatives and university medical staff about why they needed these prescriptions and whether they were lying about their symptoms. For my friend, and 20% of women in her situation, she never got the insurance company to cover her prescription, despite verification of her illness from her doctor. Her claim was denied repeatedly on the assumption that she really wanted the birth control to prevent pregnancy. She’s gay, so clearly polycystic ovarian syndrome was a much more urgent concern than accidental pregnancy. After months of paying over $100 out of pocket, she just couldn’t afford her medication anymore and had to stop taking it. I learned about all of this when I walked out of a test and got a message from her that in the middle of her final exam period she’d been in the emergency room all night in excruciating pain. She wrote, “It was so painful, I woke up thinking I’d been shot.” Without her taking the birth control, a massive cyst the size of a tennis ball had grown on her ovary. She had to have surgery to remove her entire ovary. On the morning I was originally scheduled to give this testimony, she sat in a doctor’s office. Since last year’s surgery, she’s been experiencing night sweats, weight gain, and other symptoms of early menopause as a result of the
removal of her ovary. She’s 32 years old. As she put it: “If my body indeed does enter early menopause, no fertility specialist in the world will be able to help me have my own children. I will have no chance at giving my mother her desperately desired grandbabies, simply because the insurance policy that I paid for totally unsubsidized by my school wouldn’t cover my prescription for birth control when I needed it.” Now, in addition to potentially facing the health complications that come with having menopause at an early age-- increased risk of cancer, heart disease, and osteoporosis, she may never be able to conceive a child.
Perhaps you think my friend’s tragic story is rare. It’s not. One woman told us doctors believe she has endometriosis, but it can’t be proven without surgery, so the insurance hasn’t been willing to cover her medication. Recently, another friend of mine told me that she also has polycystic ovarian syndrome. She’s struggling to pay for her medication and is terrified to not have access to it. Due to the barriers erected by Georgetown’s policy, she hasn’t been reimbursed for her medication since last August. I sincerely pray that we don’t have to wait until she loses an ovary or is diagnosed with cancer before her needs and the needs of all of these women are taken seriously.
This is the message that not requiring coverage of contraception sends. A woman’s reproductive healthcare isn’t a necessity, isn’t a priority. One student told us that she knew birth control wasn’t covered, and she assumed that’s how Georgetown’s insurance handled all of women’s sexual healthcare, so when she was raped, she didn’t go to the doctor even to be examined or tested for sexually transmitted infections because she thought insurance wasn’t going to cover something like that, something that was related to a woman’s reproductive health. As one student put it, “this policy communicates to female students that our school doesn’t understand our needs.” These are not feelings that male fellow students experience. And they’re not burdens that male students must shoulder.
In the media lately, conservative Catholic organizations have been asking: what did we expect when we enrolled at 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 problems this policy created for students, they would help us. We expected that when 94% of students opposed 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 if we wanted comprehensive insurance that met our needs, not just those of men, we should have gone to school elsewhere, even if that meant a less prestigious university. We refuse to pick between a quality education and our health, and we
resent that, in the 21st century, anyone thinks it’s acceptable to ask us to make this choice simply because we are women.
Many of the women whose stories I’ve shared are Catholic women, so ours is not a war against the church. It is a struggle for access to the healthcare we need. The President of the Association of Jesuit Colleges has shared that Jesuit colleges and universities appreciate the modification to the rule announced last week. Religious concerns are addressed and women get the healthcare they need. That is something we can all agree on. Thank you.

Callie, why should birth control be treated differently than any other HUMAN issue? What is this knee-jerk crap that the poor little women are still oppressed?

Maybe the gov't should be compelled to have taxpayers pay for...huh...OMG!!!..."Men's issues"!!!!

That would be sexist, right???

I'm tired of this sanctimonious lie that birth control is a "woman's health right".

Meh!

why should birth control be treated differently than any other HUMAN issue? What is this knee-jerk crap that the poor little women are still oppressed?

Philanthropic Tyranny

While society is struggling toward liberty, these famous men who put themselves at its head are filled with the spirit of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. They think only of subjecting mankind to the philanthropic tyranny of their own social inventions. Like Rousseau, they desire to force mankind docilely to bear this yoke of the public welfare that they have dreamed up in their own imaginations.

This was especially true in 1789. No sooner was the old regime destroyed than society was subjected to still other artificial arrangements, always starting from the same point: the omnipotence of the law.

Listen to the ideas of a few of the writers and politicians during that period:

SAINT-JUST: The legislator commands the future. It is for him to will the good of mankind. It is for him to make men what he wills them to be.

ROBESPIERRE: The function of government is to direct the physical and moral powers of the nation toward the end for which the commonwealth has come into being.

BILLAUD-VARENNES: A people who are to be returned to liberty must be formed anew. A strong force and vigorous action are necessary to destroy old prejudices, to change old customs, to correct depraved affections, to restrict superfluous wants, and to destroy ingrained vices.... Citizens, the inflexible austerity of Lycurgus created the firm foundation of the Spartan republic. The weak and trusting character of Solon plunged Athens into slavery. This parallel embraces the whole science of government.

LE PELLETIER: Considering the extent of human degradation, I am convinced that it is necessary to effect a total regeneration and, if I may so express myself, of creating a new people.

The Socialists Want Dictatorship

Again, it is claimed that persons are nothing but raw material. It is not for them to will their own improvement; they are incapable of it. According to Saint-Just, only the legislator is capable of doing this. Persons are merely to be what the legislator wills them to be. According to Robespierre, who copies Rousseau literally, the legislator begins by decreeing the end for which the commonwealth has come into being. Once this is determined, the government has only to direct the physical and moral forces of the nation toward that end. Meanwhile, the inhabitants of the nation are to remain completely passive. And according to the teachings of Billaud-Varennes, the people should have no prejudices, no affections, and no desires except those authorized by the legislator. He even goes so far as to say that the inflexible austerity of one man is the foundation of a republic.

In cases where the alleged evil is so great that ordinary governmental procedures cannot cure it, Mably recommends a dictatorship to promote virtue: "Resort," he says, "to an extraordinary tribunal with considerable powers for a short time. The imagination of the citizens needs to be struck a hard blow." This doctrine has not been forgotten. Listen to Robespierre:

The principle of the republican government is virtue, and the means required to establish virtue is terror. In our country we desire to substitute morality for selfishness, honesty for honor, principles for customs, duties for manners, the empire of reason for the tyranny of fashion, contempt of vice for contempt of poverty, pride for insolence, greatness of soul for vanity, love of glory for love of money, good people for good companions, merit for intrigue, genius for wit, truth for glitter, the charm of happiness for the boredom of pleasure, the greatness of man for the littleness of the great, a generous, strong, happy people for a good-natured, frivolous, degraded people; in short, we desire to substitute all the virtues and miracles of a republic for all the vices and absurdities of a monarchy.

Usually, however, these gentlemen — the reformers, the legislators, and the writers on public affairs — do not desire to impose direct despotism upon mankind. Oh no, they are too moderate and philanthropic for such direct action. Instead, they turn to the law for this despotism, this absolutism, this omnipotence. They desire only to make the laws.

Well, what liberty should the legislators permit people to have? Liberty of conscience? (But if this were permitted, we would see the people taking this opportunity to become atheists.)

Then liberty of education? (But parents would pay professors to teach their children immorality and falsehoods; besides, according to Mr. Thiers, if education were left to national liberty, it would cease to be national, and we would be teaching our children the ideas of the Turks or Hindus; whereas, thanks to this legal despotism over education, our children now have the good fortune to be taught the noble ideas of the Romans.)

Then liberty of labor? (But that would mean competition which, in turn, leaves production unconsumed, ruins businessmen, and exterminates the people.)

Perhaps liberty of trade? (But everyone knows — and the advocates of protective tariffs have proved over and over again — that freedom of trade ruins every person who engages in it, and that it is necessary to suppress freedom of trade in order to prosper.)

Possibly then, liberty of association? (But, according to socialist doctrine, true liberty and voluntary association are in contradiction to each other, and the purpose of the socialists is to suppress liberty of association precisely in order to force people to associate together in true liberty.)

Clearly then, the conscience of the social democrats cannot permit persons to have any liberty because they believe that the nature of mankind tends always toward every kind of degradation and disaster. Thus, of course, the legislators must make plans for the people in order to save them from themselves.

This line of reasoning brings us to a challenging question: If people are as incapable, as immoral, and as ignorant as the politicians indicate, then why is the right of these same people to vote defended with such passionate insistence?

i'll vote intelligence and social responsibilty, thanks.

feel free, repubs, to take off your thinkin caps now and go upon your ignorant ways.

In her testimony, Fluke argued that contraceptive coverage was important for women’s health and she focused on its medical uses beyond preventing pregnancy. She told the story of a friend who lost an ovary because she did not have access to birth control, which might have prevented the growth of a cyst.

Limbaugh had characterized her argument as an attempt to “be paid to have sex.”

So it is not just reading comprehension that utterly escapes the daddy of the genius soldier but simple math as well.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

You want gov't sponsored birth control?
Do you know where this goes?

is it fair to say that there are consequences to having freedom of speech

The government doesn't really "sponsor" things in the way most people use that word. Do you mean that the government would pay for everyone's birth control needs?

Survival - it wasn't publicly funded contraception. The issue is whether private employers can refuse to cover contraception in the private health care plans they offer employees.

I was referring to losing the argument.

I don't understand why Obama is forcing insurance companies to cover contraception, except as a partisan, political, election-year scheme to win re-election.

I saw the video of her original little speech a couple of days ago.

$3000 for two years worth of condoms at a buck a piece works out to 4 times a day.


When did she have time for law school?

I saw the video of her original little speech a couple of days ago.

$3000 for two years worth of condoms at a buck a piece works out to 4 times a day.


When did she have time for law school?

How do you spend $3000 on birth control in 24 months?

TGT? Rush also asked for porn videos from her if she was receiving public funding.

Are you in for them too?

Rush is an idiot, those of you who think he makes any difference belong in his grouping.

You Liberals are definitely feeling the pain over this round. By tomorrow we'll know who paid -agent provocateur- Fluke to attend Georgetown with instructions to mess with the religious freedoms the Constitution guarantee us all.

So you don't like your activists being called slut anymore than we like being called tea-bagger? What a surprise.

How could she say this?

Americans like freedom. NOT GOVERNMENT.

With no gov't at all, what happens, ALWAYS, is the creation of a harsh tyranny. Under no gov't, those with more physical power consolidate it, and use it to subjugate those around them, imposing a harsh tyranny.

If this slut can't find a few bucks a day in her budget to get laid the three or four times she obviously does, then why would anyone ever consider hiring her when she becomes a lawyer?

Maybe she is a slut. Did you here her comments?

Nice try. So "birth control hormones" are for health reasons now? Wow! Tell my 97 year old grandmother!!!!

So tell me, Callie, so it's supposed to be free? Paid for by taxpayers? Deployed to high-school/college students for their 'health'?

I gotta call bS on this. It's a ploy.

And yes, my wife pays for her birth control, before you ask.

f men got pregnant, this wouldn't be a conversation.

Which I found stupid because everyone knows prevention saves money. Or does it? Insurance companies likely profit from pregnancies. Ever look at maternity policies? The cost was so high in the 80-90s that it wasn't worth it for what a routine delivery cost. Probably isn't much different now. That type of coverage is a separate policy and pretty much means you can have your baby in a private woman's hospital as opposed to a general one. Don't let the dingo get your baby!

Once out in the private sector, it wasn't paid for and rose to as much as $30/month. Kinda like cable, a buck a day.

You idiots fail to see the future, and you you fail to reflect on your past.

You want gov't sponsored birth control?

Do you know where this goes?

And insurance companies should have free-will.

Chaz, there are many, many people in this country who are unhappy that medical care does not focus on PREVENTION, and instead focuses on treating AFTER THE FACT.

One part of the healthcare reform is to make preventive care more accessible.

Part of the reason for doing that is it DECREASES COST OF INSURANCE.

Access to highly effective birth control reduces the number of unwanted children---you oppose that?

It will reduce the number of abortions--you oppose that?

It will reduce the cost of healthcare, a HUGE problem (pregnancies and childbirth, and child healthcare is a LOT more expensive than pills)

And it in one way supports PREVENTION---you oppose that?

You Liberals are definitely feeling the pain over this round. By tomorrow we'll know who paid -agent provocateur- Fluke to attend Georgetown with instructions to mess with the religious freedoms the Constitution guarantee us all.

...Conservatives keep arguing about this as if private health insurance were some monetary redistribution program. In fact, the health insurance women use to pay for these services is theirs, just as surely as their wages are theirs. Insurance you get through your employer is paid for by you through a combination of labor and money. Limbaugh’s claims that he’s paying for my contraception when I use my insurance to pay for it make as much sense as Limbaugh taking over my checking account and declaring it’s his money. It’s true that taxpayers subsidize access to contraception for low-income women through programs like Title X and Medicaid---rightly, since public health is a concern of the taxpayer---but that’s not actually the money in dispute here.

"She's Single so the sex is obviously recreational."

You don't know what the hell you are talking about, TGT.

She's Single so the sex is obviously recreational. (unless she's writing off the expenses)

And at a thousand bucks a year for contraception evidently a lot of it.


Climbing is necessary for my mental health. That's much more justifiable as a medical expense.




I want you all to pay for that too.

When is Obamacare going to start paying for may gas bills and shouldn't I get a free national parks pass as well?

You can call all sex that's not for procreation recreational but then so is everything that's not eating, shelter, and work.

And as for this issue helping to reelect Comrade Obama, dream on. This whole hype-storm will be off of everyone's radar in a week.

So where's my check every month?

So where's my check every month?

Do you have a job?

But, the behavior described not according to the prevailing social norm unusual,negative and even desirable.


So why the outrage?

The word used was certainly not PC.

But, the behavior described not according to the prevailing social norm unusual,negative and even desirable.


So why the outrage?

For me the interesting part of the story is the ever-evolving “coed”. I put that in quotes because in the beginning she was described as a Georgetown law student. It was then revealed that prior to attending Georgetown she was an active women’s right advocate. In one of her first interviews she is quoted as talking about how she reviewed Georgetown’s insurance policy prior to committing to attend, and seeing that it didn’t cover contraceptive services, she decided to attend with the express purpose of battling this policy. During this time, she was described as a 23-year-old coed. Magically, at the same time Congress is debating the forced coverage of contraception, she appears and is even brought to Capitol Hill to testify. This morning, in an interview with Matt Lauer on the Today show, it was revealed that she is 30 years old, NOT the 23 that had been reported all along.

In other words, folks, you are being played. She has been an activist all along and the Dems were just waiting for the appropriate time to play her.

While she is described as a “third year law student” they always fail to mention that she is also the past president of Law Students for Reproductive Justice.

In other words, folks, you are being played. She has been an activist all along and the Dems were just waiting for the appropriate time to play her.