Rush Limbaugh abhorent "slut" remark

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:She's not slut, but evidently no catch either. Hard to believe she needs contraception that much.

How much contraception do you consider an acceptable amount?

[Anonymous]

My mom has been denied a certain chemo drug for her metastasized breast cancer. A drug that would only cost $500 more than the one she is currently using. She has double coverage insurance, that her and my father have been working the last 35 years to pay for. She pays taxes, raised three kids without government assistance, and battled cancer for 14 years without missing more than a week of work. She is still working five days a week at age 60 with stage 4 breast cancer. I want to know why some young woman's "need" for contraception is such an important issue. I seem to remember that when I was in college, they kept buckets of condoms just inside the health department door, and you could grab handfuls for free if you wanted them. This is a non issue, and everyone should be ashamed of themselves for getting in such a lather over it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She knew she was accepting public money to go to a Catholic University that would not provide birth control. She is getting what she paid for----or in this instance what she didn't pay for.

Insurance doesn't pay for toothpaste either. While it certainly preferable for insurance to cover as much as possible, including contraception, I really don't see what the big deal is if she has to pay for her own contraception. If birth control pills are that important to her (versus buying a box of condoms) and she can't get insurance to cover it, then make do. It's probably cheaper than a daily Starbucks habit.

And when you are willing to sell the pill the same way you sell toothpaste, that'll be just fine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My mom has been denied a certain chemo drug for her metastasized breast cancer. A drug that would only cost $500 more than the one she is currently using. She has double coverage insurance, that her and my father have been working the last 35 years to pay for. She pays taxes, raised three kids without government assistance, and battled cancer for 14 years without missing more than a week of work. She is still working five days a week at age 60 with stage 4 breast cancer. I want to know why some young woman's "need" for contraception is such an important issue. I seem to remember that when I was in college, they kept buckets of condoms just inside the health department door, and you could grab handfuls for free if you wanted them. This is a non issue, and everyone should be ashamed of themselves for getting in such a lather over it.

Your mother's cancer does not invalidate other people's medical needs, and the reasons for her insurance coverage however valid or invalid they are, have no bearing on this. I'm not going to debate the relative merits of your mother vs. women of childbearing age. But as a person who lost both parents to cancer, shame on you for pulling the cancer card.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My mom has been denied a certain chemo drug for her metastasized breast cancer. A drug that would only cost $500 more than the one she is currently using. She has double coverage insurance, that her and my father have been working the last 35 years to pay for. She pays taxes, raised three kids without government assistance, and battled cancer for 14 years without missing more than a week of work. She is still working five days a week at age 60 with stage 4 breast cancer. I want to know why some young woman's "need" for contraception is such an important issue. I seem to remember that when I was in college, they kept buckets of condoms just inside the health department door, and you could grab handfuls for free if you wanted them. This is a non issue, and everyone should be ashamed of themselves for getting in such a lather over it.

Your mother's cancer does not invalidate other people's medical needs, and the reasons for her insurance coverage however valid or invalid they are, have no bearing on this. I'm not going to debate the relative merits of your mother vs. women of childbearing age. But as a person who lost both parents to cancer, shame on you for pulling the cancer card.

+1 to the response.

You do realize BC treats other medical conditions women struggle with, right?

So how is it a non-issue?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My mom has been denied a certain chemo drug for her metastasized breast cancer. A drug that would only cost $500 more than the one she is currently using. She has double coverage insurance, that her and my father have been working the last 35 years to pay for. She pays taxes, raised three kids without government assistance, and battled cancer for 14 years without missing more than a week of work. She is still working five days a week at age 60 with stage 4 breast cancer. I want to know why some young woman's "need" for contraception is such an important issue. I seem to remember that when I was in college, they kept buckets of condoms just inside the health department door, and you could grab handfuls for free if you wanted them. This is a non issue, and everyone should be ashamed of themselves for getting in such a lather over it.

Your mother's cancer does not invalidate other people's medical needs, and the reasons for her insurance coverage however valid or invalid they are, have no bearing on this. I'm not going to debate the relative merits of your mother vs. women of childbearing age. But as a person who lost both parents to cancer, shame on you for pulling the cancer card.

So I will be shamed. There are WAY more important things going on in the world than contraception. If you can't figure out how to get condoms, than you should not be having sex. This is something I have heard on this website for a long time. If you can't afford kids, don't have them; if you can't afford a huge house, don't buy one; if you can't afford a fabulous lifestyle, don't have one. Follow your own advice. Contraception is not a "health issue" it is a choice issue. If you choose to have sex, you need to take care of yourself. I for one don't want the government telling me which type of contraception I can use. I truly wish people would put this much energy into fighting child abuse. I can't remember the last time some grad student faced congress and plead for the victims of child abuse to be cared for and protected. Shame on you for wasting our time.

[Anonymous]

If you need contraception for medical issues, than I am sure the health department will help you with that. Heavy periods, pimples, is that what we are talking about? I don't think that is what the young lady meant when she was speaking. She was talking about protecting herself from getting pregnant.

[Anonymous]

How dare anyone say that the government should take money away from other people (theft) in order to allow them to have sex. Abstinence is always an option if you can't afford contraception. Just like getting a roomate is an option if you can't afford rent. Or using a carpool if you can't afford gas. Or waiting to have kids until you can afford to take care of them. Remember that money does not come from the government, it comes from us.

[Anonymous]

She spoke about women at Georgetown who need birth control to treat medical issues and yet it is still not covered by their insurance.

[Anonymous]

Would it also be womens' fault if they abstained from sex except for infrequent and planned efforts to procreate a limited number of offspring? Then all these misogynistic assholes and institutions would be complaining that women are not performing their wifely duties. They can have a say when they can bear a human being. Otherwise they need to STFU!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My mom has been denied a certain chemo drug for her metastasized breast cancer. A drug that would only cost $500 more than the one she is currently using. She has double coverage insurance, that her and my father have been working the last 35 years to pay for. She pays taxes, raised three kids without government assistance, and battled cancer for 14 years without missing more than a week of work. She is still working five days a week at age 60 with stage 4 breast cancer. I want to know why some young woman's "need" for contraception is such an important issue. I seem to remember that when I was in college, they kept buckets of condoms just inside the health department door, and you could grab handfuls for free if you wanted them. This is a non issue, and everyone should be ashamed of themselves for getting in such a lather over it.

Your mother's cancer does not invalidate other people's medical needs, and the reasons for her insurance coverage however valid or invalid they are, have no bearing on this. I'm not going to debate the relative merits of your mother vs. women of childbearing age. But as a person who lost both parents to cancer, shame on you for pulling the cancer card.

So I will be shamed. There are WAY more important things going on in the world than contraception. If you can't figure out how to get condoms, than you should not be having sex. This is something I have heard on this website for a long time. If you can't afford kids, don't have them; if you can't afford a huge house, don't buy one; if you can't afford a fabulous lifestyle, don't have one. Follow your own advice. Contraception is not a "health issue" it is a choice issue. If you choose to have sex, you need to take care of yourself. I for one don't want the government telling me which type of contraception I can use. I truly wish people would put this much energy into fighting child abuse. I can't remember the last time some grad student faced congress and plead for the victims of child abuse to be cared for and protected. Shame on you for wasting our time.

You are fundamentally missing the point, to the point that I would guess you are being willfully stupid: birth control is used in order to treat. medical. problems. Endometriosis. Anemia. Menorrhagia. So what "choice" exactly do you imagine with these problems to be making? Because I sincerely don't recall checking the square for the "vagina/uterus" combo pack I was issued.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How dare anyone say that the government should take money away from other people (theft) in order to allow them to have sex. Abstinence is always an option if you can't afford contraception. Just like getting a roomate is an option if you can't afford rent. Or using a carpool if you can't afford gas. Or waiting to have kids until you can afford to take care of them. Remember that money does not come from the government, it comes from us.

I don't understand why everyone keeps saying "why should the govt pay for sex". Aren't we talking about HEALTH INSURANCE PLANS? Which the govt has a long history of regulating?

Oh and the govt already pays for sex. Google medicare and viagra. COVERED. Govt paying for boners.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How dare anyone say that the government should take money away from other people (theft) in order to allow them to have sex. Abstinence is always an option if you can't afford contraception. Just like getting a roomate is an option if you can't afford rent. Or using a carpool if you can't afford gas. Or waiting to have kids until you can afford to take care of them. Remember that money does not come from the government, it comes from us.

I don't understand why everyone keeps saying "why should the govt pay for sex". Aren't we talking about HEALTH INSURANCE PLANS? Which the govt has a long history of regulating?

Oh and the govt already pays for sex. Google medicare and viagra. COVERED. Govt paying for boners.

That's MAJORLY fuc*ed up. What the fuc* does an old man need that for? Are there any health benefits like there is for BC?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My mom has been denied a certain chemo drug for her metastasized breast cancer. A drug that would only cost $500 more than the one she is currently using. She has double coverage insurance, that her and my father have been working the last 35 years to pay for. She pays taxes, raised three kids without government assistance, and battled cancer for 14 years without missing more than a week of work. She is still working five days a week at age 60 with stage 4 breast cancer. I want to know why some young woman's "need" for contraception is such an important issue. I seem to remember that when I was in college, they kept buckets of condoms just inside the health department door, and you could grab handfuls for free if you wanted them. This is a non issue, and everyone should be ashamed of themselves for getting in such a lather over it.

You moron. Try reading the law student's actual testimony. She told the story of a friend who was having serious medical problems with her ovaries that birth control pills could alleviate. She couldn't afford the pills without insurance coverage so she stopped taking them. Now she is risking the possibility that she will never be able to have children. Free condoms won't help a damn!

Try actually reading the actual testimony first - something that Rush Limbaugh apparently failed to do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My mom has been denied a certain chemo drug for her metastasized breast cancer. A drug that would only cost $500 more than the one she is currently using. She has double coverage insurance, that her and my father have been working the last 35 years to pay for. She pays taxes, raised three kids without government assistance, and battled cancer for 14 years without missing more than a week of work. She is still working five days a week at age 60 with stage 4 breast cancer. I want to know why some young woman's "need" for contraception is such an important issue. I seem to remember that when I was in college, they kept buckets of condoms just inside the health department door, and you could grab handfuls for free if you wanted them. This is a non issue, and everyone should be ashamed of themselves for getting in such a lather over it.

Your mother's cancer does not invalidate other people's medical needs, and the reasons for her insurance coverage however valid or invalid they are, have no bearing on this. I'm not going to debate the relative merits of your mother vs. women of childbearing age. But as a person who lost both parents to cancer, shame on you for pulling the cancer card.

So I will be shamed. There are WAY more important things going on in the world than contraception. If you can't figure out how to get condoms, than you should not be having sex. This is something I have heard on this website for a long time. If you can't afford kids, don't have them; if you can't afford a huge house, don't buy one; if you can't afford a fabulous lifestyle, don't have one. Follow your own advice. Contraception is not a "health issue" it is a choice issue. If you choose to have sex, you need to take care of yourself. I for one don't want the government telling me which type of contraception I can use. I truly wish people would put this much energy into fighting child abuse. I can't remember the last time some grad student faced congress and plead for the victims of child abuse to be cared for and protected. Shame on you for wasting our time.

You are right, PP. Screw those who have endomitriosis, cysts, a hormonal imbalance, anemia related to menstruation, polycystic ovarian syndrome among other things, and use the birth control pill to help with their symptoms and disease management. You are right, what is the big deal with contraception all of the sudden. You can thank your politicians for that. Women are just fed up with it and taking a stand.