Rush Limbaugh: Women Who Want Birth Control Are Sluts

[Greed and Death]

They are not businesses they are charities.

Catholic universities and hospitals are charities now?

I didn't realize charities are for-profit.

And they can comply and still run by denying everyone insurance they employ.

I believe the fine for doing that is pretty damn high under current laws.

Compromise would suggest exempting them in a very narrow manner.

Which is what has happened. They don't have to pay for it. Insurance companies have to pick up the slack and pay for it themselves.

The majority of universities and Hospitals in this country are not for profit. In fact with universities attending a for profit university is considered a low mark. Please please read some books, having to correct your misinformation is really detracting from a debate on the matter.

1st they do not care about money, 2nd there are ways around the fine by using part time workers, temporary employees, and independent contractors, 3rd There is no requirement university provide insurance for their students.

[Greed and Death]

These justices are also people, also if they think they are going to strike a provision for religious freedom later they may decide to vote to strike it now for the sake of judicial efficiency. That is a part of why the concurring opinion was developed.

This spat has lost Scailia who was likely to vote (60%) the bill was constitutional given his previous views on necessary and proper. This leaves the bill's fate decided by Kennedy, this spat about Catholicism and birth control does not make things look good as Kennedy is Catholic.

like i said, you are grasping at straws.

Even on appellate review you frame your argument to the audience. Oral arguments will now include a mention of requiring an affirmative action that violates one's religious beliefs. The issue hinges on whether congress may require an affirmative action. The chance Kennedy may now write an concurring opinion saying the requirement of an affirmative action is not allowed because it may require someone to violate their beliefs is now there. He might even say congress can if the required affirmative action is more narrowly tailored.

Overall the lose rate has increase by only 5 to 10%. But now you've gone from a 30% lose rate to 35 to 40 % chance.
Obama should have promulgated this regulation either after the decision or oral arguments. It was poor strategy on his part. He can correct it by issuing compromise but since lines have been drawn it will be much more difficult.

[Ashmoria]

like i said, you are grasping at straws.

Even on appellate review you frame your argument to the audience. Oral arguments will now include a mention of requiring an affirmative action that violates one's religious beliefs. The issue hinges on whether congress may require an affirmative action. The chance Kennedy may now write an concurring opinion saying the requirement of an affirmative action is not allowed because it may require someone to violate their beliefs is now there. He might even say congress can if the required affirmative action is more narrowly tailored.

Overall the lose rate has increase by only 5 to 10%. But now you've gone from a 30% lose rate to 35 to 40 % chance.
Obama should have promulgated this regulation either after the decision or oral arguments. It was poor strategy on his part. He can correct it by issuing compromise but since lines have been drawn it will be much more difficult.

he has already issued more than enough of a compromise. there is no reason to give any church run business more of an exemption than it has now.

[Gauthier]

It's Rush, Amnertica's Biggest Idiot™

He weights a lot too.

Unfortunately, an entire political party takes his flatulence as gospel.

[Gauthier]

The thread archives don't go back far enough to highlight my criticisms of Michael Moore.... I've been here for almost 8 years.... So watch where you're attempting to swing that axe around... son.

I'm not sure what your point is. Mine is that there are those who criticize Rush Limbaugh, but not Michael Moore, for the same thing... and vice versa. Either kind of person is evidently disingenuous.

Moore does not have the Democratic Party bending over to kiss his ass.

[Gauthier]

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is something I thought I would never see.

You didn't. It's an ass-covering unapology. If he wasn't feeling the pressure from advertisers pulling out prematurely he would have never made it to start.

[Greed and Death]

Even on appellate review you frame your argument to the audience. Oral arguments will now include a mention of requiring an affirmative action that violates one's religious beliefs. The issue hinges on whether congress may require an affirmative action. The chance Kennedy may now write an concurring opinion saying the requirement of an affirmative action is not allowed because it may require someone to violate their beliefs is now there. He might even say congress can if the required affirmative action is more narrowly tailored.

Overall the lose rate has increase by only 5 to 10%. But now you've gone from a 30% lose rate to 35 to 40 % chance.
Obama should have promulgated this regulation either after the decision or oral arguments. It was poor strategy on his part. He can correct it by issuing compromise but since lines have been drawn it will be much more difficult.

he has already issued more than enough of a compromise. there is no reason to give any church run business more of an exemption than it has now.

Saying you can pay for birth control off the books like organized crime is not a compromise.
Indeed if a policy didn't officially cover birth control as it was declared to the employer but covered it unofficially would likely have been fine under the pre compromise regulation. Indeed the "compromise" was simply a suggestion how religious groups may ease their concern by sticking their heads in the sand.

No, for something to be compromise it must actually give something of substance up, not just empty gestures.

[Revolutopia]

These justices are also people, also if they think they are going to strike a provision for religious freedom later they may decide to vote to strike it now for the sake of judicial efficiency. That is a part of why the concurring opinion was developed.

This spat has lost Scailia who was likely to vote (60%) the bill was constitutional given his previous views on necessary and proper. This leaves the bill's fate decided by Kennedy, this spat about Catholicism and birth control does not make things look good as Kennedy is Catholic.

Saying both Scailia and Kennedy voted supportive of Employment Division v. Smith they have already made a decision that the State can override religious conscious, and if they can give a fair hearing on the same issue when it is their own religious viewpoint then they and any other Catholic Justice who cannot should recuse themselves from ruling on the case.

[Gauthier]

And men with exceptionally large assets have to file Capital Gains tax.

In which state? dangly or sproing?

Sproing. If they can't get it out of dangly they can file for disability.

[New England and The Maritimes]

There are also... other consequences.

Oh, COME ON. The planet would be completely unpopulated were that even remotely true.

If Victorian-era moralists in France said it, it must be true!

[Greed and Death]

These justices are also people, also if they think they are going to strike a provision for religious freedom later they may decide to vote to strike it now for the sake of judicial efficiency. That is a part of why the concurring opinion was developed.

This spat has lost Scailia who was likely to vote (60%) the bill was constitutional given his previous views on necessary and proper. This leaves the bill's fate decided by Kennedy, this spat about Catholicism and birth control does not make things look good as Kennedy is Catholic.

Saying both Scailia and Kennedy voted supportive of Employment Division v. Smith they have already made a decision that the State can override religious conscious, and if they can give a fair hearing on the same issue when it is their own religious viewpoint then they and any other Catholic Justice who cannot should recuse themselves from ruling on the case.

The case does not address affirmative actions, and was about native American Peyote use.
Kennedy has already favored a less stringent separation of religion test in County of Allegheny v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573

[Ashmoria]

he has already issued more than enough of a compromise. there is no reason to give any church run business more of an exemption than it has now.

Saying you can pay for birth control off the books like organized crime is not a compromise.
Indeed if a policy didn't officially cover birth control as it was declared to the employer but covered it unofficially would likely have been fine under the pre compromise regulation. Indeed the "compromise" was simply a suggestion how religious groups may ease their concern by sticking their heads in the sand.

No, for something to be compromise it must actually give something of substance up, not just empty gestures.

of course it is.

the besides of which its not before any court at this time so ..... who cares what you think might happen that will fulfill your fantasy of an insuranceless life?

[Revolutopia]

Saying both Scailia and Kennedy voted supportive of Employment Division v. Smith they have already made a decision that the State can override religious conscious, and if they can give a fair hearing on the same issue when it is their own religious viewpoint then they and any other Catholic Justice who cannot should recuse themselves from ruling on the case.

The case does not address affirmative actions, and was about native American Peyote use.
Kennedy has already favored a less stringent separation of religion test in County of Allegheny v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573

How does the factor that one is about the Native American religious purposes counter the fact Kennedy and Scailia both agree that Law can override religious conscious?

Moreover, both cases one can argue had the state forcing the individual/institution to go against their religious principles. That one prohibiting Native Americans from engaging in religious proscribed rituals and this one on how an institution must provide care they are opposed to. How is prohibition of religious rights any more just then an organization being made to comply with affirmative actions?

Additionally, if Kennedy believes there is less stringent separation of church and state then if religious organizations can attempt to impose religious will on individuals then secular state should be able to impose secular law on churches.

That also gets at the heart of what most bugs me about this case. Primarily, I am might have more sympathetic to the Catholic Church and these other Conservative religious organization in their claims about Separation of Church and State if they didn't nominally treat it as only a one way street. Instead, these are organizations that have long taken a role in trying to impose religious law onto secular society. Shit iirc, Dolan actively attempted to pressure the New York Senate into not recognizing Gay Marriage thus in my opinion he should have received a tax audit last year.

[Greed and Death]

Saying you can pay for birth control off the books like organized crime is not a compromise.
Indeed if a policy didn't officially cover birth control as it was declared to the employer but covered it unofficially would likely have been fine under the pre compromise regulation. Indeed the "compromise" was simply a suggestion how religious groups may ease their concern by sticking their heads in the sand.

No, for something to be compromise it must actually give something of substance up, not just empty gestures.

of course it is.

the besides of which its not before any court at this time so ..... who cares what you think might happen that will fulfill your fantasy of an insuranceless life?

I am sorry that the compromise of covering every use of birth control but reproductive is unacceptable to you.
I am sorry that meeting 98% of your demands is unsatisfactory, and that even the GOP would have accepted such a compromise.

Your right who cares ? You do. You know why ? You are responding, if you did not want to speculate over how this may effect the pending supreme court ruling you would not have jumped into that conversation but you did.
Now that one of the few things I have learned watching litigation is tell the client to shut up and make the minimum wake possible, you want to minimize what the judges, jury, and opposing counsel may use against you. My opinion on this had nothing to do with my view on the healthcare law, it just appeared to be bad strategy by Obama.

[Ashmoria]

of course it is.

the besides of which its not before any court at this time so ..... who cares what you think might happen that will fulfill your fantasy of an insuranceless life?

I am sorry that the compromise of covering every use of birth control but reproductive is unacceptable to you.
I am sorry that meeting 98% of your demands is unsatisfactory, and that even the GOP would have accepted such a compromise.

Your right who cares ? You do. You know why ? You are responding, if you did not want to speculate over how this may effect the pending supreme court ruling you would not have jumped into that conversation but you did.
Now that one of the few things I have learned watching litigation is tell the client to shut up and make the minimum wake possible, you want to minimize what the judges, jury, and opposing counsel may use against you. My opinion on this had nothing to do with my view on the healthcare law, it just appeared to be bad strategy by Obama.

the compromise has been made.

you are the one making wild speculation about grown men on the supreme court getting defensive about an imagined slight on the catholic church stemming from rush limbaugh's vile words. you are the one who is speculating that this compromise will cause supreme court justices to change their ruling on an unrelated mandate in the health care law.

the president made a good call for the health of the nation and the delicate sensibilities of catholic run businesses. it would be wrong of him to make rules based on supposed slights that might be felt by judges that have nothing to do with whether or not the ACA is constitutional.

[Eurrusia]

I don't think a guy who pops OxyContin should be telling women what kind of pill they should be taking

[Greed and Death]

The case does not address affirmative actions, and was about native American Peyote use.
Kennedy has already favored a less stringent separation of religion test in County of Allegheny v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573

How does the factor that one is about the Native American religious purposes counter the fact Kennedy and Scailia both agree that Law can override religious conscious?

Moreover, both cases one can argue had the state forcing the individual/institution to go against their religious principles. That one prohibiting Native Americans from engaging in religious proscribed rituals and this one on how an institution must provide care they are opposed to. How is prohibition of religious rights any more just then an organization being made to comply with affirmative actions?

For one my argument was that it being their personal religion influenced them more. Native American drug using religion is about as far as one can get from their religious beliefs. Never mind the ruling you cite confirms native Americans in Bonifide religious practices are exempt from federal restricting peyote use. The kind of exemption the Catholic church in this case wants. Never mind the response was to pass law generally exempting native Americans from peyote laws. Also never mind that there is a compelling state interest that was narrowly tailored in not allowing workers at a drug rehabilitation clinic to use Peyote.

Additionally, if Kennedy believes there is less stringent separation of church and state then if religious organizations can attempt to impose religious will on individuals then secular state should be able to impose secular law on churches.

Imposing implies an affirmative action. The church is not stopping their employees from using birth control or engaging in sex they are declining to pay for it.

That also gets at the heart of what most bugs me about this case. Primarily, I am might have more sympathetic to the Catholic Church and these other Conservative religious organization in their claims about Separation of Church and State if they didn't nominally treat it as only a one way street. Instead, these are organizations that have long taken a role in trying to impose religious law onto secular society. Shit iirc, Dolan actively attempted to pressure the New York Senate into not recognizing Gay Marriage thus in my opinion he should have received a tax audit last year.

Separation of church and state does not mean a church is not allowed to contact its representative. It also does not mean in the normal course of politics a politician is not allowed to vote in accordance of his religious beliefs. It means the state may not impose a religious belief on others.

[Alien Space Bats]

A true compromise is birth control for non reproductive issues must be covered, and a religious institution exemption.

No.

Here's the problem with your compromise.

I go to work for you. You agree to pay me a certain compensation package. That compensation package is what you owe me as a result of my agreement to work for you.

So, now, once you've handed me my paycheck, tell me: Do you have the right to tell me I can't use that paycheck to buy booze or cigarettes, because you find smoking and drinking immoral on account of your religion?

No, of course not. My money is my money, not yours. It's my compensation for the work that I've done for you.

Taking that principle further, as part of our arrangement - you know, the one in which I agree to work for you in exchange for compensation - I get a health insurance package. It's my health insurance package; I earned it as part of my compensation for the work I did for you. Why should you have the right to tell me what I can use that health insurance for?

It's not the employer's health insurance policy; it's the employee's health insurance policy. Giving employers the right to restrict their employees' use of the health insurance they earned because said employer has a moral objection to certain uses of that health insurance (such as contraception or sterilization) would be like giving employers the right to put limits on the ways in which their employees can spend their paychecks. It's a matter of individual liberty - employee liberty - based on a simple concept:

Namely, the fact that employers don't own their employees.

[Revolutopia]

For one my argument was that it being their personal religion influenced them more. Native American drug using religion is about as far as one can get from their religious beliefs.

If they hold different standards of response on whether something is their religion or an other's then they should recuse themselves from cases that might involve the Catholic Church.

Imposing implies an affirmative action. The church is not stopping their employees from using birth control or engaging in sex they are declining to pay for it.

Was not referring to this case, but in general. Thus if churches can take an active role influencing state then the state should be allowed to influence the church.

Separation of church and state does not mean a church is not allowed to contact its representative. It also does not mean in the normal course of politics a politician is not allowed to vote in accordance of his religious beliefs. It means the state may not impose a religious belief on others.

I am pretty sure Dolan and a number of these religious institutions don't just contact their representatives in regards as a constituent, but instead try to put pressure on them by their use of the pulpit.

edit: Through I do want to mention I always love these conservations you,GnD, have as they are always some of the most informative on the forum.

[Alien Space Bats]

Related to a point made by ASB, but in your compromise case should the church should be forced to shoulder more of the insurance premium of employees who wish to take birth control with their own money. As it is unfair to force the employee to pay into inadequate insurance care and extra medical expanses resulted from the institution's failure to provide for their employees.

No because that is inherently sexist, I as a male do not get my employer provided insurance to cover my condoms.

It will, however, cover both a vasectomy and a vasectomy reversal.

Imagine that.

[Ravineworld]

Well, it's no wonder.
It's Rush Limbaugh, there aren't many college kids willing to have sex with social conservatives. I think he's just jealous that she gets laid more often by maybe some actually decent looking people. The only people who'll be needing birth control with him around are the old fossils that listen to him, and that's if a miracle occurs and they can still have babies. Oh, wait, that would be pre-marital sex...
Sorry, I know america, what a taboo subject. I might as well have gone into a school and talked about crack cocaine trafficking techniques
In all seriousness, this is going to alienate alot of people from the conservative base. They seem to hate women with a passion...

What the what?

Well, it was a crack at making a political joke.
I clearly failed.
I'll go back to writing serious responses to stuff.
Now that I look at the post, I figured out what I did wrong...
I tried to make a political joke.

[Farnhamia]

I didn't see this in the recent pages ...

By BRIAN STELTER
In an about-face, the conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh said Saturday that he was sorry for denouncing as a “prostitute” a Georgetown University law student who had spoken publicly in favor of the Obama administration’s birth control policy.

On Saturday, a day after President Obama telephoned the student, Sandra Fluke, to say he stood by her in the face of personal attacks on right-wing radio, Mr. Limbaugh published the apology on his Web site.

“For over 20 years, I have illustrated the absurd with absurdity, three hours a day, five days a week. In this instance, I chose the wrong words in my analogy of the situation. I did not mean a personal attack on Ms. Fluke,” Mr. Limbaugh wrote. He then reiterated his opposition to the Obama administration policy, which requires health insurance plans to cover contraceptives for women.

On the Wednesday, Thursday and Friday editions of his talk show, Mr. Limbaugh attacked Ms. Fluke as sexually promiscuous and politically motivated — “an anti-Catholic plant,” he said at one point.

On Wednesday, he called her a “slut” who “wants to be paid to have sex”; on Thursday, he said she was “having so much sex, it’s amazing she can still walk”; and on Friday, after Senate Democrats beat back a Republican challenge to the new policy, he said Ms. Fluke had testified that she was “having sex so frequently that she can’t afford all the birth-control pills that she needs.”

Linkage

[Grave_n_idle]

he has already issued more than enough of a compromise. there is no reason to give any church run business more of an exemption than it has now.

Saying you can pay for birth control off the books like organized crime is not a compromise.
Indeed if a policy didn't officially cover birth control as it was declared to the employer but covered it unofficially would likely have been fine under the pre compromise regulation. Indeed the "compromise" was simply a suggestion how religious groups may ease their concern by sticking their heads in the sand.

No, for something to be compromise it must actually give something of substance up, not just empty gestures.

The initial plan required something of religious institutions. The 'compromise' excluded the institutions from the loop, because they claimed it as a matter of conscience.

That's not just compromise - that's giving them everything they want on a silver platter.

The fact the same religious institutions then decided to shit their collective diapers because someone else might have to shoulder the burden, does not mean nothing was compromised.

[Cannot think of a name]

I didn't see this in the recent pages ...

By BRIAN STELTER
In an about-face, the conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh said Saturday that he was sorry for denouncing as a “prostitute” a Georgetown University law student who had spoken publicly in favor of the Obama administration’s birth control policy.

On Saturday, a day after President Obama telephoned the student, Sandra Fluke, to say he stood by her in the face of personal attacks on right-wing radio, Mr. Limbaugh published the apology on his Web site.

“For over 20 years, I have illustrated the absurd with absurdity, three hours a day, five days a week. In this instance, I chose the wrong words in my analogy of the situation. I did not mean a personal attack on Ms. Fluke,” Mr. Limbaugh wrote. He then reiterated his opposition to the Obama administration policy, which requires health insurance plans to cover contraceptives for women.

On the Wednesday, Thursday and Friday editions of his talk show, Mr. Limbaugh attacked Ms. Fluke as sexually promiscuous and politically motivated — “an anti-Catholic plant,” he said at one point.

On Wednesday, he called her a “slut” who “wants to be paid to have sex”; on Thursday, he said she was “having so much sex, it’s amazing she can still walk”; and on Friday, after Senate Democrats beat back a Republican challenge to the new policy, he said Ms. Fluke had testified that she was “having sex so frequently that she can’t afford all the birth-control pills that she needs.”

Linkage

It's all fun and games until sponsors he's had since he was a local host on a Sacramento station pull their support...

[New England and The Maritimes]

I didn't see this in the recent pages ...



Linkage

It's all fun and games until sponsors he's had since he was a local host on a Sacramento station pull their support...

The fattest, dumbest sacks of shit will fall the hardest.