Rush Limbaugh: Women Who Want Birth Control Are Sluts

[Socialdemokraterne]

This is the final straw.

In the past he and his useless ilk have made ludicrous verbal attacks against others.... ....but always the others are also to some degree involved in politics and thus not inocent themselves. This time, he has gone too far. This time he has gone after someone who is an ordinary citizen. THIS IS GOING TOO FAR!

We need to stop him once and for all.

Anyone got plans?

Throw a sphere of ultimate destruction at his studio? Suspend him between six permanent "Prismatic Wall" spells arranged as a cube? Lock him in a prison cell fitted with a permanent "Zone of Silence" spell? Cast "Zone of Truth" on his studio one day and watch the terror on his face grow greater and greater as he finds himself utterly unable to lie?

[Fluffy Coyotes]

IT IS NO DIFFERENT THAN SOMEONE TAKING A PRESCRIPTION DRUG THEIR DOCTOR HAS PRESCRIBED DAILY, SUCH AS BLOOD PRESSURE MEDICATION, HEART MEDICATION, OR INSULIN.

Insulin is necessary for survival, though.

[Tekania]

IT IS NO DIFFERENT THAN SOMEONE TAKING A PRESCRIPTION DRUG THEIR DOCTOR HAS PRESCRIBED DAILY, SUCH AS BLOOD PRESSURE MEDICATION, HEART MEDICATION, OR INSULIN.

Insulin is necessary for survival, though.

As BC pills are used as treatment for certain disorders too (including one of which that has insulin resistance as associated symptom which can have fatal consequences), so can BC pills be then. Not that this matters as your post isn't actually addressing what the poster was talking about... which is that BC pills are taken in daily dosage, rather than being consumed relative to some other activity.

[Fluffy Coyotes]

As BC pills are used as treatment for certain disorders too (including one of which that has insulin resistance as associated symptom which can have fatal consequences)

I've heard of it being used for things other than actual birth control (though it's communicating awfully poorly to call it that then) but I'm not sure about these things being life-threatening. Anything to cite on the matter?

Not that this matters as your post isn't actually addressing what the poster was talking about... which is that BC pills are taken in daily dosage

Oh I'm aware that it was about method of administering it. I'm just saying that comparison to insulin is a false equivalence except when the birth-control is taken in response to life-threatening conditions.

[High Vasa]

Insulin is necessary for survival, though.

As BC pills are used as treatment for certain disorders too (including one of which that has insulin resistance as associated symptom which can have fatal consequences), so can BC pills be then. Not that this matters as your post isn't actually addressing what the poster was talking about... which is that BC pills are taken in daily dosage, rather than being consumed relative to some other activity.

That's true, but I suspect that the vast majority of prescriptions for contraception are written for just that, contraception. I personally have never been able to find a break down for the numbers of on-label versus off-label prescriptions.

On another matter pertaining to this issue, how is it constitutional for the Federal government to dictate to a private insurance company as to what medications they will cover without a co-pay?

[Dempublicents1]

That's true, but I suspect that the vast majority of prescriptions for contraception are written for just that, contraception. I personally have never been able to find a break down for the numbers of on-label versus off-label prescriptions.

I think that, if someone were to do the study, they'd find that hormonal birth control is typically used for a variety of reasons. I know plenty of women who started it long before they were sexually active. Part of that was "just in case", but it was most often more a matter of regulating the menstrual cycle and the symptoms of menstruation.

On another matter pertaining to this issue, how is it constitutional for the Federal government to dictate to a private insurance company as to what medications they will cover without a co-pay?

Insurance companies (along with the health industry in general) typically operate in multiple states, making it possible for the federal government to regulate them as interstate commerce.

[Grave_n_idle]

Oh I'm aware that it was about method of administering it. I'm just saying that comparison to insulin is a false equivalence except when the birth-control is taken in response to life-threatening conditions.

I don't think so. Sure, they are generally used to treat different things - obviously, they are different drugs - and not all things that are treated with a pharmacological treatment are at equal levels - again, obviously, because they are different conditions.

But if we're talking about chemicals that a medical professional decides is warranted, and prescribes... and that has to be administered to a strict regimen to be effective... why are we treating the situations differently? Because of personal prejudice regarding a certain type of treatment? That's a bullshit excuse to determine that something shouldn't be covered by insurance. Because of personal religious or moral codes regarding either the 'condition' of it's perceived causes? Again - a bullshit excuse for denying coverage. Because of disparity in the 'seriousness' of the 'condition' we're treating? An illegitimate argument, when all kinds of superficial conditions can be treated with insurance coverage.

[Ashmoria]

As BC pills are used as treatment for certain disorders too (including one of which that has insulin resistance as associated symptom which can have fatal consequences)

I've heard of it being used for things other than actual birth control (though it's communicating awfully poorly to call it that then) but I'm not sure about these things being life-threatening. Anything to cite on the matter?

Not that this matters as your post isn't actually addressing what the poster was talking about... which is that BC pills are taken in daily dosage

Oh I'm aware that it was about method of administering it. I'm just saying that comparison to insulin is a false equivalence except when the birth-control is taken in response to life-threatening conditions.

"needed to survive" is not the standard that anyone uses to decide what is covered by insurance so why are you stuck on this point?

[High Vasa]

Insurance companies (along with the health industry in general) typically operate in multiple states, making it possible for the federal government to regulate them as interstate commerce.

That is a very big stretch, and one that I personally think abuses the already beaten black-and-blue Interstate Commerce Clause. A valid argument against that is that individuals are not allowed to purchase out of state health insurance.

I happen to think that this very issue will wind up before the Supreme Court at some point.

[New Conglomerate]

That's true, but I suspect that the vast majority of prescriptions for contraception are written for just that, contraception.

Wow. Contraception prescriptions are for contraception. Shocking.

You know, they're also for cramps, controlling periods, and other things, right? For the vast majority of women.

[Gauthier]

That's true, but I suspect that the vast majority of prescriptions for contraception are written for just that, contraception.

Wow. Contraception prescriptions are for contraception. Shocking.

You know, they're also for cramps, controlling periods, and other things, right? For the vast majority of women.

Ovarian cysts are God's brand for sluts.

[Alien Space Bats]

That is a very big stretch, and one that I personally think abuses the already beaten black-and-blue Interstate Commerce Clause. A valid argument against that is that individuals are not allowed to purchase out of state health insurance.

I happen to think that this very issue will wind up before the Supreme Court at some point.

See United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association, 322 U.S. 533 (1944).

Per Justice Hugo Black:

It is settled that, for Constitutional purposes, certain activities of a business may be intrastate, and therefore subject to state control, while other activities of the same business may be interstate, and therefore subject to federal regulation. And there is a wide range of business and other activities which, though subject to federal regulation, are so intimately related to local welfare that, in the absence of Congressional action, they may be regulated or taxed by the states. In marking out these activities, the primary test applied by the Court is not the mechanical one of whether the particular activity affected by the state regulation is part of interstate commerce, but rather whether, in each case, the competing demands of the state and national interests involved can be accommodated. And the fact that particular phases of an interstate business or activity have long been regulated or taxed by states has been recognized as a strong reason why, in the continued absence of conflicting Congressional action, the state regulatory and tax laws should be declared valid.

The real answer to the question before us is to be found in the Commerce Clause itself, and in some of the great cases which interpret it. Many decisions make vivid the broad and true meaning of that clause. It is interstate commerce subject to regulation by Congress to carry lottery tickets from state to state. Lottery Case, 188 U. S. 321, 188 U. S. 355. So also is it interstate commerce to transport a woman from Louisiana to Texas in a common carrier, Hoke v. United States, 227 U. S. 308, 227 U. S. 320-323; to carry across a state line in a private automobile five quarts of whiskey intended for personal consumption, United States v. Simpson, 252 U. S. 465; to drive a stolen automobile from Iowa to South Dakota, Brooks v. United States, 267 U. S. 432, 267 U. S. 431-439. Diseased cattle ranging between Georgia and Florida are in commerce, Thornton v. United States, 271 U. S. 414, 271 U. S. 425, and the transmission of an electrical impulse over a telegraph line between Alabama and Florida is intercourse, and subject to paramount federal regulation, Pensacola Telegraph Co. v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 96 U. S. 1, 96 U. S. 11. Not only, then, may transactions be commerce though noncommercial; they may be commerce though illegal and sporadic, and though they do not utilize common carriers or concern the flow of anything more tangible than electrons and information. These activities having already been held to constitute interstate commerce, and persons engaged in them therefore having been held subject to federal regulation, it would indeed be difficult now to hold that no activities of any insurance company can ever constitute interstate commerce so as to make it subject to such regulation; -- activities which, as part of the conduct of a legitimate and useful commercial enterprise, may embrace integrated operations in many states and involve the transmission of great quantities of money, documents, and communications across dozens of state lines.

The precise boundary between national and state power over commerce has never yet been, and doubtless never can be, delineated by a single abstract definition. The most widely accepted general description of that part of commerce which is subject to the federal power is that given in 1824 by Chief Justice Marshall in Gibbon v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 22 U. S. 189-190:

"Commerce, undoubtedly, is traffic, but it is something more: it is intercourse. It describes
the commercial intercourse between nations, and parts of nations, in all its branches. . . ."

Commerce is interstate, he said, when it "concerns more States than one." Id., 22 U. S. 194. No decision of this Court has ever questioned this as too comprehensive a description of the subject matter of the Commerce Clause. To accept a description less comprehensive, the Court has recognized, would deprive the Congress of that full power necessary to enable it to discharge its Constitutional duty to govern commerce among the states.

(The Wikipedia article above is a stub; the actual text of the opinion can be found at Justia.com.)

[Saint Jade IV]

IT IS NO DIFFERENT THAN SOMEONE TAKING A PRESCRIPTION DRUG THEIR DOCTOR HAS PRESCRIBED DAILY, SUCH AS BLOOD PRESSURE MEDICATION, HEART MEDICATION, OR INSULIN.

Insulin is necessary for survival, though.

I didn't actually say that, but for a very, very large proportion of women on the pill, the pill is necessary for their ongoing health, perhaps not their survival, but certainly to treat a wide range of very debilitating and dangerous conditions, besides the obvious ability to avoid pregnancy. And in at least some cases, the pill is necessary for their survival.

I suggest you do some research on the very real medical reasons that many women take the pill before commenting on this debate.

[New England and The Maritimes]

Insulin is necessary for survival, though.

I didn't actually say that, but for a very, very large proportion of women on the pill, the pill is necessary for their ongoing health, perhaps not their survival, but certainly to treat a wide range of very debilitating and dangerous conditions, besides the obvious ability to avoid pregnancy. And in at least some cases, the pill is necessary for their survival.

I suggest you do some research on the very real medical reasons that many women take the pill before commenting on this debate.

There's also the fact that pregnancy is a debilitating, dangerous condition. Some people seem to forget that, or perhaps to be too stupid to learn it to begin with.

[Saint Jade IV]

As BC pills are used as treatment for certain disorders too (including one of which that has insulin resistance as associated symptom which can have fatal consequences), so can BC pills be then. Not that this matters as your post isn't actually addressing what the poster was talking about... which is that BC pills are taken in daily dosage, rather than being consumed relative to some other activity.

That's true, but I suspect that the vast majority of prescriptions for contraception are written for just that, contraception. I personally have never been able to find a break down for the numbers of on-label versus off-label prescriptions.

You know what? I'll bet if you actually did some research, you could find that most women are on the pill for multiple reasons. One is typically contraception, but I would venture (and this is based solely on my personal experience as a woman with female friends), the vast majority of women on the pill are on it for regulation of heavy periods (which can have health implications including anaemia and vitamin deficiency), ovarian cysts, dysmenhorrhea, endometriosis, hormonal imbalances, and irregular periods (which can lead to fertility problems). The contraceptive properties are a bonus to many women.

[Saint Jade IV]

I didn't actually say that, but for a very, very large proportion of women on the pill, the pill is necessary for their ongoing health, perhaps not their survival, but certainly to treat a wide range of very debilitating and dangerous conditions, besides the obvious ability to avoid pregnancy. And in at least some cases, the pill is necessary for their survival.

I suggest you do some research on the very real medical reasons that many women take the pill before commenting on this debate.

There's also the fact that pregnancy is a debilitating, dangerous condition. Some people seem to forget that, or perhaps to be too stupid to learn it to begin with.

You know I was going to add that where I mentioned pregnancy, but I thought that it would be so blindingly obvious that it didn't need explanation.

I forgot where I was for a moment.

[New England and The Maritimes]

There's also the fact that pregnancy is a debilitating, dangerous condition. Some people seem to forget that, or perhaps to be too stupid to learn it to begin with.

You know I was going to add that where I mentioned pregnancy, but I thought that it would be so blindingly obvious that it didn't need explanation.

I forgot where I was for a moment.

You're on a place where 14 year old boys pretend they're doctors and assert that pregnancy is magical and safe and anyone who would rather not get one is actually a stupid lazy slut.

[Mirkana]

This is the final straw.

In the past he and his useless ilk have made ludicrous verbal attacks against others.... ....but always the others are also to some degree involved in politics and thus not inocent themselves. This time, he has gone too far. This time he has gone after someone who is an ordinary citizen. THIS IS GOING TOO FAR!

We need to stop him once and for all.

Anyone got plans?

Feed him to starving children in Africa?

[Katganistan]

Rachel Maddow did a show on this -- how Rush is too stupid to understand how birth control works.

So for those who are unaware:

IT'S NOT LIKE A CONDOM WHERE YOU NEED A NEW ONE FOR EVERY INSTANCE OF SEX YOU HAVE.

IT"S NOT LIKE SPERMICIDAL JELLY WHERE YOU NEED TO REAPPLY FOR EVERY INSTANCE OF SEX YOU HAVE.

YOU TAKE ONE A DAY FOR THREE WEEKS, THEN YOU TAKE PLACEBO PILLS FOR A WEEK SO YOU GET YOUR PERIOD, AND THEN YOU START TAKING THE BIRTH CONTROL PILL AGAIN.

IT IS NO DIFFERENT THAN SOMEONE TAKING A PRESCRIPTION DRUG THEIR DOCTOR HAS PRESCRIBED DAILY, SUCH AS BLOOD PRESSURE MEDICATION, HEART MEDICATION, OR INSULIN.

I apologize for shouting. Apparently, though, it works for Rush so I figured I'd go with a form of communication his followers are used to. Maybe I should go back and edit in some gratuitous and vile insults....

What's the point of taking placebo pills for a week if you know they're placebos?

The point is to keep you in the habit of taking the pill every day at the same time -- which increases the effectiveness. So they want you to take the blue "marker" pills for the week you're not actually dosing yourself with hormones so you don't forget to take them again or to take them at the same time.

Humans are creatures of habit, after all.

[Wikkiwallana]

Has this been posted yet?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/04/1070800/-I-ve-spent-the-past-2-days-trying-to-convince-my-16-y-o-she-is-not-a-slut

This is exactly why Rush should not run his damn mouth. He ruins lives.

[New Conglomerate]

Has this been posted yet?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/04/1070800/-I-ve-spent-the-past-2-days-trying-to-convince-my-16-y-o-she-is-not-a-slut

This is exactly why Rush should not run his damn mouth. He ruins lives.

Holy shit.

[New England and The Maritimes]

Has this been posted yet?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/04/1070800/-I-ve-spent-the-past-2-days-trying-to-convince-my-16-y-o-she-is-not-a-slut

This is exactly why Rush should not run his damn mouth. He ruins lives.

Not that rush gives a shit. The money he got from that show has him soaring high as a kite atm. A sedan trunk full of illegal pills.

[Gauthier]

This is the final straw.

In the past he and his useless ilk have made ludicrous verbal attacks against others.... ....but always the others are also to some degree involved in politics and thus not inocent themselves. This time, he has gone too far. This time he has gone after someone who is an ordinary citizen. THIS IS GOING TOO FAR!

We need to stop him once and for all.

Anyone got plans?

Feed him to starving children in Africa?

And set off Resident Evil 5 for real? You sick bastard...

[Bottle]

Wait.... we don't like sluts now?

WTF why?????

You know how people talk about the "virgin/whore dichotomy"?

The real problem is actually that conservatives are struggling with the "slut/whore dichotomy."

See, you pay a whore, and she provides you with sex that is all about you. That's the kind of transactional relationship they can understand. They assume women never actually want sex, they just can be bribed to submit (grudgingly) to sex.

But a slut, she's a female person who...wants sex?? For herself??? Because she LIKES IT???

That's...why, that's almost...human. And we all know that can't be right. Women are alien creatures made of sugar and spice and that weird blue liquid they use in the maxi pad commercials. Woman, she is a mystery, right fellas?

Besides, if it's possible for a woman to actually want sex, or even to seek it out for her own pleasure, then that would lead to all sorts of uncomfortable possibilities. Like, say, the reason why women won't sleep with you might not be simply because all women hate the very idea of sex. It might, in fact, be because women hate the idea of sex WITH YOU. It might be that a lot of women simply aren't interested in being bribed to please you, when they could be out having their fun-to-rub bits rubbed by somebody fun.

Those fucking sluts.

[New Conglomerate]

That's...why, that's almost...human. And we all know that can't be right. Women are alien creatures made of sugar and spice and that weird blue liquid they use in the maxi pad commercials.