Limbaugh ‘slut’ controversy no Fluke

Fair warning – some language NSFW.

Considering that the story took a couple weeks to play out, there’s no doubt that Sandra Fluke’s biggest career move to date has been to be called a ‘slut’ by none other than Rush Limbaugh. If not for that, it’s doubtful anyone outside the world of far-leftist hyper-pro-choice and LGBTQ politics would have heard of her, and Barack Obama wouldn’t have picked up the phone to give her a ring.

In fact, so few knew who she was that it didn’t originally send up red flags to most when Democrats tried to sign her up to testify at a House hearing, portrayed as a 23-year-old Georgetown Law School student. When her original attempt to testify before a House committee chaired by Rep. Darrell Issa was rebuffed because, in Issa’s judgment, she couldn’t be properly vetted, Fluke became the star witness in a Democratic show hearing put together by Rep. Nancy Pelosi – a star witness because she was the only witness. Nice effort to hear from all sides there, guys – at least the Republicans asked for your input. It was at that hearing she made the claim that contraception had cost her and others she surveyed a total of $3,000 over the three years she had been at Georgetown Law School, which didn’t cover the expense in their health insurance plan.

Later, however, it was revealed that she entered Georgetown Law in part to challenge the rule regarding contraception coverage. It was also learned that nearby pharmacies sell the most commonly available birth-control pill for as little as $9 per month, putting the lie to the $1,000 per year figure.

Still, the story didn’t get legs until Rush Limbaugh called Fluke a “slut” on his nationally syndicated radio show. While Limbaugh later apologized for his “choice of words” and that he “acted too much like the leftists who despise me (and) descended to their level,” the damage was done. A number of sponsors have pulled their advertising from his show in the wake of the controversy.

But let’s back up to the original pretense of Fluke’s testimony. According to this story by Byron York in the Washington Examiner, Fluke was a last-minute substitution by Democrats who wanted her to speak instead of Barry Lynn of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. Of course, when she was refused by Issa that provided the opportunity for Democrats to both demagogue the Republicans for having an all-male hearing and allow her to be the sole witness at their ‘hearing.’ They controlled the narrative of her just being a poor, struggling law student (at a school where tuition is nearly $50,000 a year) who can’t get the contraception she needs unless the rest of us pay for it.

Unlike Limbaugh jokingly said, I have no interest in seeing any sex tapes with her in them, nor do I really care who she chooses to sleep with. Frankly, I don’t think all that many men would be interested in her and maybe she’s not interested in them, either. It doesn’t matter.

What matters to me is that we on the Right have ceded control of an issue which should resonate with the American people because Democrats have once again played the victim card. Yes, it is true that those on the left don’t often pass up the chance to call conservative women “sluts“, “cunts“, “whores“, and the like, but they’re generally given a wink by the media. “Oh, they didn’t REALLY mean that,” they’ll sneer, or they’ll tell our side that we deserve it because you do it too – Limbaugh being example numero uno, to use a little Spanish lingo (as he would say.)

But what is the real truth? Two things come to mind:

  • The Democrats were only interested in promoting the false choice between contraceptives being free or being unavailable. As we have since learned, a woman can be as “safe” as pharmaceuticals can make her for about the cost of two cups of latte at Starbucks a month. It’s really not that much.
  • Sandra Fluke was a willing participant in the charade and has become what Democrats hope becomes yet another poster child for Obamacare. Who cares about those nasty, misogynistic Catholics and their conscience and teachings? And why is it important that Fluke has been an activist for extreme positions, particularly in the area of gender reassignment?

Of course, another aspect of this is the effect on Limbaugh. Needless to say, no one on the Left would shed any tears if he were run off the air over this incident and, of course, there’s a group out there putting pressure on remaining advertisers. But in all honesty, this will only serve to galvanize a portion of the listening community which already feels that Rush is one of the few bulwarks against the partisan media and, after a brief lull, other advertisers will appear to fill the void. They won’t pass up the audience made available and, quite honestly, people have short memories about this sort of thing. A boycott of advertisers isn’t generally effective because it doesn’t affect the number of listeners tuning in; in fact I daresay this may boost Rush’s ratings on a short-term basis as casual listeners may tune in more often to follow his side of the story.

Yet many of those on my side are critical because they fret those damn social issues are interfering in this chance to oust Barack Obama, and no one is going to vote for a candidate who fits into the (media-created) perception that a conservative President will take away the Pill, force everyone to go to church on Sunday, and establish a theocracy right here in River City.

Well, you might be surprised who votes for us if we can seize control of the narrative. I’ll start, in bold letters: health care is NOT a right, so it should NOT be ‘free’ courtesy of the government. Start arguing with me on that if you want to lose.

In a country which was being run correctly, we would laugh at Sandra Fluke for her ideas. Those of us who had health insurance would have it to insure that we’re not fiscally wiped out by a catastrophic event, like an accident or long-term illness. Those things which are routine would be paid for out of our pocket, but we would be able to afford them in part because health insurance premiums weren’t made sky-high by having to cover every sniffle, breast implant, or gender reassignment surgery – as Fluke wants. If you wanted to be a gender bender then it would be up to you to pay for it.

In the end, I sort of agree with something Robert Stacy McCain said:

Couldn’t some GOP committee chairman subpoena Sandra Fluke, put her under oath, and force her to answer some hard questions under penalty of perjury?

I’d sure as hell like to see that hearing, wouldn’t you? And if the House Republicans don’t give us that hearing, I’m prepared to denounce John Boehner as a gutless sissy-boy. (Emphasis in original.)

Now that we know who Sandra Flake is and know that she’s willing to be a poster child for sex without consequences – as expressed by the desire for free contraceptives – why not subpoena her to appear before a Congressional hearing under oath? I do believe we now could come up with a good line of questioning for her.

Either we have cajones or we don’t. Call their bluff and give Sandra Fluke the spotlight she wanted.

Author: Michael

It's me from my laptop computer.

4 thoughts on “Limbaugh ‘slut’ controversy no Fluke”

  1. Democrats didn’t seize the narrative as much as Rush ceded the narrative to them. As you say, the proper narrative of this should be that health insurance isn’t a right and that the government oversteps its proper powers when it forces anyone, much less a religious institution, to pay for services they find morally objectionable. Instead, Limbaugh played on their terms and made it about contraception. In so doing, he wounded our side and gave the liberals just what he wanted.

    Limbaugh is no hero in this case and doesn’t deserve our praise or defense.

  2. There are many types of BC out there, and there is no “one pill fits all”. The birth control I was on specifically was something like 40 or 60 a month, and it wasn’t covered by insurance because it wasn’t a “medical necessity. ” Sure, I could have gone to Planned Parenthood, and gotten another one that was cheaper, or even free, but it wouldn’t have addressed my need as well as the other. But with that funding going down, who knows if that will even be an option in the future for other females?

    The fact that she was called a slut, a prostitute is completely Ridiculous.. There are so many reasons that the pill is used now aside from preventing pregnancy. You can’t just assume she lied because one pill costs $9/month. My current pill costs $4, buts not really birth control, nor does it prevent pregnancy. It does what I need it too, which is to make me cycle, and make it less painful when I do. The pill I was going to be put on was going to cost me $35/month. Again, that’s not covered under insurance. And at the time, it was a cost that we couldn’t afford. All my other pills are with covered or free, except for the original pill. Why? Because it was considered optional contraceptive. Nevermind that it’s still medically necessary.

    In essence, my insurance helps pay for abortions, cancer treatment, hysterectomies, migraine pills, anxiety meds, visits to the dermatologist and those meds, etc, but NOT the pill, which can and does help or prevent all of the above!

  3. Hmm.. Lost a sentence.. The first paragraph, I was referring to when I was in high school.. And, I was specifically put on Yasmin because of PCOS, and it fitted symptoms better.

  4. Still, $35, $40, or $60 x 12 is not $1,000 a year or $3,000 over the course of three. I understand the cost of living in Washington, DC is high, but it sounds to me like Fluke pulled that number out of her ass or was given someone’s talking point.

    Obviously there’s a difference between taking medication for birth control and for other reasons, and sometimes it’s found that a drug has beneficial side effects – for example, as I recall Viagra and Rogaine weren’t originally intended for erectile dysfunction or growing hair, but that was a side effect they found while testing the drug for other ailments. Such was likely the case with your $35/month pill.

    But I still contend that if they made insurance more tailored to the catastrophic nature it was originally intended for you would save enough to be able to afford the monthly prescription bill, as would Sandra Fluke. But she would whine and complain because she wants it all to be covered by someone else. That’s what bugs me the most.

Comments are closed.