A Statement from Rush
March 03, 2012
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. I think it is absolutely absurd that during these very serious political times, we are discussing personal sexual recreational activities before members of Congress. I personally do not agree that American citizens should pay for these social activities. What happened to personal responsibility and accountability? Where do we draw the line? If this is accepted as the norm, what will follow? Will we be debating if taxpayers should pay for new sneakers for all students that are interested in running to keep fit?In my monologue, I posited that it is not our business whatsoever to know what is going on in anyone’s bedroom nor do I think it is a topic that should reach a Presidential level. My choice of words was not the best, and in the attempt to be humorous, I created a national stir. I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for the insulting word choices.
Wonder what prompted this? Sponsors were starting to jump ship.
-
Live Feed
politics from the eyes of an ebony mom 
Comments
His apology was empty and justified by his other rhetoric and nonsense as part of the apology.
I watched the vitriol and disdain with which he cut down that woman and women folk in general. Rush is a monster. I think she should forgive him for her own health and self.
However, I am a core conservative, and even I know that it is madness for men to take the reins on w omens reproductive health. Reproductive health is not all about birth control and abortions It involves many other conditions women have and their overall health.
I wish the punishment for some of these men would be for them to have cramps and periods, irregular periods, many medical conditions, and of course long heavy menstrual periods. Maybe then, they will shut up on w omens health.
PS: Viagra for Rush and his limp cronies remains covered by the insurance companies.
Listening to all of the rhetoric about contraception being paid for by someone other than user, I cannot help but wonder what all of those women have done heretofore; practice celibacy?
Let me reason with you on this. You say you are a “core conservative”. Social conservative? fiscal conservative? topical conservative? Just wondering, because I’d like to meet you where you are. If you are a Social Conservative, you should object to the fact that an unmarried woman is worried about buying contraceptives that (allegedly) cost her $3000 a year. If you are a fiscal conservative, you should be asking the obvious question:why should WE have to chip in and cover YOUR contraceptives? if you are a topical conservative, what is it about this topic that skews you away from basic fundamental conservatism and the belief in the right to exercise religious freedom? The government FORCING someone to violate a tenant of their freely-exercised faith just because they feel they can is the very essence of tyranny.
Now, I am not some old, white balding curmudgeon. I realize people have extramarital sex and I know that some women take birth control pills to control the frequency and intensity of their menstrual cycles. Those women are the exception, not the rule and can be handled on a case-by-case basis. You–like other people– compare ED medication to birth control medications. While they both target the same pelvic region they are not a perfect comparison. One drug enables a person to perform sexually while the other merely decreases the risk of an unwanted pregnancy. I liken that to an insurance company covering the cost of a cane or walker for someone who needs the support to walk, but denying that same coverage for someone who wishes a cane to make a fashion statement. Truth be told, if someone is taking ED meds recreationally (i.e. no medical need) I think they should be paying for their own.
Dear Elogam, I read most of what you wrote and even though it was a tad emotionally charged and consequently, unclear, I will try and address some issues I was able to glean from it.
The matter in questions are womens health issues! Contraception is not the sole use of birth control pills by over 60% of women. Most of us women use it for many health conditions. By the way, the other issues we pay premiums for, include our pelvic checks and other issues that affect our female reproductive organs. The contraceptives drugs do not merely stop unwanted pregnancy. Infact that function is tangential to the reproductive health of most women in their 30’s and over.
It is comparable to Viagra because it trumps it. We do not seek this coverage to participate in sex (as described by Rush in sex tapes as sluts and prostitutes etc.) because in many instances the very quality of our lives on a daily basis is impacted by access (or lack thereof) to this medication and other related tests and care.
Some women are sidelined for two or three weeks of the month, every month because they have no access to medication to reduce the pain from many reproductive organ medical conditions. Most of these women are NOT even sexually active. This is a HEALTH issue that affects women and not a sex issue involving the non existent American moral fiber, at least with regard to the sexual culture.
The only other issue is this entire, paying for my care. The insurance industry charges premiums and I enjoin you to read through the process of computation so you can stop repeating this tiring rhetoric of paying for me and all that political hog wash. I pay premiums and it is part of the actuarial computation. I am a part of the pool of premium paying insureds.
Again, let me reiterate. Less that 40% of American women use contraceptives for birth control purposes alone. Many married women need it in the most absolute sense sometimes to save our very lives so we do not die from conditions created by health issues in our reproductive system et all…. more on this is information replete on reputable websites online. A few years ago the New England Journal of Medicine had a great piece on womens health needs and contraceptive pills. I enjoin you to read it before you make any other emotive response. 🙂
Honestly, You do sound like an angry white old man and I mean no offense because I make it a point not to engage in emotive online conversations with angry folk. We all have our opinions. Yours I believe are irredeemably flawed and colored by your age, generation, sex and probably race, and also it is too emotionally explosive and fact light.
If women, conservative women, like me formed the majority in Congress, this would not be an issue. The Republican brand is being further damaged by this old establishment nonsense that continues to alienate thinking and learned conservatives like me. 🙂
Since this is an exchange infused with few facts and a lot of anger fueled, I suspect by age, race and sexual differences. This will be my last response on this matter.
Best wishes.
Well, I guess this is the digital equivalent of being told off and having the door slammed in my face. No worries, I’ll be happy to have the last word.
You read most of my post. You say it was “a tad emotionally charged”. I read and re-read it, like I do every time I post an in-depth comment here. While it may have affected you emotionally-and having your opinion challenged can do that–it was no more emotional than your rant. I started out saying “let me reason with you…” I asked you some very cogent questions. You didn’t address any of them. You proceeded to lecture me about the percentages of women who use contraceptives for reasons other than birth control even after i conceded that there are uses for birth control pills besides contraception and that they could be handled on a case-by-case basis. Either you didn’t read that, or you were too focused on crafting a retort to notice. So much for reasoning with you.
As far as facts. You say that less than 40% of women use contraceptives solely for birth control. No supporting documentation or sources listed, but you say my post is “infused with anger and few facts.” If you’re going to question my facts, set the example and provide supporting documentation yourself. Let’s say you are absolutely correct. You want us to believe that 60% of women would lead desperate and painful lives if they weren’t on the pill? What was life like for women prior to the 1950s? What is life like in second or third world countries today, what with them not having access to this constant supply of contraceptives? There is a difference between convenience and even “quality-of-life” and necessity.. Let us cover the NECESSARY and individuals can cover the rest.
Please do not assume you know me or my background. I fully understand how insurance works because I have an insurance background. I also have a pharmaceutical background. As a pharmaceutical rep for a major company for over ten years I understand how drugs are marketed and sold, how formulary decisions are made at the hospital and insurance company level, and the pharmacodynamics of various drugs. I mention that because you brought it up, but ironically that’s not even the issue. The issue here is whether or not a catholic-owned and run facility should be forced to provide contraceptives contrary to their religious beliefs. Somehow that argument got warped into a “Republican war on women”. You seem to have taken the bait on that one. That’s ok, you’re not alone. This nation is gripped in the “what did Rush say” story for now, and until we get past that and back on track we cannot reason our way through this.
My final thought. Assumptions can be dangerous and/or embarrassing. You seem to be assuming I’m an angry white male. I’m not. I’m generally a happy individual that’s concerned that this country is becoming a nanny state, where the notion seems to be “if I need it the government should make certain I have it.” And as far as being white? The first three black people I met in life were my mother, my father, and the OB/GYN that delivered me some 40-odd years ago. Respond if you like. Or not. I’m moving on. Perhaps we can actually reason unemotionally on a different topic in the future.