UPDATED (3/5/12 8:00 pm): See below!
You may have heard that Rush Limbaugh, used a certain word to describe a young woman at a Catholic college who is demanding they pay for her contraception. She explained that she has frequent sexual encounters and cannot afford to pay for her contraception, because her education is so expensive.
Well, today, Rush apologized for that he “chose the wrong words” in explaining the situation. Here is part of his statement. My comments in red, highlights in bold.
I think it is absolutely absurd that during these very serious political times, we are discussing personal sexual recreational activities [That is the problem with out society, sexual relations has been separated from marriage. It is now a form of recreation! Are we becoming a society that will one day go through a drive through for sexual favors - "I'll have one of these and one of those, but I don't want any commitment!" It seems we are heading that way!] 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? [Right on Rush! Where is personal responsibility? It's out the window, remember, everything is relative!] 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? [Yes, while your at it, I need a new MacBook Pro, come on Obama, where is my MacBook Pro] 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.
This whole situation is so sick. Imagine a young woman, studying in a Catholic University that is demanding free contraceptives because she is having so much sex. Something is wrong with the Catholic University. They are NOT fulfilling their mission as a Catholic institution of learning.
You can read the whole statement here.
You will notice below that I received some feedback from Margo, to my post on Rush Limaugh’s apology. Here is my response to Margo:
In response to Margo, I am not “misrepresenting” Sandra Fluke’s testimony. I was only giving Rush Limbaugh’s story to make a point. I did not and have no intention of judging Fluke, let the facts speak for themselves.
At the same time, I need to point out some new information that has since come up. This is not a first for Sandra Fluke. Ms. Fluke is not only pushing for birth control. Here is part of an article from The College Politico.
Again, my comments in RED and highlights in BOLD
Sandra Fluke is being sold by the left [The Left always has a way of using people and than throwing them away] as something she’s not. Namely a random co-ed from Georgetown law who found herself mixed up in the latest front of the culture war who was simply looking to make sure needy women had access to birth control. That, of course, is not the case.
As many have already uncovered Sandra Fluke she is, in reality, a 30 year old long time liberal activist who enrolled at Georgetown with the express purpose of fighting for the school to pay for students’ birth control. She has been pushing for mandated coverage of contraceptives at Georgetown for at least three years according to the Washington Post.
However, as I discovered today, birth control is not all that Ms. Fluke believes private health insurance must cover. She also, apparently, believes that it is discrimination deserving of legal action if “gender reassignment” surgeries are not covered by employer provided health insurance. [I would like to know who is paying for her education! Who is slipping money into that private bank account? "What is done in the dark, will be proclaimed from the rooftops!"] She makes these views clear in an article she co-edited with Karen Hu in the Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law.
The title of the article, which can be purchased in full here, is Employment Discrimination Against LGBTQ Persons and was published in the Journal’s 2011 Annual Review. [So this IS NOT a first!] I have posted a transcript of the section I will be quoting from here. In a subsection of the article entitled “Employment Discrimination in Provision of Employment Benefits” starting on page 635 of the review Sandra Fluke and her co-editor describe two forms of discrimination in benefits they believe LGBTQ individuals face in the work place:
- Discrimination typically takes two forms: first, direct discrimination limiting access to benefits specifically needed by LGBTQ persons, and secondly, the unavailability of family-related benefits to LGBTQ families.
Their “prime example” of the first form of discrimination? Not covering sex change operations:
- A prime example of direct discrimination is denying insurance coverage for medical needs of transgender persons physically transitioning to the other gender.
So, I ask this question: Is Ms. Fluke the innocent young college student who needs contraception for a true medical issue, or is she a puppet in the hands of the liberal democratic establishment? Or, is she just another liberal, trying to shove her point of view down the Catholic conscience throat?
You can see the whole article on The College Politico here.