You are viewing this article in the archives. For the latest breaking news and updates in Ann Arbor and the surrounding area, see
Posted on Mon, Mar 5, 2012 : 9:57 a.m.

Rush Limbaugh's attacks on Sandra Fluke were reprehensible and wrong

By Tom Watkins


In this image made from a Feb. 23 video provided by C-SPAN, Sandra Fluke, a third-year Georgetown University law student, testifies to Congress in Washington. Rush Limbaugh drew fire last week from many directions for his depiction of Fluke as a "slut" because she testified before Congress about the need for contraceptive coverage.


Rush Limbaugh's attack on Sandra Fluke, a third year Georgetown law student, calling her a "slut" and a "prostitute" on his incendiary radio show was dead wrong.

He went on to suggest that she distribute sex tapes of herself to pay for her contraceptives.

All I could think of was the hurt this nationally syndicated hate-monger would cause my little girl or my sisters if he unleashed his verbal diatribe on them. If Limbaugh made these comments about my daughter, the anger would be boiling inside of me.


Tom Watkins

Before anyone stands to defend this boorish clown, I want them to think about their reaction if his comments were directed at their daughter, wife, sister or mom. What he said is fighting words where I come from.

Ms. Fluke had testified before Congress last month about the need for health insurance coverage for contraception. She believes the new federal law mandating health insurance coverage for contraceptives prescribed by a doctor should be enforced even if it offends or goes against her employers religious beliefs.

Limbaugh's stupidity was not confined to a one day momentary lapse. No, it went on for a second, continuing his verbal assault, saying on his show, "she admits to having so much sex that she can't afford it anymore. And thus, a new welfare entitlement must be created to pay for it."


Limbaugh neglected to mention that Ms. Fluke was testifying about her friend who was denied birth control she needed in order to stop ovarian cysts from growing.

President Obama phoned the assault victim and called Limbaugh's comments what they were, "reprehensible." He is so right.

No, Limbaugh lovers, this is not about "free speech," "expressing his views" or "religious freedom." The issue before us is the difference between "right and wrong" and plain human decency.

Limbaugh's shtick is to be a right wing flame thrower, to push his inflammatory commentary across the airwaves. Yet, it does not give him the right to scream fire in a crowded theater or to call a young woman a "slut" and "prostitute" for having the courage to stand up in America and express her views to Congress.

Attacks on difference on policy or political philosophy is fair play. Calling a women slanderous, hurtful names is way out of bounds and there ought to be a severe penalty for such baseless, boorish behavior.

No one in America should be able to uses the public airwaves to heap this type of vicious abuse on anyone.

The backlash has begun and should continue.

Limbaugh -- coming under intense pressure from womens' groups, politicians from both political parties and a few advertisers including Detroit based Quicken Loans -- cowardly apologized on his website late Saturday. He said that he had chosen the wrong words in his comments about Ms. Fluke. He "did not intend a personal attack" on her, he said.

Calling a woman a "slut" is a personal attack.

If Limbaugh is allowed to recover from crossing a line of decency without paying a significant price, it says something very sad about what this country has become.

So, America are you going to simply lay back and let his assault on American women stand? What he said is not right, fair or conservative.

What Limbaugh did was beyond inappropriate and wrong, it was evil and outside the bounds of civil discourse. His web based apology is hardly enough.

Tom Watkins was Michigan's state superintendent from 2001-05, and deputy and director of the state's mental health system from 1983-90. He is a US/China consultant. He can be reached at:


Rhonda Williams

Sun, Mar 11, 2012 : 8:35 p.m.

Everyone has choices here. The biggest choice we face is deciding if we want to continue the further polarization of our country. Extreme political pundits do not feed our society REAL food. Many who listen to the like of Rush Limbaugh do not use discernment when listening to his half truth's. For some it may be their only source for current events and they can't recognize the lack of accuracy. It's baby food for people who don't want to put their "Big Girl Panties" on and think all the way through something. So, what happens to a country where the majority of its people replicate what their heard on the pundit radio or late night Comedy Central? YOU LET OTHERS (the jokesters) MAKE IMPORTANT DECISIONS FOR YOU. This can't be what our founding fathers had in mind. They fought against Royalty despot rule in our country. The new royalty are the "humorous social commentators" who tell us and our elected representatives what to say and think. We are being "played" by them. Taking Rush Limbaugh off the free public airwaves is the beginning of a revolution to reclaim our place at the table as thinking citizens. Strip away the posturing, find a civil tone, do your homework and find ways to compromise=progress in democracy. Make the right choice.

Sam Smith

Sat, Mar 10, 2012 : 12:15 p.m.

Birth control is better than having an abortion.


Fri, Mar 9, 2012 : 4:31 p.m.

It is my understanding that health insurance began paying for Viagra many years ago.


Wed, Mar 7, 2012 : 7:39 p.m.

Now that it is all said and done, the bottom line is Limbaugh got in trouble for talking like a Democrat.


Wed, Mar 7, 2012 : 4:35 a.m.

Fluke is hardly some random student - she is a 30 year old democrat operative trying to help obama by distracting from democrat efforts force churches to provide services that our contrary to their beliefs. Since when does ANYONE have a RIGHT to FREE STUFF!!?? Worst president in a century.


Wed, Mar 7, 2012 : 4:33 a.m.

Democrats party operatives who remained silent over the last 12 years while far worse insults were spewed by democrats about Republican men, women and minorities ARE UNQUALIFIED TO OFFER AN OPINION ABOUT THIS ISSUE. Your selective outrage is nothing but a gimmick and another strategy of corrupt partisan hatred.


Thu, Mar 8, 2012 : 7:03 p.m.

Party operatives? Like CIA operatives? Thanks, shepard for the laugh this afternoon. LOL


Wed, Mar 7, 2012 : 12:24 a.m.

Sorry. I'm staying out of this one.


Tue, Mar 6, 2012 : 10:07 p.m.

"No one in America should be able to uses the public airwaves to heap this type of vicious abuse on anyone." -- Exactly right - and that's regardless of anything, including which party is supported or whatever such attacks are meant to advance. I'm with you on this one, Tom Watkins. I'm glad to see a man standing up for not only American women but for human dignity and proper discourse. There's a saying which goes: "Thoughts become things. Make yours good ones." When we have people of influence like Rush Limbaugh constantly uttering negative attacks, you can be sure their thoughts aren't good ones. So what will those thoughts become, how will they materialize? We can be pretty sure that, if such attacks succeed in swaying voters, the "thing" we'll get from them will be a truly evil government. The Republican Party quickly renounced Limbaugh's radio speeches: but they have been inviting him to paid speaking engagements quite happily for years now.


Tue, Mar 6, 2012 : 10:04 p.m.

How come Howard Stearn can say anything he wants and no one blinks an eye? I guess maybe because he is on the left?

Hal Dotson

Tue, Mar 6, 2012 : 7:36 p.m.

Matin Friedberg, I agree with you 100%, if, you include Joy Bahar, John Stewart and Bill Mahar in your pemise, otherwise, your juust another hypocrite!

Martin Friedburg

Tue, Mar 6, 2012 : 10:12 p.m.

Hal, I'm glad you agree, because, regardless of what I think about Sarah Palin, I do think it's wrong for someone like Bill Maher to publicly use the words he has used about her. And lest you accuse me of being a far left wierdo, I also think Howard Stern's access to the air (at least based on his old program) ought to be curtailed. We can all do better as a country -- one America -- by being more considerate of one another and respecful of our differences. The issue here isn't anyone's politcal philosophy. The issue is decency in civil discourse. What one might say in private conversastion is not necessarily what ought to be put on the air to millions of people.


Tue, Mar 6, 2012 : 7:14 p.m.

That anyone would be defending Rush Limbaugh's comments and behaviors is beyond comprehension. The law student under discussion is not a public figure. She chose to contribute to the debate about contraception, an issue that was settled decades ago. Vilifying her on any level is beyond inappropriate; using her as a sexual titillation as Rush appeared to be doing did nothing other than to display his particular issues and hang ups. Anytime I hear people complaining about having to pay for women's health care, I do wonder about all of us who are having to pay for men's health care and so far no one has gone so far to suggest that a man who is using Viagra make a video so that we can all watch him perform. Sick! Very Sick! Rush went way beyond using a few words. He also revealed himself to be incredibly ignorant.


Tue, Mar 6, 2012 : 9:54 p.m.

They use viagra because they can't perform.

E Claire

Tue, Mar 6, 2012 : 9:03 p.m.

She is not "just a college student", she is a long time liberal activist who has been pushing Georgetown to pay for contraceptives for 3 years now. She also authored a paper stating that employers should be paying for sex change operations and anyone who disagrees with her is doing so due to their "heterosexism". While I agree that what Limbaugh said was stupid, liberals in the media said worse things about Sarah Palin's daughters. I guess it's ok when it's your side.


Tue, Mar 6, 2012 : 5:35 p.m.

Why is everyone pushing oral contraceptives when they are a Class I carcinogen, on the par with smoking, asbestos, radon, or worse. They also cause strokes, blood clots in the lungs and legs. Some of these things (the blood clots) can happen in pregnancy (for a few months, a few times in one's life), but who would voluntarily put their body through this abuse monthly for years????????


Tue, Mar 6, 2012 : 11:43 p.m.

first of all, there are more than 8 different carcinogens in hot dogs, and I'm willing to bet you eat those occasionally. Plus, you're wrong, BC is not as bad as asbestos or radon, that's ridiculous and I would like to see a citation from a peer reviewed scientific journal to back up your claim. Everything is a carcinogen pretty much, so that's not a very good point anyways--that's why your DNA is so good at repairing itself. Anyways, the other side effects you mention are rare, and women are warned about those risks before they start taking the pill. Many of those risks are also only a problem if you're a smoker. Some of us take birth control for medical reasons other than preventing pregnancy, and until people realize that there are other medical uses for it, we're stuck paying a lot of money for necessary perscriptions. So have a little more of an open mind.


Tue, Mar 6, 2012 : 10:32 p.m.

Like the "freedom" to become addicted to pain killers (as Limbaugh admitted to): the choice of which contraceptive to use (or not to use) is granted to individuals who are supposed to be well informed before making the choice. There are just as many Republicans taking illicit drugs as there are Democrats: addictive personalities are equally distributed w/o regard to political or religious beliefs. But contraceptive aren't addictive: it's just a matter of need affecting choice. Pregnancy, by the way, "abuses" the mother's body too. So, by your lights, abortions and other besides oral contraceptives should be mandatory.


Tue, Mar 6, 2012 : 5:08 p.m.

First off, I can agree that his use of words was wrong or poorly worded. What I can't agree to is this whole idea that anyone is being "denied" anything. Tell me one person who has walked into planned parenthood and been denied birth control. And before you rail on me for clearly being a "male," I have had girlfriends and significant others who received their birth control via Planned parenthood for many years. This supposed "victim" knowingly chose to attend a university that she knew did not cover birth control. Not to mention the fact that it has been reported that within three miles of the campus you can go a local Target and purchase birth control for, ......, wait for it, $9 per month. Wow, the shock, the outrage, the pending bankruptcies due to this outrage must be running rampant. Bad choice of wording, even worse issue that once again proves the government has no hand in any of this mess.


Tue, Mar 6, 2012 : 4:07 p.m.

Limbaugh's job is to create anger and hatred. If anyone bothers to look futher, this is about money. Every employer will find a reason to morally object to their insurance paying for contraception. Saves money....then the only people who will be having babies are the poor people, and then, guess what, You will be paying for them until they are 18. I am amazed that anyone could possible defend Limbaugh or the government trying to refuse contraception on health insurance. Using contraception is the responsibe thing to do, unless you want and can afford unlimited children. To quote a very wise teacher I once had, "and we get more civilized every day." Incidentally that was written in the sarcastic font. Women fought to hard to get some sembalance of equality. Birth control is part of that. Besides, no uterus, no vote.

Seasoned Cit

Tue, Mar 6, 2012 : 4:05 p.m.

I don't believe she was testifying at a Congressional Hearing. She was turned down cause she wasn't an expert on the subject and was instead set up by the Democrats to present her "testimony" at a fake hearing/press conference. The whole deal was a set-up and it worked as the Administration can now say that Republicans hate women and want to keep them barefoot and pregnant.


Tue, Mar 6, 2012 : 4:32 p.m.

Ah yes. Because if anybody is an expert on women's reproductive health issues, it's catholic men.


Tue, Mar 6, 2012 : 3:16 p.m.

Limbaugh made a mistake, needed to apologize and did. He did not directly call Sandra Fluke a slut, but he said that women who want others to pay for them to be able to have sex were sluts. Nevertheless, it was wrong. Bill Maher called Sarah Palin a &quot;dumb tw*t&quot; and refused to apologize. His argument was that Limbaugh had sponsors to mollify and so had to appease them. Maher, on the other hand, is on a pay-per-view network, no one needs their feathers patted down lest the money stream halts, and therefore no apology is necessary. (I'm not making this stuff up: <a href="" rel='nofollow'></a> The term &quot;right thing to do&quot; doesn't seem to factor in how Maher makes decisions.

Martin Friedburg

Tue, Mar 6, 2012 : 3:11 p.m.

Responding to HockeyMom's giving Rush a pass based on what she calls a &quot;heat of the moment&quot; slip, HockeyMom seems to have not noticed that this abusive behavior contined over the course of three days. There was nothing &quot;heat of the moment&quot; about it. There was pleny of time over those three days for Rush to step back, reflect on what he said, and issue a deserved apology. Yet he did not do so. His continued attacks show pre-meditation and forethought. He knew what he was going to say long before he said it. Remember, he follows a script. Mr Limbaugh's so-called &quot;apology&quot; and attempt to pass his comments off as having some sort of basis in entertainment or comment on absurdity is in itself absurd. His words, his inflection, his demeanor and delivery were not in any way entertaining nor in the realm of comment through civil discourse. Mr. Limbaugh does not deserve continued access to the public airwaves. If he is sincere about an apology, he can take full responsibility for his actions by stepping down and turning the microphone over to a voice that offers respect and decency to the public


Tue, Mar 6, 2012 : 3:18 p.m.

Methinks you're overreacting. And if you ever listened to Limbaugh, you're realize he doesn't follow a script. Now Bill Maher, on the other hand . . .


Tue, Mar 6, 2012 : 3:08 p.m.

A couple of outpoints on this issue, beyond the obvious that Limbaugh has a few screws loose: • Covering birth control has benefit for married, as well as unmarried women • Birth control medication is used for purposes beyond birth control--i.e. controlling PMS, PMDD, endometriosis • Much, perhaps most, disease can be sourced back to the failure of the individual to give the body proper care/nutrition If we choose to axe coverage for birth control for women, based on religious objection by a faction of the voting population, then let's also axe coverage for those who fail to take care of themselves and give themselves a whole range of diseases While we're at it, let's axe ALL funding for programs that ANY group takes religious or spiritual objection to: • One such would be funding for WAR. Many faith groups believe that war is wrong, that we can resolve conflict without killing, and that pre-emptive strikes are particularly egregious. • Another is CAPITAL PUNISHMENT. Stop allowing that, stop funding that. • Underwriting BIG BUSINESS at the expense of citizens' health and prosperity is wrong-- Big Oil, Banks, Pharmaceutical Companies, Monsanto. • Legislation that destroys our environment and endangered species is against my moral code and religious beliefs. • MENTAL HEALTH legislation--many believe screening, labeling, and giving drugs and shock treatments, especially to children, is criminal. • Others believe legislating on what constitutes a family is wrong. • Many believe our government should not fund or supply weapons to countries that deprive others of their civil rights I, for one, would gladly remove public funding for birth control if public money for ALL other areas where ANYONE objected, on the basis of religious beliefs, were eliminated. It would then not matter if I agreed or not.

Elaine F. Owsley

Tue, Mar 6, 2012 : 2:45 p.m.

It is amazing that Limbaugh is given air time, or that anyone pays any attention to what he says. The man is a bigot, a blowhard, and an idiot. His opinions should not count for anything, especially when he belittles, insults, and denigrates a young woman who had the courage to speak about her concerns. Right (and I don't mean politically)thinking people should demand that he be refused air time, printed media space, or any other venue that would let his disgusting opinions be aired to the public.


Tue, Mar 6, 2012 : 8:59 p.m.

If you are going to listen to what he says, then listen for a while. I agree with you that he is a blowhard, and that I wish he would not say a lot of what he indeed SAYS. But not everything he says is wrong, and who is going to be in charge of refusing him a venue? (as 'Vivian' says)....


Tue, Mar 6, 2012 : 4:09 p.m.

I second that


Tue, Mar 6, 2012 : 3:13 p.m.

And who should do the refusing? If it's the government, wouldn't that be an abridgment of his freedom of speech? And wouldn't that be what we call censorship? Are you seriously proposing that? If people don't like what he says, they can turn off the radio or change the station. And they can complain in public (as you and many others are doing here) that they don't like what he says. One person's 'disgusting opinions' are another person's 'right thinking' --we have to accept that. Otherwise we're looking at the likely emergence of the Thought Police. Do you really want dissenting opinions suppressed? I think most of us would say no to that...


Tue, Mar 6, 2012 : 3:13 p.m.

Elaine, you forgot bookburning.


Tue, Mar 6, 2012 : 2:39 p.m.

Why give this jerk the time of day? Over 150 comments do just that. He's not worth it people.


Tue, Mar 6, 2012 : 1:53 p.m.

Why do liberal comedians such as Bill Maher( who just donated $1million to Obama) get to call Sarah Palin a &quot;c***&quot; and a &quot;whore&quot;, the name calling of John Stewart, and Ed Schultz calling Laura Ingram a &quot;slut&quot;,(although he apologized and was suspended for a week), and well as the reprehensible treatment of G.W.Bush when he was President, get to get away with this with no phone calls from the President, and one slip by a conservative is terrible. He apologized. Your attitude is two-faced and hypocritical. She was a public figure, she put herself out there for public comments. Get over it. That isn't the issue anyway. Nobody is taking away contraceptives. If you work for a Christian organization who does not wish to pay for them, then work for a non-sectarian one. If you can't afford contraceptives, go to Planned parenthood, or get a generic, or go to another government agency.

A Voice of Reason

Tue, Mar 6, 2012 : 1:28 p.m.

I am looking back to see the same outrage and even an article from when Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann where called names. All the commenters here, unless you have spoken up before on this name calling behavior (across the board), have no credibility. This 30 year old activist and law student from Georgetown University, who is spending $60,000 a year on her education, cannot spend 5 minutes to walk to Planned Parenthood to pick-up her free birth, federally subsidized birth control pills? She represents the worst example for women--not able to take care of herself and being used by men for political purposes. The worst thing is, she wants me and my hard earn tax dollars to pay for her $9 a month birth control fees when she is spending $60,000 on her education? She is not a xxx, she is a selfish- thief.


Wed, Mar 7, 2012 : 12:37 a.m.

Tru, Ms. Fluke was requested to added to a panel to give testimony by two democratic congresswomen. The panel chair (republican) determined that her &quot;expertise&quot; as leader of an organization she founded (Women's Reproductive Rights) was not germaine to the Congressional Hearing topic on the constitution and the HHS mandate (and yes, the panel testifying was all male). This upset the democratic members of the committee and so they walked out. Act II: the press buzz on the walkout caught the attention of Pelosi. She arranged for a pseudo &quot;hearing&quot; and Fluke was called to make her statement. Her statement was based on hearsay and/or stories collected while leading the &quot;organization&quot; she founded (she founded a similar one in undergrad at another school). Ms. Fluke has been quoted in the WP that she chose to attend Georgetown after reviewing their health insurance plans and discovering that since Georgetown was a catholic school, it did not cover contraception. Her Facebook and LinkedIn pages have since disappeared but her listings there clearly showed she is an activist - which is fine - more power to her.


Tue, Mar 6, 2012 : 10:21 p.m.

I don't know what your voice is like but your writing simply isn't well reasoned. The Republican mouth pieces like Limbaugh have been spouting venom against &quot;liberals&quot; for at least a decade. The Republicans put Palin on a pedestal, so she too is &quot;out there&quot; to be commented on. The real puzzle is how conservatives could ever have given her the chance to be V.P. of the United States. I agree that critics like Maher go too far - but I also agree that making an example of any of them - like Limbaugh - is the most effective way to stop this dangerously spiraling political invective. Your claims against Ms. Sandra Fluke are supported by what??... Certainly, you're using character assassination in an attempt to support the despicable Mr. Limbaugh. Your &quot;reasoning&quot; is flawed: she spoke before Congress about the issue of women in need of financial help, which has nothing to do with HER wealth, get it?


Tue, Mar 6, 2012 : 2:06 p.m.

I totally agree. She is an activist, pure and simple, and her testifying was to deflect attention from the real issue of the HHS mandate: against Freedom of Religion and conscience.


Tue, Mar 6, 2012 : 1:27 p.m.

Funny when everyone ,including news papers and nes were slamming PALIN no one complained or raised such a fuss as they are now against Rush. If it walks like a duck and looks like a duck!


Tue, Mar 6, 2012 : 10:10 p.m.

Attacking Palin? Hah! You dare to compare the ANALYSIS of &quot;professor&quot; Palin's statements &amp; behaviors to Limbaugh's disgusting slur of one woman - at the same time putting millions of women who use birth control in the same category? Seems more like you may have a deficient capacity for comparative analysis than WE have a sense of right and wrong.

average joe

Tue, Mar 6, 2012 : 12:29 p.m.

Did anyone notice who Ms. Fluke was &quot;testifying&quot; to? All democrats. It was not before &quot;congress&quot; as suggested in the media, and was nothing more than a stage show in front of a democratic steering commitee. But Rush didn't need to use those words to get his point across.


Tue, Mar 6, 2012 : 4:15 p.m.

A panel of deep thinkers.


Tue, Mar 6, 2012 : 2:17 p.m.

It was to a panel of Congressional Democrats. Thus, it was before Congress.


Tue, Mar 6, 2012 : 11:51 a.m.

Mr. Briegel, in your response to bunnyabbot, you seem to be asserting that Ms. Fluke's decision to go to Georgetown for the purpose of advocating a change in the school's policy regarding payment for birth control is at least defensible, or perhaps even laudable. Would you agree that a student's calculated decision to enroll in a Muslim or Jewish institution and then advocate for the inclusion of pork products among the offerings in the student cafeterias was equally defensible and/or laudable? Why do you (apparently) reject the idea that a student's best course of action is to choose to enroll in an institution with whose values he or she agrees? You seem to be blinded by an unthinking assumption that Georgetown's policy is in and of itself wrong. That might be arguable if any person were compelled to attend or denied any alternatives, but a student who, like Ms. Fluke, wants to attend a school that offers a health plan including contraception has a multitude of choices. Why didn't she exercise her freedom of choice rather than attempting to impose her views on the institution that admitted her?

Paul Epstein

Tue, Mar 6, 2012 : 11:44 a.m.

As can be observed here, about 95% of Americans completely agree with Rush Limbaugh. And that's why America is doing like a toilet right now and rotating downward.


Tue, Mar 6, 2012 : 2:15 p.m.

Sources for your claim? It doesn't match multiple national polls repeatedly reported by media claiming overwhelming support for Ms Fluke and against Limbaugh, who has lost nearly every sponsor for his program and has been ridiculed by members of both political parties.


Tue, Mar 6, 2012 : 11:42 a.m.

I don't agree with any news commentator calling any woman disrespectful names. On the flip side, I do not feel that I should have my insurance rates increased because some one wants to have sex and needs birth control. That is their choice, and it is their responsibility to pay for what ever is needed to protect themselves--not mine. And, that is one of the problems of these days -- there is a large majority of individuals who feels they are entitled to whatever they want and the rest of us are responsible to pay for it -- I say no more.


Wed, Mar 7, 2012 : 3:10 a.m.

Aggatt, There are many drugs that people need to treat a medical issue that are not covered by insurance. Why should organizations be required to provide oral contraception if it violates their religious convictions? Ever read the first amendment to the Constitution?


Tue, Mar 6, 2012 : 11:38 p.m.

but some of us need birth control for other medical issues, not for preventing pregnancy, and people like the crazy commentors on this board are the reason we have to pay a ton of money for medicine that is necessary for our health.


Tue, Mar 6, 2012 : 1:30 p.m.

I agree with you completely.


Tue, Mar 6, 2012 : 8:53 a.m.

Rush's idiotic name-calling aside, he complained that by providing contraception via healthcare, that taxpayers were paying for her to have sex. It is well known that Rush himself takes Viagra (covered by insurance) and was addicted to Vicodin, also provided by his insurance no doubt. He's a hypocrite. If Rush was coming at you after taking Viagra, you'd want all the pprotection you could get too!!!


Tue, Mar 6, 2012 : 2:19 p.m.

@thinker: Rush's Viagra &quot;vacation&quot; was the talk in 2006. <a href="" rel='nofollow'></a>


Tue, Mar 6, 2012 : 2:03 p.m.

Such name calling! I'm surprised this vitriol was not removed by Rush conquered his medical addiction to Vicodin, caused by severe back pain, and how you could know he takes Viagra, I'll never know. Besides, Viagra is now approved for treating enlarged prostate.

Ricardo Queso

Tue, Mar 6, 2012 : 3:22 a.m.

What you lib's have failed to notice is that this WAS NOT a congressional hearing, but a stunt to divert attention away from Obama's attack on the Constitution.

average joe

Tue, Mar 6, 2012 : 12:22 p.m.

Exactly. It was only a stage act in front of a panel made up entirely of democrats. It was NOT before congress as all the media seems to believe.


Tue, Mar 6, 2012 : 2:52 a.m.

Well the moral of the story here is if you are going to put yourself on the national stage, no matter what the issue, expect some sort of backlash. In this day and age of instant media, someone will be offended, no matter what the issue. In Ms Fluke's case, it was Rush Limbough who happens to have a national audience. This is no different than Jon Stewart or Keith Olbermann who spend every evening vilifying Sarah Palin, Herman Cain, or Rick Santorum. Granted Ms Fluke is not a polictian, but she chose to sit in front of the national news media with her statement on free birth control. Now she is a national figure whether she likes it or not.


Tue, Mar 6, 2012 : 2 p.m.

She wanted to become a national figure, given her association with Pelosi, and her activism on campus. She will be running for Congress soon.....


Tue, Mar 6, 2012 : midnight

As I recall, Ms. Fluk didn't discuss her personal situation. We shouldn't know whether or not she takes birth control pills, nor should we. The main information she provided was about a young woman who was irreparably maimed and made infertile when she didn't have access to hormonal treatment (e.g. birth control pills) to control her ovarian cysts. Also, Rush Limbaugh's connection of the amount of sexual activity with the number of pills taken doesn't even make sense and suggests that he's either ignorant or intentionally mean or both. Then, when there was media push back on his attacks on Wednesday, he intensified his attacks on Thursday and Friday.


Tue, Mar 6, 2012 : 1:59 p.m.

I believe she said she paid $3000 for oral contraceptives, and that 40% of the Georgetown coeds were also sexually active and needed them. She put herself out there for such a comment.


Tue, Mar 6, 2012 : 1:06 a.m.

Ms. Fluke did not discuss her personal situation. She relayed what she &quot;heard&quot; about another student at Georgetown to a pseudo Congressional &quot;hearing&quot; after a call from Nancy Pelosi's staff. Ms. Fluke, 30 (originally reported to be 23) purposely enrolled at Georgetown Law School because of the School's policy of NOT paying for contraception because it goes against their Church doctrinal beliefs. She formed a &quot;Woman's Reproductive Rights&quot; organization at Georgetown as she did previously at her undergrad school.


Tue, Mar 6, 2012 : 1:03 a.m.

&quot;...The main information she provided was about a young woman who was irreparably maimed and made infertile ...&quot; Kind of like when Michelle Bachman said a vaccination caused mental retardation in a chlld.


Tue, Mar 6, 2012 : 12:01 a.m.

Oops, I meant to type: We don't know whether or not she takes birth control pills, nor should we.

Jus Jillin

Mon, Mar 5, 2012 : 10:46 p.m.

As I have said in all of my blogs - especially - It is okay for someone to have an opinion but to backlash at an individual is wrong. Does he have the right to Freedom of speech - sure but does he have the right to be respectful - absolutely! Why are we as Americans accepting these behaviors? Kids are being killed everyday due to lack of respect for human life. It all starts with people like Rush. We are to accepting of people disrespecting others due to &quot;Freedom of Speech&quot;! We should be outraged and the outrage should produce a limitation for people like him. I am tired of this and the lack of respect from one human life to another. If we accept this then shame on us - if we fight this then we are giving hope to others.


Tue, Mar 6, 2012 : 1:57 p.m.

Limbaugh is strongly pro-life and Christian. These values come out on his program. He made a slip of the tongue and apologized. He is being attacked because of his values. Look to the guys on TV and the programs on TV who rant and use even worse words and get laughs all in the name of &quot;Freedom of Speech&quot; . While I might not agree with them, they have the right to say it.

Usual Suspect

Tue, Mar 6, 2012 : 2:16 a.m.

&quot;Kids are being killed everyday due to lack of respect for human life. It all starts with people like Rush&quot; Wow, this is absolutely incredible. &quot;the outrage should produce a limitation for people like him&quot; There can be no limitation on him without there also being a limitation on you and me.


Tue, Mar 6, 2012 : 1 a.m.

So it is Limbaugh's fault for the homicide rate in this country? Sheeeeeesh.


Mon, Mar 5, 2012 : 10:09 p.m.

Freedon of speech only belongs to the left. Everyone else needs to be censored.


Tue, Mar 6, 2012 : 3:59 p.m.

@genetracy: No one has a right to commercial support of his/her speech. And urging the removal of that commercial support is not censorship. @a2citizen: &quot;censor&quot; and &quot;censure&quot; are two different words with different meanings. censor: (v): examine (a book, movie, etc.) officially and suppress unacceptable parts of it [note: &quot;officially&quot;] censure (n): the expression of formal disapproval censure (v): express severe disapproval of (someone or something), typically in a formal statement


Tue, Mar 6, 2012 : 12:02 a.m.

Perigrine, to answer your question. The word &quot;reprehensible&quot; is defined as &quot;...deserving of censure...&quot;


Mon, Mar 5, 2012 : 11:11 p.m.

Well Mr Falcon, the lynch mob in this forum think his sponsers should be threatened until he is driven off the air. I have never been a Rush fan but the insults he hurls on his show are no different than what Olbermann, Maddow, Maher, and Stewart say on a nightly basis. They say the things they do because they know there will never be any repercussions. Besides, when was the last time any of them apologized for anything?


Mon, Mar 5, 2012 : 11:01 p.m.

Has anyone here advocated government censorship against Limbaugh? Why are you so upset with those who criticze Limbaugh and what he says?


Mon, Mar 5, 2012 : 9:25 p.m.

BTW, birth control pills are a poor treatment for ovarian cysts. You can cure them outright with dietary changes. <a href="" rel='nofollow'></a> One of many articles on the subject. But that won't serve the Left's priority of population control so Fluke and her fellow activists probably won't be interested.


Tue, Mar 6, 2012 : 2:05 p.m.

Are you a MD?


Tue, Mar 6, 2012 : 1:27 p.m.

That is like saying that insulin is a poor treatment for type 2 diabetes because weight loss could outright cure it.

Usual Suspect

Mon, Mar 5, 2012 : 9:18 p.m.

She was a nobody and now she has enough fame to launch a great career with. Rush got a priceless amount of free publicity. I think everybody won. God bless America!


Mon, Mar 5, 2012 : 9:07 p.m.

at one point limbaugh compared then pre-teen chelsea clinton to a dog. the guys is a bullying scum...and his &quot;dittoheads&quot; are worse, since they just oafishishly lap it up like trained seals..which i guess says alot about why the republican party , in the ag e of &quot;limbecko'reilly &quot;is in such deserved disarray and disrepute. To compare the witlessness of his/ their shtick to a jon stewart, al franken or bill maher is beyond absurd. that said he's clearly got a sweet gig , moneywise, that many of us acerbic posters would love to have( since we're just giving it away for free!)


Wed, Mar 7, 2012 : 1:19 p.m.

It doesn't matter if one is on the radio or if one is a politician and has a smaller audience. It's wrong to say. Period. Doesn't matter who you are. What is there not to understand?


Tue, Mar 6, 2012 : 4:17 p.m.

maalen...what don't you understand ?? i said feiger was wrong if he said what was alleged. I also correctly noted that Limbaugh has a far larger pulpit for his toxic waste than feiger ever did.... .and would add that the &quot;dittohead &quot; jackals that follow limbaugh's carrion trail ( aka 'republicans' nowadays) make him far more deserving of public scrutiny than a local pol with a bad hairdo and jack kevorkian as his main cheerleader.


Tue, Mar 6, 2012 : 2:49 p.m.

I like how bedrog tries to justify what Fierger did. &quot; if fieger did that it was wrong....but he never was more than a fringe ambulance chaser...&quot; I like how certain liberals think it is ok if people on their side does name calling, but when conservatives do the name calling it is the end of the world. Rush was wrong just as much as Fieger was. Period.


Tue, Mar 6, 2012 : 1:02 a.m.

Yeah Bed, But Fieger is a very rich ambulance chaser.


Tue, Mar 6, 2012 : 12:49 a.m.

gene: if fieger did that it was wrong.... but he never was more than a fringe ambulance chaser and publicity hound whereas Limbaugh , while also a fringe member of civilized society, has somehow become the voice of a major political party with a &quot;bullY' ( and bullying... and buls...t) pulpit&quot; in the media.


Mon, Mar 5, 2012 : 11:12 p.m.

Then you know more than I do. Anyway, I recall Fieger insulting his infant children during the campaign.


Mon, Mar 5, 2012 : 10:29 p.m.

When did John Engler have twin sons? I know he has triplet daughters.


Mon, Mar 5, 2012 : 10:06 p.m.

When Democrat Geoffrey Fieger ran for governor, he referred to John Engler's twin infant sons &quot;little piglets&quot;. I heard no outrage.


Mon, Mar 5, 2012 : 7:50 p.m.

Limbaugh needs to apologize to her whole family as well.


Tue, Mar 6, 2012 : 5:32 p.m.

Maybe he will when all the lefty comics apologise to Palins family, Michele Bachms, Laura Ingrams, etc.


Mon, Mar 5, 2012 : 7:43 p.m.

Unless the Constitution has been suspended, Rush has the freedom to say whatever he wants! And everyone has the Freedom to turn off his show. As to the other issue, I don't see how birth control is actually a medical problem for a woman. It's use does not prevent or cure a disease, unless you consider menstruation or a pregnancy a disease. In truth paying for condoms makes more sense, because it prevents the spread of VD. My daily dose of Vitamin D2 prescribed by my doctor prevents disease, but isn't covered?


Tue, Mar 6, 2012 : 1:19 p.m.

swcornell, you say you &quot;don't see how birth control is actually a medical problem for a woman,&quot; and that it &quot;does not prevent or cure a disease&quot;. As Seldon pointed out, there ARE diseases for which birth control is a remedy. I have polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS). Side effects include infertility and several hormone-related symptoms. The most common treatment for PCOS is birth control. What I'm trying to make very clear is that without my birth control prescription, I would not be able to treat a DISEASE that would cause INFERTILITY. swcornell, please rethink your stance on this. PCOS is not the only disease or symptom treated by birth control. It's very hurtful to women like myself to insinuate that our treatment should not be covered because of other people's reasons for using birth control. <a href="" rel='nofollow'></a>


Tue, Mar 6, 2012 : 4:21 a.m.

Not only that, birth control pills are used to treat a number of other health conditions as well.


Mon, Mar 5, 2012 : 10:58 p.m.

Why aren't you defending others' rights to criticize Limbaugh publicly? Why are you instead pretending that those who criticize Limbaugh are trying to suspend the Constitution? Has anyone suggested that Limbaugh be thrown in jail or have his mouth sewn shut? Pregnancy carries with it significant health risks. Therefore birth control is an issue of women's health.


Mon, Mar 5, 2012 : 7:40 p.m.

Limbaugh deserves to lose his show. Nine sponsors down and more to come. Why would anyone that thinks listen to this guy and to frame hate as entertainment is beyond me.

Andy Price

Mon, Mar 5, 2012 : 10:48 p.m.

11 now. :)


Mon, Mar 5, 2012 : 9:23 p.m.

I think Limbaugh is one of the most deplorable people on the planet, but I don't think he should lose his show based on these comments. He should lose his show because it's sleep inducing. He won't though because there is a large portion of the population who has to be repeated to over and over and over what they are supposed to think/support/vote....and they love it.


Mon, Mar 5, 2012 : 7:27 p.m.

well well


Mon, Mar 5, 2012 : 6:47 p.m.

Guess I missed where calling a woman a &quot;slut&quot; and a &quot;prostitute&quot; and saying that he wanted to see her sexual videos was humorous and funny. Limbaugh's version of &quot;comedy&quot; has me there. I can't imagine many women in the US of any political party, other than BunnyAbbott and the few limited others of her persusian, that might find those references funny -- given that she indicates that she wasn't offended by them in her posts here.


Tue, Mar 6, 2012 : 5:31 p.m.

Listen or read his remarks. He did not actually call HER that.


Mon, Mar 5, 2012 : 6:35 p.m.

The worst part of this entire debacle is the silence or weak response from Republican leaders who did not strongly condemn Limbaugh's comments.


Tue, Mar 6, 2012 : 10:37 p.m.

I agree: and lets keep in mind that Limbaugh is one of the most popular guest speakers and &quot;leaders&quot; in the Republican Party. The Republicans only hope to deceive people into believing they renounce him, when in fact they adore him - and it's because he's so effectively slanderous.

Martin Church

Mon, Mar 5, 2012 : 5:55 p.m.

So where were your comments when Sara Palin was called much worse during her run for the VP slot. and what about what started this debate. Should a person with hard religious convictions be forced to submit to a demand they provide for the killing of children. You seam to have a one sided opinion. No one should be called by names like this. But also it's interesting that Obama called her to apologize for Rush and yet still has not changed his stance that the religious community and states that voted to prevent tax dollars to be used to terminate a life. His mandate to surrender a moral position is wrong. and his requiring Insurance companies (which he also did not consult with) to pay for these killing procedures so just how out of touch the President is in always just being present (his standard voting position in both the state and US Senate). Slavery was allowed under the supreme court and beating your slave was legal. And yet was rejected by the religious community which lead to the civil war. we are in the same state now, should we change an immoral situation or go to a physical war to find the true out come?

Monica R-W

Mon, Mar 5, 2012 : 6:11 p.m.

Martin, This is confusing: &quot;But also it's interesting that Obama called her to apologize for Rush and yet still has not changed his stance that the religious community and states that voted to prevent tax dollars to be used to terminate a life.&quot; Who did President Obama call for to apologize to Rush Limbaugh? Sandra Fluke or Sarah Palin? Why would President Obama ask for Sarah Palin to apologize to Rush Limbaugh, especially since both Sarah and Rush are &quot;Freedom Loving Patriots&quot;? As for Sandra Fluke, where (i.e.-what MEDIA SOURCE &amp; can you cite here, right now) did President Obama ask Sandra Fluke to &quot;apologize&quot; to Rush Limbaugh about his choice of words degrading, her? Feel free to take the necessary time to research resources for the direct paragraph above (i.e.-Limbaugh, Ms. Fluke, President Obama, Fluke needs to apologize to Limbaugh via President Obama statement). We're waiting on this..... Monica

Dog Guy

Mon, Mar 5, 2012 : 5:51 p.m.

There would be no dearth of contributors to a charitable fund to buy contraceptives and morning after pills for upstanding young college ladies of impeccable moral character. Certainly many college boys would wait in line to contribute. More importantly, the intent of the federal ukase is to force Catholic schools, hospitals, and social service agencies to close just as the intent of the bombastic radio clown is to make a living entertaining bored housewives. The significant matter of this brouhaha is the survival of the last vestige of our liberty, not just who is the current target of bureaucratic dictatorship or of partisan bickering. At this point, all parroted partisanship is suicidal. Our hereditary owners are practicing divide-and-conquer.

Scott Wood

Mon, Mar 5, 2012 : 5:39 p.m.

sorry, bill maher used the 'c' word


Tue, Mar 6, 2012 : 12:36 a.m.

The &quot;c&quot; word? CookooPants?

Andy Price

Mon, Mar 5, 2012 : 10:47 p.m.

Did Maher say this? Please cite a credible source.

Usual Suspect

Mon, Mar 5, 2012 : 9:11 p.m.

For fairness, I'll complain about neither, and celebrate the freedom of speech they both have.

Monica R-W

Mon, Mar 5, 2012 : 6:04 p.m.

Scott, True, very true. &quot;The Bill Maher Show&quot; is also supported via our FEDERAL TAX DOLLARS via the FCC. Here is a link to write your complaint: <a href="" rel='nofollow'></a>. Now just for fairness, will you also complaint about &quot;The Rush Limbaugh Show&quot; degrading words about Georgetown University Law Student, Sandra Fluke? Monica

Scott Wood

Mon, Mar 5, 2012 : 5:38 p.m.

One more question - where was this moral outrage when Bill Maher called Sarah Palin a 'slut' or when members of congress called president Bush Hitler?

Tom Whitaker

Mon, Mar 5, 2012 : 9:40 p.m.

Conservative journalist, and former speechwriter for President GW Bush, has an excellent column about this very aspect of this issue: <a href="" rel='nofollow'></a>

Tom Whitaker

Mon, Mar 5, 2012 : 9:15 p.m.

The difference is Limbaugh attacked a private citizen who was merely exercising her right to petition her elected officials regarding an important public health issue. This woman came forward to speak about something she believed was important, and despite Republican lawmakers blocking her from speaking (and only allowing men to speak on a women's health issue), the Democrats gave her an opportunity to be heard. Governor Palin, President Bush, Laura Ingraham, Ed Schultz, Bill Maher, member of Congress, etc., have all chosen a life of media spotlight, have large budgets and staff for defending themselves in the media--they are willing public figures. It's not fair for someone with control over a huge swath of radio and TV airwaves like Limbaugh to attack a private citizen--especially in such a crude and personal manner.


Mon, Mar 5, 2012 : 9:09 p.m.

Talking heads attack politicians, right or wrong. When they enter that arena they are target for it. This was a PRIVATE CITIZEN, a college student, not a public figure. What part of that aren't you getting?????


Mon, Mar 5, 2012 : 5:37 p.m.

The most unfortunate part of this whole controversy is that rush is getting exactly the type of media attention that has brought huge profits to his voice of ignorance. Rush's business model is nothing but the opinions of the most ignorant, and most prejudiced people in this country expressed in the most shrill and outrageous language possible. His listeners willingly call themselves ditto heads, meaning they do not question his blather. That he has any audience whatsoever is an embarrassment to this country. Lets not forget why Mitt Romney has avoided criticizing Rush. The company that made Mitt filthy rich is the same company that employs Rush the embarrassment.


Tue, Mar 6, 2012 : 12:35 a.m.

Rush would love Teddy R. He's bully.

Monica R-W

Mon, Mar 5, 2012 : 6:02 p.m.

RayA2, Thank you for your comments. At ROJS Radio we would never self-determine our listeners intelligence levels by calling them &quot;Ditto-Heads&quot; or encourage them to &quot;take that title on&quot;. So, Limbaugh believes his audience are &quot;ditto-heads&quot; but, they continue listening to his programming. That's quite rich. Monica Monica


Mon, Mar 5, 2012 : 5:20 p.m.

All I know is there are too many people in this world. A few less of them via contraception is fine with me.


Mon, Mar 5, 2012 : 5:26 p.m.

Haha! It is nice to see a light post!


Mon, Mar 5, 2012 : 5:17 p.m.

There are many comments here making the assumption that taxpayers would pay for free birth control. When in reality, that is not the mandate, regardless if that is how Rush spun it. This mandate would allow employers to exempt out of birth control. I pay $110 towards my health plan every pay period for health coverage for my family. If this mandate passed and my employer was, let's say Catholic, he could opt out to providing birth control coverage. He would be exercising his religious beliefs over my own. I would have to pay out of pocket for birth control pills for myself. Having been married 20 years, 4 children later, I feel entitled to make this decision for myself. Rush made it sound like taxpayers are paying for everything and I am starting to see a repeat pattern of the same argument, even if it is wrong. What is sad is that people ACTUALLY believes what he says is true.


Wed, Mar 7, 2012 : 2:54 a.m.

Many insurance companies restrict the types of drugs that are part of the benefits. Why should the pill be included? Its primary purpose is to prevent pregnancy not to cure ovarian cancer or prevent a heart attack. There are many ways to prevent pregnancy and some of them are cheaper than the pill and you do not need a prescription. You probably pay about 20% of the cost of your health insurance. That means if your employer was a Catholic institution they would pay 80% of the cost of the insurance and violate their religious beliefs by being force to buy contraception.


Mon, Mar 5, 2012 : 5:07 p.m.

Being a mother of 3 daughters, I am disgusted that ANYONE (especially a public figure) would feel so comfortable to use the term slut in reference to this woman. Calling people names, regardless of the reason, should be unacceptable. I don't care if he is an entertainer. Is his show rated for adult viewers only? Calling a woman or a girl a slut is comparable to calling someone a racial slur. By tolerating this kind of name calling will promote our young kids to use that word towards females at school. Rush was being a bully, bottom-line. If we want to teach our children not to bully, then we also need to have the same standards for adults. I don't remember anyone calling men a slut when they use Viagra.


Tue, Mar 6, 2012 : 4:06 p.m.

Hey Usual Suspect--I use birth control for a medical condition, not for preventing pregnancy. And I pay a lot of money for that very necessary perscription. And you state that BC involves recreational activity for non married people--what about poor, married people who are on the pill? What's your stance on that?

Stupid Hick

Tue, Mar 6, 2012 : 4:55 a.m.

No, but I'm sure he asked the judge for leniency.

Usual Suspect

Tue, Mar 6, 2012 : 2:12 a.m.

... and not asking anybody else to pay for said product for him.

Stupid Hick

Mon, Mar 5, 2012 : 11:09 p.m.

@Usual Suspect: LOL! I assume you're trying to be funny, because you must be aware Rush Limbaugh got caught with Viagra by US Customs in 2009, when returning from a recreational trip to the Dominican Republic. Not married, and not his prescription, either!

Usual Suspect

Mon, Mar 5, 2012 : 9:08 p.m.

Viaga involves a medical condition. Birth control involves recreational activity, for non-married people.

Monica R-W

Mon, Mar 5, 2012 : 4:50 p.m.

As a Republican, Mr. Watkins, THANK YOU for writing this column stating publicly that Rush Limbaugh vicious attack on Georgetown University Law Student Sandra Fluke was wrong, You are correct and stand on the right side of this issue. The second point I would like to make: The Rush Limbaugh Show is supported via the Federal Communication Commission by all of our tax dollars paid to the Federal Government. Why? If Limbaugh believe (regardless of his so-called apology after losing 8 major sponsors) degrading Ms. Fluke and other women is a form of &quot;Political Talk&quot;, let him REMOVE his program off of OUR PUBLICLY-FINANCED airwaves, onto the internet.. There, he can use his &quot;version&quot; of &quot;free-speech&quot; all day long. The key to this, he would have to PRIVATELY-FINANCE his program in Federal Tax Dollars support period. Considering Rush &quot;loves his freedoms&quot; and his supporters are &quot;so-loyal&quot;, he should have no problems getting his &quot;fans&quot; to follow his &quot;show&quot; on the internet. Right? So, for Mr. Watkins and other Republicans who feel strongly that Limbaugh's comments about Sandra Fluke were highly-inappropriate, wrong and not fitting for Publicly-Financed the FCC here: <a href="" rel='nofollow'></a> and tell the Governmental Organization to remove Rush Limbaugh NOW! To find a list of sponsors of The Rush Limbaugh Show to target, we have a link to the FULLY LIST (Major &amp; Secondary Sponsors) here: <a href="" rel='nofollow'></a> Thank you again, Mr. Watkins. Monica RW Executive Producer/Co-Host ROJS Radio-Featured Podcast on Blog Talk Radio Michigan &amp; National Political Talk


Wed, Mar 7, 2012 : 2:39 a.m.

Careful Chase, when it was pointed out several months ago that posting opinions, then linking the reader to one's own for-profit website could be considered advertising and against A2.coms posting policies... You might guess what happened. The post pointing out the blatant advertising was deleted by the moderator and the advertising post was left in. Now we seem to get plugs for podcasts.

Chase Ingersoll

Wed, Mar 7, 2012 : 12:33 a.m.

It's interesting to watch people &quot;unpack their own issues&quot; on this forum, comment, by comment where they reveal bits and pieces of the sort of 3rd world envy that they have for people who are popular and successful. Here is the link to Monica Ross-Williams website:<a href="" rel='nofollow'></a> We have a number of Monica's in the GOP that we try and calm down and get them back to the local issues where they can actually do something rather than having them rant about national personalities and issues where frankly, their knowledge is limited and their analysis is blatantly incorrect. Here is an article on a study that I came across this week that I think would support the notion I have publicly stated for some time, that we should not allow straight party check-off balloting and that voters should be required to identify the person that they are voting for and the office for which that person is running, without the aid of a party label. <a href="" rel='nofollow'></a> This would also support the Founders notion that Senators should not be popularly elected. Chase Ingersoll


Tue, Mar 6, 2012 : 12:31 a.m.

FCC is a REGULATORY agency. It does not fund or support programs, individual companies, or private enterprise in any way. FCC is funded like any other federal agency via tax receipts and interestingly, from auctions of the frequency spectrum for use. FCC regulates the use of the airways for spectrum management, station broadcast power, and is the enforcement mechanism for decency standards (those seven words and wardrobe malfunctions). You're welcome to complain regarding Limbaugh to the FCC and they will tell you the same thing. Attempting to tie a &quot;PUBLICLY FINANCED&quot; argument is beyond weak. The continual plug for an obscure blog-cast is getting old too.

Craig Lounsbury

Mon, Mar 5, 2012 : 9:44 p.m.

Monica, I think we both have an idea of what the FCC does. Where we differ is you see that as supporting a radio station or show to some degree and I don't. I just see it as regulation and don't think they are the same thing. So I guess that's where I'll leave it.

Craig Lounsbury

Mon, Mar 5, 2012 : 9:21 p.m.

The FCC issuing a license to a station is like the State issuing me a drivers license and a license plate for my car. It allows me to drive down the road legally BUT IT DOESN'T SUBSIDIZE MY CAR. I still pay all the costs for gas maintenance and insurance. There is no help from the Government to keep my car running. By the same token the FCC issuing a license to a radio station doesn't subsidize the stations operation. It only allows the station a chance to operate and stay in business. Your allegation that Rush Limbaugh (or anybody) receives Government funding for their show isn't true. And that is what you did say when you said &quot;..The key to this, he would have to PRIVATELY-FINANCE his program in Federal Tax Dollars support period.&quot; All my analogies hold true. NTSB/Ford Motor Company, the Great Lakes/Coast Guard/SS Limbaugh analogy.

Monica R-W

Mon, Mar 5, 2012 : 9 p.m.

Craig, Here's the last point I will make to you because we can see continuing this discussion with your limited knowledge of how the FCC does regulate our PUBLICLY FINANCE &amp; SUPPORTED AIRWAVES is wasted effort but.... How would Broadcasting on FM/AM PUBLICLY FINANCED and SUPPORTED airwaves occur if the station (in this case-Clear Channel Communications) doesn't have a license to do so, via the FCC? Now wrap your brain around that and in this case, you don't have to reply back. As your lame attempts to disconnect the FCC, from Clear Channel Communications and the networks' choice to Broadcast the vile &quot;Rush Limbaugh Show&quot;, is indeed ridiculous and frankly, sad. Have a good evening, again... Monica

Usual Suspect

Mon, Mar 5, 2012 : 8:46 p.m.

You disagree with him, so you want to remove rights from him. That's SO American.

Craig Lounsbury

Mon, Mar 5, 2012 : 7:12 p.m.

thanks for the links Monica, you just made my point for me. Every one of your links is about FCC regulations and controls. That's been my point all along..they are the airwave &quot;police&quot; Not one of your links supports your allegation that tax dollars to the FCC somehow subsidizes over the air radio shows. All those dollars do is regulate the industry. REGULATING AN INDUSTRY IS NOT THE SAME AS SUBSIDIZING. Your flawed argument would say that the NTSB subsidizes Ford Motor Company. Its an absurd argument.

Monica R-W

Mon, Mar 5, 2012 : 6:30 p.m.

Craig, I know it hurts to know that your wrong but, here are some links for you, Martin and Maybe &quot;Bunnyabbot&quot; too. Let's start with the FCC Regulations over FM Radio Stations. Have a seat and grab coffee as it will involve PLENTY of reading: <a href="" rel='nofollow'></a> The next link describes the code of Federal Regulations via the GPO (another Federal Tax Payer Supported Governmental Agency). This is a book available via the internet on download OR you can order it via the GPO-<a href="" rel='nofollow'></a> The next link travels back to the FCC website which contain series of documentation describing how the &quot;Audio Division&quot; of the Governmental Organization has authority over ANY PROGRAM and NETWORK that broadcast over our FEDERAL-FINANCED airwaves: <a href="" rel='nofollow'></a> Finally, &quot;The Office of Communication and Industry Information, Media Bureau&quot; of the FCC via its Director Michael Perko @ 202-418-7200 can kindly answer any questions you have Martin, &quot;Bunnyabbot&quot; or Craig about who supports FCC Regulated PUBLICLY-FINANCED airwaves: <a href="" rel='nofollow'></a> So, Craig I say again, YES, you are wrong. Have a lovely afternoon. Monica RW Executive Producer/Host ROJS Radio-Featured Podcast on the Blog Talk Radio Network &quot;Michigan and National Political Talk&quot;

Martin Church

Mon, Mar 5, 2012 : 6:10 p.m.

Unlike your many shows which do receive tax payer dollars. Rush is supported by business which have shown they will walk away when they disagree. However with the commercial (which is their main support) airwaves business decied who goes on the air based upon return of investment. Your stations are contribution based and cater to one believe system. for instance when was the last time you had the largest women's group, Concern Women of America on to discuss Women's issues and the HHS mandate on vs. NOW which supports alternative life styles that harm women. You call for balance, lets start with your station first. As a listener, (WEMU) I would love to hear an honest opposing view, not some hack you pick out because it makes the other side sound good. And I would support my Public radio station if I heard real debate and not onesided debates.

Craig Lounsbury

Mon, Mar 5, 2012 : 6:01 p.m.

I'll repeat that the FCC regulates the airwaves, that in no way equates to subsidizing the shows on the airwaves. As Seldon pointed out &quot;If anything, the presence of the FCC costs Clear Channel money in compliance costs.&quot;

Craig Lounsbury

Mon, Mar 5, 2012 : 5:57 p.m.

sorry Monica I am not wrong. As others are pointing out our tax dollars support the FCC police. That's NOT in any way subsidizing his show. To use your flawed argument an Internet show would also be &quot;subsidized' because various Governmental agencies patrol/troll the Internet looking for assorted forms of cyber crime.

Monica R-W

Mon, Mar 5, 2012 : 5:51 p.m.

&quot;Bunnyabbot&quot;, No one is attempting to &quot;silence&quot; Rush Limbaugh's &quot;freedoms&quot;. Instead, he is open to continue his &quot;version&quot; of &quot;political talk&quot; off of our PUBLICLY-FINANCED airwaves. Limbaugh has a loyal following. Denial of that point would be frutal. BUT, he has no right to continue degrading women like Sandra Fluke and others on PUBLICLY-FINANCED airwaves. Rush Limbaugh can continue spouting his version of &quot;Free Speech&quot; on PRIVATELY-FINANCED via internet or podcast programming. He still can air his &quot;program&quot; live, his listeners can hear the program, call in with comments, take part in any LIVE chat or discussions, etc. In fact, Limbaugh has enough personal financing that he can design any type of podcast or internet podcast format he wants. He can start his own network for &quot;freedom loving Patriots&quot; like himself. Either way, Limbaugh and &quot;The Rush Limbaugh Show&quot; has no business being supported by the FCC, Clear Channel Communications or on OUR PUBLICLY-FINANCED airwaves, period. He can have his &quot;Free Speech&quot; all day long on the internet. Internet talk show host Alex Jones is very successful at this and, Jones can say what he likes at his venue. Maybe Rush should give Alex a call? Monica


Mon, Mar 5, 2012 : 5:48 p.m.

Seriously, your argument is like saying that Walmart is supported by the Michigan State Police because their delivery trucks use Michigan highways.


Mon, Mar 5, 2012 : 5:47 p.m.

&quot;Regulating the airwaves&quot; doesn't mean &quot;supporting the content broadcast over them.&quot; That's a deeply confused position. If anything, the presence of the FCC costs Clear Channel money in compliance costs.

Monica R-W

Mon, Mar 5, 2012 : 5:38 p.m.

Craig, Your wrong. Very wrong regardless of who you claim to know in the &quot;radio industry&quot;. The Federal Communication Commission is FINANCED (specifically the commission i operates) via FEDERAL TAX DOLLARS. The FCC has jurisdictional authority over the Public Airwaves. Clear Channel Communications-the network &quot;The Rush Limbaugh Show&quot; is supported on, via the PUBLIC AIRWAVES is regulated by the FCC. With that, which part of Public Financed Airwaves do you not understand or fail to comprehend? Again, for complete clarification, our Federal Tax Dollars support the Federal Communication Commission, which supports all Clear Channel Communications programming, up to and including &quot;The Rush Limbaugh Show&quot;. So, yes....the FCC has authority over which programs can broadcast over FEDERALLY-FUNDED and REGULATED airwaves and which ones cannot. Either way, thank Craig for your comment but you, are wrong. Monica

Craig Lounsbury

Mon, Mar 5, 2012 : 5:32 p.m.

My point above is that if the Coast Guard (FCC) went away the Great Lakes (airwaves) would still be there and the SS Limbaugh could still run horse manure to Cleveland.

Craig Lounsbury

Mon, Mar 5, 2012 : 5:30 p.m.

clarification: I am no fan of Rush Limbaugh at all. ....but.... Our airwaves are not publicly financed. Rush Limbaughs show is not &quot;supported via the Federal Communication Commission by all of our tax dollars paid to the Federal Government.&quot; The FCC are merely the airwave police. Think of the airwaves as the Great Lakes, the FCC as the Coast Guard and Rush Limbaugh as an old freighter filled with horse manure bound for Cleveland . I will add that I know several people in the radio industry. These folks run the political gamut but there is one thing they all agree upon...the FCC is an incompetent organization and their collective lives would be easier if they just approved licenses.


Mon, Mar 5, 2012 : 4:59 p.m.

oh yes, we must silence everything we do not agree with!, we must &quot;target&quot; their sponsors! that being said I will be sure to send an email off to all his sponsers telling them that I would not support them removing thier ads from Rushes show. He has a right to be on the air and make a living and you have the right to not listen to him, but you don't have the right to impede others from doing so.


Mon, Mar 5, 2012 : 4:37 p.m.

You forgot to mention Rush issued a formal apology (below). Unlike Rush, I am sure you've *never* said something in the heat of the moment you wish you could take back. &quot;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.&quot;


Mon, Mar 5, 2012 : 7:56 p.m.

You must be so proud to be a regular listener of Limbaugh's show. Wow!


Mon, Mar 5, 2012 : 7:10 p.m.

hey bunnyabbot, there are no scientific citations to back up your assumptions that birth control can impact your fertility later in life. Those are urban legends. In fact, taking BC can later reduce your risk of some cancers (link to a news article <a href="," rel='nofollow'>,</a> and link to an actual citation <a href=";jsessionid=WJ5z6IBZAPrqpys6EH54.0)" rel='nofollow'>;jsessionid=WJ5z6IBZAPrqpys6EH54.0)</a>. Please educate yourself before attempting to scare others with ridiculous stories


Mon, Mar 5, 2012 : 6:32 p.m.

some people are showing their age....there are lots of newer generation of pills that are quite safe. In the old days, women were advised to lapse off or discontinue use after a period of time.....did the friends you cite do that? The drug companies would have a good time with you spewing the health links you claim about ocp usage. Your comments are meaningless....I would think this mother and her daughter are &quot;up&quot; on their knowledge more than you citing older women who had problems &quot;supposedly&quot; from 2 decades ago.


Mon, Mar 5, 2012 : 5:38 p.m.

HaeJee, I am sorry to hear your daughter was teased and called names, that is never easy, what I do know though is kids will find any reason to mock others. I hope you looked into homeopathic remedies, or tried them first. &quot;regulating&quot; periods might be convenient or having less cramps but their are dietary ways to lesson cramps as well. I only say this as I have several friends, SEVERAL who all used birthcontrol to regulate their periods and lesson cramps from thier teens to their early thirties. Out of those nine had trouble conceiving children when they were ready to do so to the point of needing to spend tens of thousands of dollars for in-vitro. Two cannot have children at all even though they are &quot;healthy&quot; and two have conceived and had two and four miscarrages. Be wary of your daughters long term reproductive health regarding the ease of popping a pill. The medical profession might say &quot;hey its ok&quot; but plenty of woman regret ever getting on the pill.


Mon, Mar 5, 2012 : 5:25 p.m.

I also want to make a correction to your statement. He did not apologize to Sandra Fluke, but his viewers. There is a BIG difference. He apologized to save himself, not because he was really sorry about offending her. Give me a break.


Mon, Mar 5, 2012 : 5:09 p.m.

I guess you would be okay with our daughter coming home crying after the hockey team called her a slut because she is taking birth control to regulate her periods.

David Briegel

Mon, Mar 5, 2012 : 5:04 p.m.

So, your female health is your &quot;personal sexual recreational activity?&quot; Interesting.


Mon, Mar 5, 2012 : 4:36 p.m.

I think everyone, except Limbaugh, agrees that what he said was foolish. Can we now focus on the real issue? If you want to engage in a voluntary activity, you need to buy your own equipment. It really is that simple.


Mon, Mar 5, 2012 : 6:50 p.m.

what about those of us on the pill for medical purposes other than preventing pregnancy? We pay a lot of money for medication that is necessary for our health


Mon, Mar 5, 2012 : 5:10 p.m.

I do pay for my portion of health insurance. I also don't believe my empolyer has the right to envoke &quot;his&quot; religious beliefs on my paid plan.


Mon, Mar 5, 2012 : 4:34 p.m.

A) People take Rush Limbaugh seriously? B) He's an entertainer first. He ranks right there, but on opposite sides of the political spectrum, with Jon Stewart. He's over-blown and this whole controversy is over-blown.


Tue, Mar 6, 2012 : 1:01 p.m.

I have to agree with Matt. Mr. Limbaugh is an entertainer, hate monger and fear monger. As I've pondered this for the last couple of days, I'm now thinking that President Obama should not have phoned the student. That was probably the sort of reaction that Mr. Limbaugh was looking for. Mr. Limbaugh is a bully who craves attention. Perhaps the only reaction that would have an impact is to boycott the sponsors. I have often &quot;talked tough&quot; about boycotts but never followed through. This time I have followed through. Shame on any advertiser who supports Mr. Limbaugh or his show.

Andy Price

Mon, Mar 5, 2012 : 10:44 p.m.

Just say no to false equivalency.


Mon, Mar 5, 2012 : 4:28 p.m.

I don't listen to Rush, but when the story broke I did listen to the complete segment and read the entire transcript to be more informed. As a female I was not offended by it. He didn't say &quot;Sandra is a slut&quot;. At any rate, today, there are several articles online regarding her, she isn't 23 as misreported by many, but 30, it also looks like she specifically chose to go to Georgetown after the fact of knowing they did not cover contraception for the express purpose of making a stink over it, she wasn't an unwitting student victimized by the schools policy but instead a calculating &quot;law student&quot;.


Mon, Mar 5, 2012 : 5:22 p.m.

oh, HaeJee, I have called a man a man slut before!, I don't use either term anymore, if I am talking about a promiscuous person now I just say loose. It is interesting though, the writer mentions his daughters and how angry he would be if someone said that to them, does he not know how easily young girls throw the term around? He would be more likely appalled by what he heard in the junior high hallways , often spoke by girls when thier parents aren't able to hear them.

David Briegel

Mon, Mar 5, 2012 : 5:17 p.m.

Or she can advocate for change! Geez, like that's a crime?


Mon, Mar 5, 2012 : 5:02 p.m.

I never said she was a horrible person, I said calculating. They have their policy, she can choose to or choose not to go there b/c of it.


Mon, Mar 5, 2012 : 5:01 p.m.

Using the word &quot;slut&quot; on a public forum is wrong. By making excuses of mens bad behavior is also sad. By him using the word, only promotes use of it. When that word is used, it is referencing a female, yet what are men called?

David Briegel

Mon, Mar 5, 2012 : 4:59 p.m.

Golly, she must be a horrible person. All she wished to accomplish was a change in policy.


Mon, Mar 5, 2012 : 4:23 p.m.

Limbaugh laughs all the way to the bank and really does not care about anything other than making another million or three. Sadly people who love to hear him mouth off just what they want to hear and pay his paycheck are plentifull. Guess it is easier than thinking for themselves.


Tue, Mar 6, 2012 : 1:36 p.m.

All NPR has behind them are studies that show they are the most fair and their listeners are the most informed of all news services. And to equate what Rush does with 'News' is asinine.

Usual Suspect

Mon, Mar 5, 2012 : 8:50 p.m.

I know, I wish they were independent thinkers, like NPR's and MSNBC's sheep.


Mon, Mar 5, 2012 : 7 p.m.

Limbaugh fans ARE called 'Ditto-heads.'

David Briegel

Mon, Mar 5, 2012 : 4:57 p.m.

And Rush only offered a half-hearted apology because he was loosing his sponsors. You know, the ones that pay him for his &quot;work&quot;! lol

Ivor Ivorsen

Mon, Mar 5, 2012 : 4:13 p.m.

Lumberg and DexterDriver: Keep up the good work... <a href="" rel='nofollow'></a>

Simon Green

Mon, Mar 5, 2012 : 3:53 p.m.

I seem to have missed the column you must have written when when Ed Schultz called Laura Ingraham a slut on his radio show.


Wed, Mar 7, 2012 : 12:01 p.m.

Ed was suspended for a week and lost no sponsers.


Mon, Mar 5, 2012 : 10:04 p.m.

Well Susie, I see your mainstream liberal media rushed right out and reported the alleged apology.

Usual Suspect

Mon, Mar 5, 2012 : 8:49 p.m.

So, the right to free speech is dependent upon who many people are listening to you?

Susie Q

Mon, Mar 5, 2012 : 7:25 p.m.

Who is Ed Schultz or Laura Ingraham? A difference with Mr Limbaugh is that he is on 600 radio stations everyday with millions, I'm embarrassed to say, of listeners. It is not appropriate for anyone on the radio to use this kind of inflammatory talk and call it political discourse or honest disagreement.

David Briegel

Mon, Mar 5, 2012 : 4:55 p.m.

You probably missed the fact that Ed was suspended and offered a sincere apology.

Marshall Applewhite

Mon, Mar 5, 2012 : 3:48 p.m.

Yawn. In an election year when there are many important issues to discuss, somehow the media is pushing this incredibly small and meaningless one. Good to see people have their priorities in order.


Mon, Mar 5, 2012 : 10:01 p.m.

This is not a meanless issue. Limbaugh spews hate and I am glad the media is reporting this. If it was my daughter - I'd be mad as hell at him...


Mon, Mar 5, 2012 : 6:58 p.m.

Rush Limbaugh IS the media!

Mumbambu, Esq.

Mon, Mar 5, 2012 : 4:20 p.m.

Haha yes. Limbaugh's comments are the fault of the lamestream media! And yes, why the heck should we be talking about health care? Since when has that been a hotly contested issue?


Mon, Mar 5, 2012 : 4:16 p.m.

I didn't know the media put bills before the Congress of the USA. Are you saying it's a lousy priority to listen to Mr Rush's show then?


Mon, Mar 5, 2012 : 3:38 p.m.

It is sad that it has become normal when you disagree with someone, to demonize and personally attack them. The competition between ideas is all but gone, if you disagree there must be something inherently wrong with the other person. Rush Limbaugh, Bill Mahler, Sean Hannity and Al Franken thanks for your contribution to civility.

Morris Thorpe

Mon, Mar 5, 2012 : 4:11 p.m.

+1 In most people's minds there are only two options. Hence, if you're not with us, you must be against us. Hey, for one thing, it's easier than thinking. For another, it's highly profitable.


Mon, Mar 5, 2012 : 3:37 p.m.

Mr. Limbaugh went overboard when he got personal in his comments regarding health insurance providing free birth control to women (and men, I suppose). However, his point seems to have been largely missed in the furor over his depiction of the young lady. Is it outlandish to suggest that people should be responsible for their own decisions regarding their sexual choices? I don't think so. It's not the public's role to provide funding for people's sexual behaviors and their protection from pregnancy and/or disease. If this woman in question wants to engage in pre-marital sexual adventures, it should be her job to take care of her medical or pharmaceutical needs in that department. Insurance companies have enough to handle with the illnesses and health problems people develop. Sexual behavior is a choice people make, and they should take care of their own needs.


Tue, Mar 6, 2012 : 1:35 p.m.

Are you defending him? Sounds like it --- &quot;If this woman in question wants to engage in pre-marital sexual adventures&quot; bla bla bla! Why do you claim she is engaging in sexual adventures? Do you know her? WOW!


Mon, Mar 5, 2012 : 4:58 p.m.

You may want to educate yourself on the issue. &quot;We&quot; would not be paying for anything. This bill, introduced by the GOP would allow a loophole for employers to discriminate based of "their" religious freedom and disregard other religious freedom. It would allow employers to eliminate birth control from their health plan. As a professional woman, mother, and wife…… this is an attack on women's rights. It should NOT be up to employers on what should be covered or not. Considering majority of executives are white males, I don't feel that they would have my best interests in mind. Interesting on birth control is on the chopping block, yet Viagra isn't.


Mon, Mar 5, 2012 : 4:39 p.m.

Yes, insurance companies certainly are busy. With diseases directly related to obesity as a result of choices other people made that I am paying for with higher premiums. Paying for birth control is a drop in the bucket compared to all the diabetes/ heart disease we are paying for that could be resolved with a better diet and a little exercise. These personal choices not any different from sexual behavior bu are arguably more dangerous in the long wrong.


Mon, Mar 5, 2012 : 3:33 p.m.

Limbaugh made the (idiotic) mistake of trying to be funny or outrageous while making a claim. He also did not think that this person is not a public figure and thus, attacks should be tempered. Obama is obviously open for attacks, as was Geore W (who was called so many things one cannot keep track. Alas, this needs clarification. His original comments were: &quot;Well, what would you call someone who wants us to pay for her to have sex? What would you call that woman? You'd call 'em a slut, a prostitute or whatever.&quot; That is not exactly calling someone a slut directly as in &quot;that woman is a slut&quot; or &quot;Sandra Fluke is a slut&quot; semantics, perhaps, but when an editorial is written and that distinction is not made, hyperbole takes over this will be forever known as the time Rush called a college girl a slut when, in fact, that is not what he actually said.


Mon, Mar 5, 2012 : 4:50 p.m.

wow if he said what he was really thinking about HER then he'd for sure be long gone.....he's got plenty of troubles as it is. You let me see how clever he is, not only in making money from his big mouth but knowing how to use words as a craft. Man oh man, you've got the bloke figured out. I never bothered with him because so many others fuss over him.


Mon, Mar 5, 2012 : 4:27 p.m.

Your calling out for discinction here has merit and I understand it. However, Rush did ask specifially for a sex tape of Fluke which does make the statement addressed to her specifically, correct?


Mon, Mar 5, 2012 : 3:20 p.m.

And, Limbaugh's brand of hate speech has effects in the real world: <a href="" rel='nofollow'></a>

Usual Suspect

Mon, Mar 5, 2012 : 10:05 p.m.

Daily Kos... enough said.


Mon, Mar 5, 2012 : 4:23 p.m.

What a heart-wrenching article, and it does show that Limbaugh certainly does not have a monopoly on hatred. Mean girls will always exist, but it seems that the level of their hatred and venomous words have increased exponentially since I was in junior high or high school.