President Obama calls Sandra Fluke

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Earlier this afternoon, Sandra Fluke received a personal phone call from President Obama, two days after she was called a "slut" on Rush Limbaugh's radio show. Ms Fluke attends the prestigious Georgetown University (a Jesuit school) and its president released earlier today a letter of support for Ms. Fluke, strongly critical of Mr. Limbaugh's comments, calling them "vile and misogynistic." Ms. Fluke broke the news about her call from the President during an interview on Andrea Mitchell's show. Fluke was the woman who was to testify before the Republican House Committee hearing but was denied by Darryl Issa, who instead had an all male panel testify on the subject of birth control and freedom of religion. A week later, former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi held a non-binding hearing and asked Ms. Fluke to appear. Rush Limbaugh went on the offensive on his radio show and "...demanded that Fluke release tapes of her having sex in exchange for the contraception that she argued should be covered by employers." Fluke said the President's phone call was completely unexpected and added "What was really personal for me was that he said to tell my parents that they should be proud. And that meant a lot because Rush Limbaugh questioned whether or not my family would be proud of me. So I just appreciated that very much."

Joe Scarborough, a former conservative Republican member of the United States House of Representatives stated in an interview, he's had several conversations with what he described as "fire breathing conservatives" going into panic mode over the recent news cycles painting Republicans as opposed to women's rights and birth control when instead they are allowing President Obama off the hook, and thinks the election will be lost because of the focus on issues that don't matter, and were settled years ago.

It seems that the some in the Republican party are so intent on pushing it more to the right, at the expense of moderate and women voters, the chances of winning the Senate back (Olympia Snowe's retirement all but guarantees that her seat will go to a Democrat), or winning the White House are going to be severely crippled (this has happened already in a key state, Virginia, which has seen a significant movement by independent and women voters from Romney to President Obama because of the forced ultrasound amendment for abortions). While Rush Limbaugh doesn't speak for all conservatives obviously, he is the face for one of the largest audiences in talk radio, and the massive condemnation, he's now receiving should wake him up, or at least give him pause for making such reckless statements

Comments

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

There's really no elephant in the room here. The left is desperate to make this about women. The media is complicit in allowing it to happen. Then those sides act all outraged when some idiot takes the bait while smiling that the real issue is being ignored.

Never mind that the President has effectively said "yeah, so this is a matter of eternal salvation for you? Too damn bad." We need to make sure we paint the right as anti-women!!!11 Nakedly cynical ploy.

[chron-job.livejournal.com]

> The left is desperate to make this about women.

It's about birth control. It was always about women.

> The media is complicit in allowing it to happen.

The media has gotten rather good at stating the obvious.

> Never mind that the President has effectively said "yeah, so this is a matter of eternal salvation for you? Too damn bad."

Indeed. Too damn bad. Religions can make whatever arbitrary demands they want to about what is required to obtain salvation. In this case, their immortal souls appear to be at risk not because they USE birth control, but because they allow their organization to be a member of an insurance pool, which, among other things, pays for birth control to those who would use it. Salvation is so tenuous, is it not?

Tomorrow I can claim that paying taxes is against my religion. I'm free to so claim, but if I actually stop paying my taxes, and the IRS audits me... guess what? It's too.... damn.... bad.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

It's about birth control. It was always about women.

It's not about birth control, it's about religious freedom.

The media has gotten rather good at stating the obvious.

If only!

Tomorrow I can claim that paying taxes is against my religion. I'm free to so claim, but if I actually stop paying my taxes, and the IRS audits me... guess what? It's too.... damn.... bad.

If and when your established religion does that, get back to me.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Was the Islamic Community Center in Manhattan a government mandate?

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

It was there before the Twin Towers was, while the place to be altered was a Burlington Coat Factory. But good to know you only value religious freedom for some, and not for others. It's OK for Christians but is a menace when allowed for Muslims.

[chron-job.livejournal.com]

> It's not about birth control, it's about religious freedom.

It's a weather balloon, attempting to dismiss contraception as a health issue via religious objection, as a prelude to hamstringing ALL mandated health care via similar religious objections. That's what the Blunt amendment was about. That's the direction it was going.

Some people, alas, forgot to read the playbook, and thought it was just about dismissing contraception. They let the cat out of the bag by aiming their lasers a bit too specifically at contraception. Limbaugh is one, and Foster "Asprin between their legs" Friess is another.


> If and when your established religion does that, get back to me.

Side step it if you will, yet the point remains. Any religion can invent any arbitrary demand as a prerequisite for salvation. There must be some mechanism for judging which religious demands are free to leave to conscience, and which ones impinge on secular law. Thuggee's cannot murder for Kali, Christian Scientists cannot allow their children to die from Medical Neglect, and Catholic organizations have to pay for employee insurance that follows the same rules as everyone else.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

It's a weather balloon, attempting to dismiss contraception as a health issue via religious objection, as a prelude to hamstringing ALL mandated health care via similar religious objections. That's what the Blunt amendment was about. That's the direction it was going.

Which is absolutely appropriate.

Some people, alas, forgot to read the playbook, and thought it was just about dismissing contraception. They let the cat out of the bag by aiming their lasers a bit too specifically at contraception. Limbaugh is one, and Foster "Asprin between their legs" Friess is another.

The lasers were pointed at contraception because a) that was the mandate put in place and b) because they're significant religious and moral opposition to it.

[chron-job.livejournal.com]

> Which is absolutely appropriate.

Just come out and say that government has no role to play in providing health insurance.

Using religion as a handy acid in an attempt to chip away at Government health care was a mistake.

> a) that was the mandate put in place

As it should have been, to maintain consistency

> b) because they're significant religious and moral opposition to it.

Which has little to do with the role of government, and everything to do with religiously connected opinions on sexual behavior. This is why its blowing up in the GOP's face. You tried to cut down a tree with an axe that is bladed at both ends.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Just come out and say that government has no role to play in providing health insurance.

It absolutely doesn't. If it's going to anyway, however, religious exemptions are absolutely appropriate.

This is why its blowing up in the GOP's face. You tried to cut down a tree with an axe that is bladed at both ends.

I'm not seeing it blowing up in anyone's face.

[chron-job.livejournal.com]

> I'm not seeing it blowing up in anyone's face.

See how you feel in November.

[awdrey-gore.livejournal.com]

Religious people do not have to use birth control but when they stand int he way of others using birth control, however they stand in the way, it is a limitation on freedom. Supporting any religious group's need to limit birth control that they can choose to avoid on a personal level is supporting a net loss of personal freedom and should be antithetical to your Libertarian beliefs. Why is it the loss of freedom only matters when it applies to conservatives, Jeff, because this is a common theme one sees over and over in your arguments. Liberal interference in the lives of others on the basis of their ideology (taxes for social welfare programs, limitation on hate speech) are horrible to you yet conservative interference in the lives of others based on their ideology (demanding limiting abortion laws, religious groups determining who gets access to birth control) seems just fine because you jigger the idea that limiting religious expression is a worse limitation than permitting religion to dictate the behaviors of non-believers or even believers who deviate from that specific idea.

I think I could have more respect for you as a Libertarian if you were at least consistent in the idea that any sort of external limitation on individual freedoms is anathema regardless of the political flavor behind it.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Religious people do not have to use birth control but when they stand int he way of others using birth control, however they stand in the way, it is a limitation on freedom.

And if the exemption did that, I would likely end up on your side. Not having someone else pay for your contraception does not stand in the way of you getting or using birth control.

Jeff, because this is a common theme one sees over and over in your arguments. Liberal interference in the lives of others on the basis of their ideology (taxes for social welfare programs, limitation on hate speech) are horrible to you yet conservative interference in the lives of others based on their ideology (demanding limiting abortion laws, religious groups determining who gets access to birth control) seems just fine because you jigger the idea that limiting religious expression is a worse limitation than permitting religion to dictate the behaviors of non-believers or even believers who deviate from that specific idea.

If you think I'm in favor of religious arguments being used to actively create legislation to ban certain practices, you've completely misread me. The government should be neutral on religion, period - this means not putting in mandates that would impact them negatively as well as not bowing to their pressure to create laws that would impact the secular world negatively.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Yes, the left is desperate to make matter of pregnancy, that is to say women's health, about women. I seem to have missed when M-Preg went from twisted fanfic concept to real life. Was that when pigs flew and fish rode bicycles?