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

[sealwhiskers.livejournal.com]

Do you mean majorities of independents or just majorities of the population? I haven't been watching the polls on the contraception issue, so I'm curious.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Majorities of the population, and the polling has been fairly (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/poll-americans-divided-over-contraception-mandate/) consistent (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/16/cnn-poll-half-oppose-obama-birth-control-insurance-plan/).

[sealwhiskers.livejournal.com]

That's a pretty slim majority, cutting very close to margins of error if they would be on the negative side. Sounds to me like people are solidly split pretty much down the middle. But I hear you, the Republicans would fare well to cater to the republican leaning religious indies, of which an overwhelming majority don't think it's wrong to use contraception per se (according to the poll), and thus Rush's methods of demagogy may not appeal to in the least. The CNN poll outright states that 4 out of ten don't know enough facts on the policy, and those people default and divide down party lines. The first article also claims that the White House will accommodate exempts for certain religious institutions, which is interesting.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

The majority exists for asking it in the context of contraception, which is the interesting part - I can't find the poll, but the gap widens if it's discussed as a religious freedom issue.

[sealwhiskers.livejournal.com]

If that is the case, the White House may be on to something by making the default matter a "yes" on contraception in general, regardless of working place, and then institute exempts on religious basis, but with the added demand to put this in plain and obvious writing to female employees and potential employees, so that they are abundantly aware of what it will mean for them if they take the job. (in many cases quite a significant extra sum of money on a regular long term basis)

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

If they had done that to begin with, we likely wouldn't be having this conversation.

[sealwhiskers.livejournal.com]

Agreed, but a compromise is usually chiseled out from such debate. I think there needs to be a *heavy* demand on those religious workplaces that get exempts to inform women employees in no uncertain terms that they either pay extra or have extra babies or stop having sex if they work there.

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

I'm still at a loss as to why people don't pay for their own contraceptives.
I can understand it as an insurance thing IF it's the pill to regulate for health reasons; however, if it's just to prevent pregnancy (which is implied in your last sentence) and the cost is $3000 for a law school career (2-3 years?) (which she says in part of the testimony I heard) at say, a dollar a condom...
When does one find the time to study?

[chron-job.livejournal.com]

> I'm still at a loss as to why people don't pay for their own contraceptives.

Why don't people pay for their own blood pressure medication? Why do we cover ANY preventative care as part of insurance?

> at say, a dollar a condom...When does one find the time to study?

Yes, Lets purposefully miss the obvious (insurance covered contraception is typically hormonal, not condoms) so that we can make a funny little comment about the promiscuity of the interviewee, in aid of dismissing their point by dismissing them.

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

Definite leap as to what I actually said or even implied.

[chron-job.livejournal.com]

Mine was not. Can you reply to me?

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

Yes let's purposefully pull sentences out of context to be snarky...hey it's your dime.

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

So, what is it, are you talking about me or not? ;)

[sealwhiskers.livejournal.com]

The thing is, Geezer, that there can be several reasons for contraceptives, but if we just pick a long term relationship, even a marriage, where unlimited pregnancies aren't an option, then contraceptives become quite the sum over the years.

I mean, can you not see my perplexity here, at conservatives who are against abortions, who claim that people shouldn't have children if they can't support them (and get welfare) and then are against even having contraceptives easily available in a health insurance deal? Can you not see how these opinions, should they be prevalent in a real situation, could really corner a woman?

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

I acknowledged that.
For contraceptive purposes only, condoms are cheap. (But I understand not liking to use them)

I understand what you are saying, I just don't agree that contraceptives, for the purpose of contraception should be a mandated insurance policy.

An aside, back in the 1970s Planned Parenthood provided contraceptive services for low or no cost. (I think it was PP, it may have been another organization similar....that was a long time ago :D)

[sealwhiskers.livejournal.com]

I just don't agree that contraceptives, for the purpose of contraception should be a mandated insurance policy.

I'm curious as to why?
I mean, the main reason for the vast improvement of women's health is because they don't carry babies all the time, but have some control on when and how they want to have the kids.

[usekh.livejournal.com]

This would be the same planned parenthood that conservatives are fighting tooth and nail to shut down?

[yelena-r0ssini.livejournal.com]

But condoms aren't the point of this post. Condoms are not medication and they are not covered by health insurance. The only person who brought up condoms was you, and you only brought them up because you know enough about birth control to realize that the "women's birth control usage is proportional to the amount of sex they have" thing is categorically untrue with HBC and you wanted to repeat Rush's "she's a whore" "joke".

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

I'm still at a loss as to why people don't pay for their own contraceptives

People suck and are lazy and good for nothing piles of dung. Good enough? Less, more? Either way, doesn't matter, because here's the thing:

Unwanted pregnancies suck. Unwanted children suck. Poor uneducated undersupported children suck and most will be on welfare or in jail and that sucks and costs a fuckload of money.

If I can pay a few cents of taxes up front to avoid those pregnancies, hell, I say we pay people extra just to take birth control and I'll bet you dollars to pennies that we save tons of money in the long run.

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

Thank you, those are all decent reasons, now I have something to consider.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

LOL!