Ah, good response!

My initial thought was: gee, Santorum and Romney trying to define one another again. Who'd a thunk it? You know, that really is all that's here. Just a desperate battle to get others to view their opponents in the worst possible light. And in that battle, Santorum through no fault of his own, is fighting the losing fight. You can't define Romney - even Romney doesn't know what Romney is.

Ah Romney, as indefinable as a wispy cloud of misty fog on an autumn morning. You're right Paul, Santorum is fighting a losing battle. No one can define Romney, yet Santorum is practically a stereotype.

Excellent viewpoint Forrest!

Santorum will learn, you will not beat Mitts by trying to define him to have attack points. he's too slippery and slimey for that.

The Grinch knows how to beat him but doesn't have the bucks.

Dr Paul can beat him and knows how to do it even better that the Grinch, but has a bigger issue, the medias unwillingness to play....

Going to be interesting come June or so.... The Grinch will probably be gone by then, who knows Adelson just might keep throwing money at him just to keep him in the race.

Santorum has sufficient money support now that he's in until the end, the Neo-cons efforts to marginalize Dr Paul has come back to bite them...

The way you beat Mitts, take him out of his comfort zone, make him argue positions that are anathema to his true position.... Show him as the anti freedom Media favorite candidate. The Grinch can fake that message everyday of the week and it's a natural message for Dr Paul....

Yeah and they are going to scratch each other up, and pull each others hair too!

Does anyone out there know how to find a list of Limbaugh's Sponsors? I'd like to contact each one of them and let them know I will never use their product again until they stop sponsoring Limbaugh.

What a horrible dispicable man this is. And the Republicans worship at his altar. Go figure.

Obama in 2012.

@ California Tom

Try going to www.boycottrush.org.

There, you will find a list that they believe are his advertisers. You can also sign the petition. Limbaugh has really gone too far!

Tom it would be more beneficial if you found out what station clear channel is on your local radio and boycott the local sponsors. Clear channel does't care about their national sponsors, they'll just ignore the boycott nation wide, but your local clear channel station can't ignore their advertisers that's how they stay on the air.

Good idea, Mo----Clear Channel has two stations here in Pittsburgh that we listen to and I have contact them to let them know that we will boycott them and their local advertisers.

Wonderful, Pat. I don't get it either. What has happened to the Republican Party? And why do they hate women?

In Pat's article it said: And now it is the women of our country who are at the front lines again and they will not be silenced. And as we can see, they have the support of Democratic men, who are standing with them; men who went out and fought for women's rights many years ago.

This in my opinion is a crock. There's nobody that want's to silence women. This political garbage is only limited to pitting democrats against republicans. The rhetoric is emanating from the democrat side only. They are grabbing any sound bite they can, twisting it around to make it sound like republicans are against women and particularly their alleged rights. Rights that are indicative of all human beings.

Women have no more rights than men do and this is the way it should be. Republican men are being indited by the democrats as being intrusive, demanding and desirous of interfering with life's processes. Nothing could be further from the truth. It's life's processes that are at the forefront. Democrats want the power to interfere in those natural occurances by allowing them to be cut short. Who ever gave the democrats that right? It's not a human right. It's a chosen and heralded right they have procured upon themselves by popular demand.

Our nation and its leaders made mistake after mistake after mistake, century after century after century because of lack of bold leadership and bigotry and just plain hate toward other at critical moments.

No kidding... this is why we have a government... to ensure that mistakes are eliminated. I notice the author doesn't even come close to mentioning all the good this society has done to enhance human dignity, promote the values of freedom... BAH! What liberal in their right mind would EVER do that? Definitely not the author of this piece of garbage

Excellent post, Pat. The Republican party that I see today is not the Republican party I used to belong to. I was not on the front lines of the women's rights battles but early in my career I experienced professional challenges related to my gender. Some women and men younger than many of us were perhaps not aware of these issues and have now learned that rights can be challenged and taken away if we are not vigilant in protecting them. A sad but necessary lessen from this situation.

newdayDAWNING, it's called power and keeping people in their place. Just like the good old days.

Steeler Fan: The men's voices in the Democratic Party these past few weeks has been critical. They didn't disappoint. I remember how they fought just as hard as women back then for both women and minority rights. They are not going to sit still now. Limbaugh and Santorum are from a past century.

And as John Lennon would say, Romney is nowhere man.

Mornin' all.

Dirty words to the TeaPeople: Compromise, Apology, Moderate, womens' rights. Sad but true, the Party formerly known as the GOP have lost all their credibility.

Thoughts and prayers to all the folks in the path of those destructive storms.

Another comment from Pat's article: I never understood how one human being could hold another human being in slavery, especially our founding fathers. I never understood how one human being could stop another human being from living as purposeful a life as possible. And I never understood how men could make themselves feel that they could dictate a woman's personal life. But this they do. All in the name of God.

The author has no concept of the way life has been in other parts of this world and conditions that existed in another time. The use of slavery to enhance the alleged interference the democrats blame the republicans for is nothing but a cheap shot... in fact it is below the belt. Basically it's a lie. The bloated and overstated point this author is making fails all tests. Are republicans suggesting slavery of women? Are republicans demanding anything of women that is unusual? No whips, no chains, no beatings... but this author chose to use slavery as his example.

Now step in the liberals... All nodding their heads in approval of all the lies and falsehoods this article holds. Why? Because it's from ThinkProgress... the bastion of liberal falsehood.

Pat, fabulous as usual, thank you.

In John Kennedy's 1960 speech when he said, “I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute." he was not arguing against faith.

But when Santorum says, “I don’t believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute,” he IS arguing against people of non-faith and in his case, religious pluralism.

Pat--how about Romney's comment "I wouldn't have used those words"---so you agree with the sentiment, Governor Romney?

And here's what I'm not understanding---how do the Republicans, lead by Rush Limbaugh, take a woman's comment about issues relating to the medical use of contraceptives paid for by an employer-provided health care plan and turn it into "she wants the government to pay for her sex life"? And even if they turned it into we want the employers to pay for our sex life, what about plans covering Viagra?

I have questions for the liberals... don't you EVER think beyond the fray? Do you ever put an article like this to the smell test? Do you simply march along like ants on a scent line? One following after the other without any thought... just absorbing anything in that matches your ideological strain, because you have been programmed to believe everything another liberals says?

As humans, we need to step out of this process to examine the landscape and see if anything might be wrong with what we absorb? You can absorb poison for a while before it kills you.

Head P,

[Romney sees the Fluke brouhaha for what it is. A poor attempt at deflecting from a failed president and his inept administration who truly does not have any answers.]

Then why did the figure head of the Republican Party fan the flames?

This will be remembered as the week that the Republicans lost the November elections.

Dear Mr. Head, I am sorry you hate women.

Had you listened to Miss Flukes testimony instead of Limpsomething, you would know just what an uninformed hateful statement you just made. Parroting a pack of lies just makes you look stupid.

Boy are you uniformed, women and men are angry at both Rick and Rush and the entire republican party that thinks it is just fine to trample on women's rights in the name of religious freedom.

Miss Fluke has nothing to be ashamed of, but you on the other hand do.

Steeler Fan said: And here's what I'm not understanding---how do the Republicans, lead by Rush Limbaugh, take a woman's comment about issues relating to the medical use of contraceptives paid for by an employer-provided health care plan and turn it into "she wants the government to pay for her sex life"? And even if they turned it into we want the employers to pay for our sex life, what about plans covering Viagra?

Other than the occasional and uncommon use of birth control to aid in ovarian cancer... a rarely used practice, what other uses of birth control in that quantity are there? The point Rush was making was to exemplify the entitlement class of people who will go to the government for anything including birth control. In other words having the government pay for you to have unfettered sex. The woman was unmarried, wanting the government or her employer to pay for her birth control pills and given those conditions, he was demonstrating that people have become of the mindset that government should take care of all a person's desires.

I realize that this is a singular event... one that the liberals want to make hay over, but what the liberals are missing is the overall concept. They don't see the big picture result of this incident. Multiply this by 1 million... 30 million... and this is EXACTLY why this country is in the financial shape we are in. This is why our freedom is being threatened... but of course Rush's point sails right over your heads and you focus in on one word... slut... the same name Ed Shultz called Laura Ingram... for no acceptable reason.

What about plans covering Viagra? Men aren't demanding that insurance covers that cost. It's women making a big deal over their alleged rights... one thing about Viagra though... if you are married to a man that needs it... and doesn't get it... where do you stand? Implements?

Good Saturday Morning Everyone!

And now it is the women of our country who are at the front lines again and they will not be silenced.

NO we won't!

In honor of those who already fought the war 40 years ago, WE are not about to surrender this time around!

Sandra Fluke is the Rosa Parks of 2012!!

Steeler Fan: Rush is an entertainer. Unfortunately for us the Republican politicians feel a need to hand him power becauswe of his audience, whose votes they need. It's pretty pathetic. The GOP have literally handed their power over to the Koch Bros., Grover Norquist and Rush Limbaugh.

Literally.

Pat ... exactly right about the handing over of power to Koch, Rush, and Norquist. And when you look at the Oath of Office for the President and Congress, I don't think you'll find anything mentioning their signing "pledges" either.

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Constitution, Article VI clause 3
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God

Dennis,

Good morning, hope you have a good week end. Remember when President Obama first brought the subject of contraceptives a couple of weeks or so ago. I told you then that I felt it was a political move at the time, a little early IMO, to deflect from the rising gas prices, unemployment, jobs and the economy over all. President Obama's campaign is still trying to get his base back and this is just one way.

The MSM and most talk shows and even people posting on political blogs have greatly escalated the discussion from the original announcement. Senator Blount didn't help with his amendment the other day. If I remember the whole subject only pertained to the right of religious organizations not wanting to pay for contraceptives for their employees. The subject was never about taking away the right to contraceptives for women, only about religious organizations not wanting to pay for it.

The President changed his position and stated if religious organizations objected to paying for the contraceptives then the insurance would have to provide them for free. BTW, the Catholic Church has said that if the contraceptive is a medical necessity to treat a disease or medical problem, they approve of it's use. They have only balked as providing contraceptives used strictly for birth control.

Those who say this is strictly about womens rights are wrong, I believe it is about the rights of religious organizations (mostly the Catholic Church) to opt out of providing or paying for the contraceptive.

IMO, the democrats, especially the left, have really made this a political football for one purpose and that was for campaigning only, and the right fell for it again. We Republicans need to get off of the social issues and get back on "IT'S THE ECONOMY STUPID!!"

Sarge,

I may be too trusting, too naive but when things are said by any President I mostly believe that the intention was to inform not to distract. You might be correct but I doubt that the Administration thought that it would turn into such a hot topic.

Is this about Religious freedom or about women’s rights? IMO it is about both.

My question would be between women’s rights and Religious rights which has priority according to the Constitution?

Like most brain dead republicans you want to pretend this is about religious rights when it is actually about making women into second class citizens. They use religion in Iran to keep women as second class citizens with no rights of her own too.

I didn't hear Limpy talking about freedom of religion, he was all about degrading women in any way he could. Limpy is so dumb he thinks that birth control pills are like his Viagra pills he takes. That you have to have one for every time you have relations. No surprise that he is the brains behind the republican party.

As far as the economy, the republicans have it all figured out, they are just going to take us back to the glorious days of the Bush's economic success. The front runner Romney has hired back bush's old economic team to achieve their goals.

The republicans who have pledged to never raise taxes are more that willing to raise taxes on the poor to pay for more tax cuts for Romney. Yep they want to take us back to the brink of disaster as if everything was good before President Obama was elected.

Want to keep freedom and your rights in America vote Obama/Biden 2012

Brianb-999431 Other than the occasional and uncommon use of birth control to aid in ovarian cancer... a rarely used practice, what other uses of birth control in that quantity are there? The point Rush was making was to exemplify the entitlement class of people who will go to the government for anything including birth control. In other words having the government pay for you to have unfettered sex. The woman was unmarried, wanting the government or her employer to pay for her birth control pills and given those conditions, he was demonstrating that people have become of the mindset that government should take care of all a person's desires.

I realize that this is a singular event... one that the liberals want to make hay over, but what the liberals are missing is the overall concept. They don't see the big picture result of this incident. Multiply this by 1 million... 30 million... and this is EXACTLY why this country is in the financial shape we are in. This is why our freedom is being threatened... ... one thing about Viagra though... if you are married to a man that needs it... and doesn't get it... where do you stand? Implements?

A contribution Santorum has made to the national discourse is to reveal to young American women what it was like for women in the misogynist days before the woman's rights movement, and to motivate them to stand strong for women's rights, demanding that women be treated with dignity.

I'm not a doctor, and have not researched the medical applications of "the pill"; however, in my case it was a choice of "the pill" to regulate menses, or taking codeine monthly for excruciating pain. And, of course, I paid for the pill out of my own pocket, this being long ago, in a much less enlightened time.

Brianb must surely realize, though, that many women because of health reasons cannot risk pregnancy. A high-school friend of mine died of Hodgkin's Disease which flaired out of control as a result of the hormonal changes which occured during pregnancy. And, of course, what about simple issues of family planning? One would think those who oppose abortion would welcome modern anti-contraceptives!

Regarding viagra, it seems to me that women fought for years to get birth-control aids covered by their insurance companies, and the battle was only won when viagra came on the scene: men demanded this, and got it right away! And as for Brian's implication that viagra is somehow necessary for women married to impotent men to themselves reach sexual satisfaction: let me tell you something, Brian, you don't know much about women and their sexual gratification.

sfcret,

You nailed it, unfortunately you are talking to a bunch that, what was the word Feisty use a while back, pride themselves on being "FEM-Nazis" (it was actually Rush that coined that term way back in the '80's)

They do not listen to reason, they tie the contraception issue to the abortion issue as one in the same when it isn't. A much more reasoned approach would be Dr Paul's, but he is a republican so he is automatically on the side of keeping women barefoot and pregnant.

They just do not want to recognize and understand how they are being used....

Why is it: Like most brain dead republicans you want to pretend this is about religious rights when it is actually about making women into second class citizens.

What does contraceptives being paid for by religious organizations have anything to do with making women second class citizens? In fact what does contraceptives have anything to do with making women second class citizens? There is absolutely no logic in that premise.

I didn't hear Limpy talking about freedom of religion, he was all about degrading women in any way he could.

Then you didn't hear him at all. He wasn't referring his argument to women at all, he was referring his argument to this woman wanting the insurance companies or the government paying for contraceptives. What does that have to do with women's rights? Women have the right to get their own contraceptives, pay for them and use them until the cows come home. How is having someone else paying for a pill now a woman's right? Talk about spinning an issue around so there is no sense in it at all.

The republicans who have pledged to never raise taxes... FALSE!

The republicans have pledged to not raise taxes until the government decreases spending. Another spin by an uninformed liberal.

Dennis,

......I doubt that the Administration thought that it would turn into such a hot topic.

Coming immediately on the heels and before the end of the Komen Foundation political bruhaha ?

They were adding fuel to the fire, this rule was formulated over two years ago, they were looking for a way to slip it by without raising anyone's hackles. They changed their opinions when they saw the outpouring of outrage at Komen and decided to announce it right then and there, thereby making it a much larger issue to get what they consider one of their core constituencies out in force and away from thinking about the economy and the presidents failures....

And at the same time become rabid attack dogs against the republicans, the republicans for the most part have fallen right into the trap set, the only one that hasn't? Dr Paul. When the President backed off (lost the argument) the issue died, Obama the campaigner expected the Neo-Con Republicans to jump all over it, they did, to the detriment of us all.

Dennis,

I believe it is more about the political message, remember it was the HHS Secretary that actually made the decision. President Obama changed the original decision to exempt religious organizations that objected to paying for contraceptives and put the requirement on the insurance companies. The courts will have to sort out if this is in violation of the constitution. I believe there have already been several law suits filed in federal courts.

Off topic, what's your take on the House passing passes a bill to over turn the Supreme Court's decision on eminent domain? Hopefully the Senate will also pass it.

annika said: Regarding viagra, it seems to me that women fought for years to get birth-control aids covered by their insurance companies, and the battle was only won when viagra came on the scene: men demanded this, and got it right away! And as for Brian's implication that viagra is somehow necessary for women married to impotent men to themselves reach sexual satisfaction: let me tell you something, Brian, you don't know much about women and their sexual gratification.

This is your assumption that I don't know about women. I know they lie when they say size doesn't matter, because it definitely does. So do many other factors... We can argue about what I know all day long, but this isn't a sexual forum.

Brianb must surely realize, though, that many women because of health reasons cannot risk pregnancy.

Of course I know this. So tell me why an unmarried woman would want to use contraceptives unless she was sexually active... There used to be a time when having sex before marriage was really frowned upon by our society... I guess those days are over, eh? Free love and sex for all came out of the liberal revolution in the 60's. Now morals and purity are things of the past.. never to be looked upon with a sense of pride ever again in this country. Thank you liberals for changing the moral outcome of this nation. Now it's frowned upon to say someone should keep to a moral value system. All courtesy of liberal thinking. Abstinence - Why, it never works... women get pregnant from abstinence every day of the week!!!

Dennis said: My question would be between women’s rights and Religious rights which has priority according to the Constitution?

Interesting question Dennis. IMHO, neither. Women have no more rights than men do. Rights are established in the Constitution as the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I realize the bill of rights establishes other rights but in the basic rights, like due process of law, etc, they are equal among women and men.

According to the Constitution, government cannot establish a religion nor deny the free exercise thereof. So when you compile both women's rights versus religious rights, each are equal under the Constitution. Well, that's my opinion anyway.

Sarge,

I don't know what was in the bill - yet - the wording is important. I believe there is a place for eminent domain but I believe it has been used for improper purposes far too often, some times for personal gain.

But eminent domain must be available for National Security. Where do you draw the line? Is building a new electric power transmission line or an oil pipeline across a state or several states a National Security issue? I could argue that it is.

I trust the Senate more than the House to make the better decision for our Nation on these types of issues.

Brian,

I agree both are equal – and you knew when I said women's rights I meant Human rights. So this may become another issue for SCOTUS.

Romney walks away. Figures. That guy has no business being president. He clearly doesn't want to represent women. (Santorum either.)

Great thoughts Pat.

As of 2007 the costs to the U.S. associated with childhood poverty total about $500 billion per year, or the equivalent of nearly 4 percent of GDP.

Is that a reason that contraceptives should not be free? Leaving aside all the other future issues and costs.

Brianb must surely realize, though, that many women because of health reasons cannot risk pregnancy.

Of course I know this. So tell me why an unmarried woman would want to use contraceptives unless she was sexually active...

Let me tell you the story of why I was put on birth control pills and it wasn't because I was sexually active. It was due to trying to control my massive monthly bleeding and my incredible pain.

Your post is proof why men should not be making laws about women's health as they don't seem to even have the most basic understanding.

AF said: Your post is proof why men should not be making laws about women's health as they don't seem to even have the most basic understanding.

LOL... I never said I had a basic understanding of what it's like to be a woman... How could I? If you look back, I did say that birth control pills are used for other functions besides birth control, but the occurances are not as frequent as the normal intention of the pill. Generalities are made, so I wonder if in the Rush incident... did Fluke tell him the pills were used for medical reasons? I didn't listen to the segment, so I wouldn't know. If she didn't explain this to him, how could he assume anything different that what the outcome of the conversation was. Rush probably would have supported her if the reasons for the pill were spelled out... For medical reasons, the pill needs to be paid for... and I also believe the Catholic Church supports it too.

In my opinion insurance should pay for the pill no matter what the reasons are... It's an accepted drug, women need them for various reasons... even if they are active sexually... that's none of my business, nor should it be anyone's business.

What I object to is having the government demand that religious organizations be forced to do something that is against their religion... especially when there are alternative means for obtaining that what the government forces... Nothing to do with women's rights at all.

Brian,

Isn’t the measure to determine if an organization can be defined as religious already defined by the EOE law? Or do you believe that the Equal Opportunity law should be revoked?

Dennis -

This is requiring some thought on my part... It's not an easy question... I appreciate the challenge. Not all employers are EOE.... only those receiving federal money in one fashion or another. I know that a lot of places do get fed money...

I'm very familiar with contracting firms... and most are EOE. When I had my small construction company in Lousiana, I didn't have to bear EOE because I wasn't involved in federally funded projects until I bid on a state funded job, they required I become EOE because the state money was federally backed.... I felt the government had it's tentacles everywhere at that point.

If you are asking me if I think EOE should be revoked, that's a yes and no answer... I'm going to weigh it out as I type this. EOE is a little outdated because the country we live in has grown up since EOE was established. June of 1941 was the actual birth of EOE even though it wasn't called EOE back then.. it was a discrimination executive order signed by Roosevelt. Through the years up until 1965 when the law was enacted there was plenty of discrimination... today, through the curtain of that law, I believe a lot of people would honor EOE because of conditioning... more than being forced into it.

As an employer I would never discriminate against anyone... unless they didn't know how to do their job... then I'd dump them... no matter what race, religion, creed, color of hair, amount of teeth, and political ideology they may have. I can't say that about everyone though.. some would definitely take advantage of only hiring one shade of skin, one color of hair, one religious group... so in essence the law should probably stick around for a bit longer... we haven't been fully trained yet. To me it's an invisible law... one hiding in the background, just keeping fairness in the work place.

As far as EOE goes, there is to be no religious discrimination but I don't think it applies to organizations that are established religious organizations. They are free to live within their religious boundaries as long as they aren't performing human sacrifice, or skin flaying... (being light here).

Again, I am not an attorney... but I sure have read a lot of those EOE posters in my lifetime.

Brian,

I believe that all universities and hospitals receive Federal and or State grants and loans in one form or another. The reception of those funds requires them to be considered the same as any other business that gets Federal/State funding and must comply with the EOE requirements.

This was the reason that the initial announcement did not exempt religious affiliated hospitals and universities.

What most are objecting to with the compromise plan is that the contraceptives are free implying that everyone else pays for them. That will be tested in the courts.

However for insurance companies it is not an extra cost. Plans that do not include contraceptives actually cost more. The insurance companies understand that providing contraceptives is much cheaper than maternity, birth and baby/child health/well care. There are other problems that occur when people do not have access to contraceptives that is an incremental cost for insurance companies.

All in all I believe that the compromise is cost effective.

P.S. Firing someone for documented incompetence is never discrimination.

Brian

Responding to your post 5.25

There used to be a time when having sex before marriage was really frowned upon by our society... I guess those days are over, eh? Free love and sex for all came out of the liberal revolution in the 60's. Now morals and purity are things of the past.. never to be looked upon with a sense of pride ever again in this country. Thank you liberals for changing the moral outcome of this nation.

You seem to have just discovered that sexual intercourse outside of traditional heterosexual marriage has become common in our culture which you attribute to the Liberal Agenda.

The significant underlying trend driving this cultural shift is post High School education for women. Progression to graduate education and professional schools, like Ms. Fluke, delays marriage and family formation far beyond what was common in the 60s. Church (and Pastor Rush) teachings that they must remain celibate until married is not compelling to many of them.

Women are more independent and don't feel pressured to chose the first potential mate encountered.

Both Liberal, Conservative and Don't Give a Damn women value higher education. Attributing your perception of changed moral values to a Liberal Agenda is absurd.

Brian

Your post 5.2

Democrats want the power to interfere in those natural occurances by allowing them to be cut short.

Do many Democrats accept the Roe vs Wade decision? You betcha, as do many Republicans, Libertarian, Independents and non-political Americans.

The reality is that the Evangelical Conservatives and some Catholics have a deeply rooted belief that abortion is akin to murder and is immoral. They (assuming that includes you) have every right to maintain and proselytize their (your) beliefs. Folks that don't agree with you have the same rights. That does not make them Democrats, Liberals, murderers or baby killers.

Democrats are not grasping for the right to interfere in any natural occurrence. Roe vs. Wade settled that argument decades ago.

Candice, the difference is that the woman who testified did not call anyone names and did not engage in personal attacks on anyone. She mentioned a medical use for contraceptives that is more common than a lot of people think. Rush decided to go on a personal attack. Personally, it does not matter to me whether or not a woman I have relations with uses the pill or not; I wrap little Chucky up in his own tight fitting bio-hazard suit simply out of self-preservation. But it seems to me that paying for a woman's contraceptives is a heckuvalot cheaper than paying for the same woman to give birth.

The thing is Candice is that Limpy was not expressing his opinion, he was telling an out and out lie to punish and shame Miss Fluke for having the nerve to stand up and speak for herself and other women.

From the silence on the republican side they seem to think this is a fine way to treat women.

This is all about making women into second class citizens without any rights of her own even to her own body with republicans in congress thinking they have the right to stand between a woman and her doctor to push their religious beliefs.

I agree that I think this is a Rosa Parks moment and the republicans don't have a clue as to the sh!tstorm they just stepped in.

Chucky,

The solution, I think, would be to require insurance companies to pay for "the pill" when it's described for medical purposes - like the ones Ms. Fluke described. I think most people would be hard pressed to have a problem with that.

To pay for contraceptives - for the purpose of contraception - is offensive to a good number of people. Some may not agree, but others do.

I'm actually becoming a little offended by this issue in a different way. Women should be concerned about their rights pertaining to equal opportunity, equal pay, stature and respect. Now, women are being cast as if our priority in life is to have inconsequential sex, whenever and with whom ever we want, without the risk of the inconvenience and forsaken burden of motherhood.

Regarding costs - Birth control costs over $750 a year. Giving birth and raising a child costs hundreds of thousands more. Tight fitting bio-hazard suits cost, what? $3.00 ?

What a simple solution!

Candice, the mistake you make is in your characterization of Rush's position within the conservative hierarchy. He has become whether you or any other Republican likes it or not the titular voice of the American Conservative movement. Romney and Santorums weak, almost non existent denouncement of his slander, his verbal rape of this woman is proof positive of this. They are petrified of offending El Rushbo so in their mealy mouthed way they try to distance themselves from this embarrassment without truly denouncing it for the abomination that it is. Unless someone of considerable weight in the Republican establishment stands up to this blowhard he will continue to speak for all of you, whether you like it or not.

Rush Limbaugh is not the leader of the Republican Party.

Which begs the question, if Rush isn't, then where are the LEADERS of the Republican party?

Where is their condemnation of his vicious attacks?

Why all the *crickets*?

They wouldn't be afraid of the Grand Poobah now would they?

Americans First,

This is all about making women into second class citizens without any rights

Repealing the 19th Amendment, the Lilly Ledbetter law, losing protection for equal pay, and equal opportunity for women would be losing rights. Being removed from the workplace and being placed back in the home as June Cleaver clones would be losing rights. Rescinding programs to promote women owned or minority owned businesses would be losing rights. Not having the right to choose would be losing rights. Outlawing the accessibility of contraception would be over reach.

Not agreeing with paying for someone else's birth control is not trampling on rights!

Candice,

Not agreeing with paying for someone else's birth control is not trampling on rights!

I agree with you 100%

Also I wonder how those on the other side of the issue like being used by the political establishment for their purposes? From the level of discourse, I think they like it a lot!

Oats,

I disagree. The mistake you make is in your characterization of Rush's position among conservatives. I don't generally listen to his program, but on the rare occasion I happen to be in the car midday, most of the time I'm rolling my eyes at his comments. I think his extreme points of view make the Republican party look bad, especially given the fact that you all take him more seriously than a lot of us who are conservative but more moderately so. The people that call in to swoon and agree with him are a little scary to me as well.

Don't lump us all in the same boat, Oats.

Should Romney have commented? Yeah, probably. What would he say, though? Rush is an idiot? That would be slamming a citizen like Rush slammed Ms. Fluke. Does he say he agrees with Rush? I hope not. Does he mention free speech? You'd perceive that an agreement with the comment. Other than out and out agreeing with government provided birth control, what response would make you happy?

Feisty:

Where are the leaders of the Republican Party?

You got me! If you happen across one, would you kindly let me know?

Any smart person against abortions, could not possible be against free contraception that would keep abortions from happening.

So which is it, Candice, you want more abortions due to unwanted pregnancies or free contraception?

If you are paying for women's birth control, does that mean you also pay for men's Viagra? So you think the pill that allows men to get hard and make babies should be covered by your insurance and you paying for it is no problem, but a pill that keeps you from getting pregnant after your man takes his little blue pill should not.

You still want to pretend this isn't about making women into second class citizens without right to have a say about her own body.

I think if men want Viagra they should pay for it on their own.

I think that unless the prescription or procedure is medically necessary, it should be paid for by the individual. I think anything elective is a choice.

But Candice, Viagra is already being paid for by you and your insurance company, men saw to that. Women just want the same rights as men to have access to health prescriptions paid for by their insurance.

See it is a women's right issue.

American's First.

Viagra is already being paid for

I can see how you perceive that as a double standard.

When I learned that Viagra was included in insurance coverage, I wasn't happy. Another unnecessary misdirection of my money... and other's people's money.

What about if insurance covered important procedures and prescriptions? Like chemotherapy, kidney transplants, mental illness, blood transfusions, and insulin? How about experimental therapies, when standard therapies don't work, and people have few options and little hope? What about life saving therapies and drugs?

I will be happy to pay for your birth control pills if they relieve your anemia and the cramps that contort you into a fetal position and bring you to tears once a month. Been there. Done that.

I don't want to pay for your recreational drugs. I don't expect you to pay for mine.

And more importantly, I, as a woman, want to be perceived as someone with more value, intellect, vision, self reliance and stature than just a reproductive organism whose most important right in life is to keep my ankles behind my ears without accidentally producing a life form.

If free birth control is the only important top priority concern in your life, you are quite blessed. There are so many others with so many more life threatening, life crushing problems at hand.

Candice,

If you do not allow Viagra to be covered by insurance then once again you only allow a healthy sex life for the people of higher income.

Every physician says that a healthy sex life if important to a better overall life both physical and mental.

With Universal Healthcare all of these arguments pro and con become moot and one moves on to other issues. One down 99 to go ... move forward America.

Dennis,

I once had a medical procedure and the bill was $6,000. The insurance company wouldn't pay for it. Miraculously, the bill was suddenly reduced to $2,000. I wound up paying for it over time. This experience led me to believe that hospitals, doctors and pharmaceutical companies charge what they think the insurance company will pay. If the deep pockets of insurance won't pay for it, costs go down.

If certain medications become consumer driven, they will have to be priced so consumers can buy them. Would the cost of Viagra and birth control drop if people had to pay for them on their own? I think maybe.

You make a good point about physical and mental health. I just think our priorities are getting kind of skewed here. Considering all that's going on in the world should this really be the issue of the day?

Speaking of "the day." I realize mine is nearly half over. Gotta go. Nice chatting with you all and if, possible, I'd like to continue later.

Candice,

When a drug is cover by insurance, regardless of the copay amount, the demand goes up thus driving the price down. The increased demand will drive competition which also causes the price to go down.

There many issues of greater importance but this seems to be the current topic of the week and it does help define which direction we would like our country to go. Santorum is driving a lot of these issues.

Have a good afternoon !!

Pat--I think Michelle Obama has been a fabulous First Lady. She has represented our country well and, along with Dr. Biden, has really been a positive force for our military families, to whom we owe so much.

Sailcat,

52% of voters in the last presidental election were women. Women of all religious beliefs, political persuasions are listening to the Repulican language that reduces women to only their biology. Question of women's healthcare should not be an issue in 2012. Maybe 1812, but not today.

Well said.

Women, seniors, minorities, union members, and men with IQs larger than their belt sizes will all vote for Obama in November. The GOP is self-destructing.