A 7th advertiser pulls out of Limbaugh's show

[mrkleen]

It's not even a "religious or moral" issue for me. Any individual or employer that wants to limit or restrict any coverage option to save money on premium dollars, should have the opportunity to do so without a Federal Mandate.

Fair enough. And the government should also be able to review the funding for said institutions.

Any college that decides to pick and choose the medical coverage they offer....will be excluded from all federal grants related to medical research. Any company that chooses to limit access to reproductive health care, loses their access to low interest federal loans.

As for churches...what a bunch of hypocrites. 62% of all funding for Catholic Charities comes from the Government. You dont want to offer legal healthcare options for your employees and students....fine....your funding will be cut by 50%.

 

[WouldaShoulda]

Mike - you as a lawyer should know best what slander is.

Will Ms. Fluke have a problem calculating any real damages spawned by her sudden celebrity??

 

[WouldaShoulda]

Fair enough. And the government should also be able to review the funding for said institutions.

No argument from me.

You don't want strings, don't take the money!!

Of course, I don't think the Government should even be offering the money, but that's probably another story.

This is a significant point for me;

Taking the money=losing your freedom.

 

[Mike Petrik]

Mike - you as a lawyer should know best what slander is. When Mr. Limbaugh is forced to pay Ms Fluke a nice tidy sum in the near future, I invite you to come out here and explain what happened

First, I have not defended Limbaugh's statement. Second, it is not likely slander given that it was fairly obvious parody. And third, even if slander Fluke would easily qualify as a public figure under Times v Sullivan and progeny.

 

[mrkleen]

First, I have not defended Limbaugh's statement. Second, it is not likely slander given that it was fairly obvious parody. And third, even if slander Fluke would easily qualify as a public figure under Times v Sullivan and progeny.

Fluke would get paid a big bag of hush money LONG before it ever got to that point.

Since Rush broadcasts nationwide, Fluke could find a sympathetic court (say the 9th circuit) and bring suit against Rush. Even if she ultimately has no chance of winning, she would not only cost Rush and Clear Channel a LOT of money - but drag his already piss poor reputation further into the gutter.

This issue is a BIG looser for Rush and the Republican candidates in general. Anyone in the country who has a wife, daughter or granddaughter is appalled by his disgraceful behavior. Dragging it out in court will only hurt Rush and his cronies further.

 

[Jovan]

My problem is that birth control isn't just used to prevent pregnancy, it's used to treat ovarian cysts and regulate menstruation. Prior to being prescribed it at 16, one of my friends lost too much blood every month. Without it, she'd be a lot worse off.

The other problem is, if you cite "religious liberty" some employers would extend that to prenatal care and other things that most people consider necessary.

 

[Mike Petrik]

Fluke would get paid a big bag of hush money LONG before it ever got to that point.

Since Rush broadcasts nationwide, Fluke could find a sympathetic court (say the 9th circuit) and bring suit against Rush. Even if she ultimately has no chance of winning, she would not only cost Rush and Clear Channel a LOT of money - but drag his already piss poor reputation further into the gutter.

This issue is a BIG looser for Rush and the Republican candidates in general. Anyone in the country who has a wife, daughter or granddaughter is appalled by his disgraceful behavior. Dragging it out in court will only hurt Rush and his cronies further.

Yes, it is conceivable that Fluke could extort him. Not sure how that would play if it got out though. While everyone agrees that Rush's comments were out-of-line, few believe Fluke even had her feelings hurt let alone her reputation damaged. I'll bet she snickered the moment Rush mis-stepped.

 

[Mike Petrik]

My problem is that birth control isn't just used to prevent pregnancy, it's used to treat ovarian cysts and regulate menstruation. Prior to being prescribed it at 16, one of my friends lost too much blood every month. Without it, she'd be a lot worse off.

The other problem is, if you cite "religious liberty" some employers would extend that to prenatal care and other things that most people consider necessary.

The Catholic Church never objected to paying to cover prescriptions for the reasons you describe. Your concern about religious objections to laws of general application is a valid one, and one the Supreme Court has had to grapple with through most of the 20th Century given the tension between the two religion clauses. I could go on but it would not be profitable in this forum.

 

[WouldaShoulda]

My problem is that birth control isn't just used to prevent pregnancy, it's used to treat ovarian cysts and regulate menstruation.

Birth Control is Birth Control.

Hormone therapy for some ailments happen to be facilitated, in some instances, by birth control pills.

These are seperate issues entirely; the latter not being an issue at all.

Let's review the facts;

1) women are not denied access to contraception.

2) the HHS mandate does not alter that fact.

3) no legislation has been proposed to deny women access to contraception.

4) the only thing the HHS mandate changes is who pays for contraception, under penalty of law.

Why does Planned Parenthood want to shift what it has typically provided for women in the past, it's signiture and greatest acheivement, Birth Control, onto the Federal Government??

Is it possible they want to shift their focus to more profitable services they offer??

 

[mrkleen]

Yes, it is conceivable that Fluke could extort him. Not sure how that would play if it got out though. While everyone agrees that Rush's comments were out-of-line, few believe Fluke even had her feelings hurt let alone her reputation damaged. I'll bet she snickered the moment Rush mis-stepped.

NOT ONE of the bafoons running for the republican nomination has publicly condemned Rush. This issue is a big loser for the right with women voters.

 

[Mike Petrik]

NOT ONE of the bafoons running for the republican nomination has publicly condemned Rush. This issue is a big loser for the right with women voters.

So by your logic Obama, Biden, Pelosi et al are perfectly fine with the vile commentary from Maher and others directed at conservative women since they decline to issue gratuitous public condemnations. I doubt that is true, though I was surprised that our President, when given a lay-up opportunity to condemn such discourse on all sides, chose instead to focus only on Rush. I'll nonetheless give him the benefit of the doubt as to his intentions, but I was disappointed in him. In the end this silly kerfuffle will have no more effect on the voting pattern of American women than did the comments from Maher et al.

And given the level of thought often displayed in your posts, I suggest you use the word "buffoon" with greater caution.

 

[mrkleen]

In the end this silly kerfuffle will have no more effect on the voting pattern of American women than did the comments from Maher et al..

And the latest polls - showing the President gaining support from women of all political backgrounds on a daily basis refutes this.

In the end this silly kerfuffle will have no more effect on the voting pattern of American women than did the comments from Maher et al.

And given the level of thought often displayed in your posts, I suggest you use the word "buffoon" with greater caution.

Coming from you and the right wing circle jerks out here, that is a compliment.

 

[WouldaShoulda]

In the end this silly kerfuffle will have no more effect on the voting pattern of American women than did the comments from Maher et al.

We all understand that that every election cycle the usual suspects put on parade of losers and sad sacks. This years show will prove to be bigger and better than ever. Unfortunately, the 2008 road show worked!!

 

[Jovan]

NOT ONE of the bafoons running for the republican nomination has publicly condemned Rush. This issue is a big loser for the right with women voters.

Indeed. I was really disappointed. But I shouldn't expect too much from Mitt R. Money and Rick Sanitarium at this point...

 

[WouldaShoulda]

Indeed. I was really disappointed. But I shouldn't expect too much from Mitt R. Money and Rick Sanitarium at this point...

True, you can't do much about others living up to your standards, but you can control how you can be distracted from the facts.

Let's review the facts;

1) women are not denied access to contraception.

2) the HHS mandate does not alter that fact.

3) no legislation has been proposed to deny women access to contraception.

4) the only thing the HHS mandate changes is who pays for contraception, under penalty of law.

These facts don't change do they??

 

[Jovan]

I'm not aware that I was distracted from the facts...? I never once said you or Mike Petrik were wrong about those facts.

 

[WouldaShoulda]

I'm not aware that I was distracted from the facts...? I never once said you or Mike Petrik were wrong about those facts.

Thanks, I appreciate your candor.

Now that we agree the facts are not in dispute, it makes me wonder what the circus is for.

The only thing I can think of is to distract a voting segment from those facts.

But I will admit, sometimes I don't mind feeding the donkeys just for giggles!!

 

[mrkleen]

Let's review the facts;

1) women are not denied access to contraception.

2) the HHS mandate does not alter that fact.

3) no legislation has been proposed to deny women access to contraception.

4) the only thing the HHS mandate changes is who pays for contraception, under penalty of law.

This is the same BACKWARD reasoning you have used many times out here. Like when you said that asking the poor to pay to have photo IDs in order to vote was not an impediment to them being able to do so.

In case you missed it, some people dont have any "extra" money to pay for things which should already be covered under their exsisting health insurance plan - nor should they have to.

So that fact that the plan at Georgetown covers Viagra with a simple co-pay - yet expects women to come up with $50+ dollars a month (on top of what they already pay for their health plan) makes it a barrier that some people cant afford.

But I wouldnt expect you compassionate folks on the right to give a rip about that.

 

[Acct2000]

On a cynical day, it's a amusing, but on most days it's sad.

The left and right both pretty equally engage in sometimes dishonest and sometimes reprehensible discourse (if the worst of it can be called that - - - -)

While they both are easily able to find the smallest bit of insult and totally blow it out of proportion when the other side "sins", they will both defend the nastiest, most irresponsible and/or evil behavior by an "ally" to the end.

This may not be the intention of the "left" or the "right." However, until honesty and doing the right thing becomes more important than "winning," both of you will manage to divide and eventually destroy our society until there is nothing worth "winning" for either of you.

 

[RedBluff]

On a cynical day, it's a amusing, but on most days it's sad.

The left and right both pretty equally engage in sometimes dishonest and sometimes reprehensible discourse (if the worst of it can be called that - - - -)

While they both are easily able to find the smallest bit of insult and totally blow it out of proportion when the other side "sins", they will both defend the nastiest, most irresponsible and/or evil behavior by an "ally" to the end.

This may not be the intention of the "left" or the "right." However, until honesty and doing the right thing becomes more important than "winning," both of you will manage to divide and eventually destroy our society until there is nothing worth "winning" for either of you.

Well put.