E-Editions | Subscriptions | Contact Us | About Us | Classifieds | FREE Classified – Items Under $50 | Photos
The Lakeland Times | Minocqua, Wisc.

Jim Tait Real Estate

home : opinions : opinions May 26, 2016

3/9/2012 6:49:00 AM
Limbaugh was wrong - Fluke is far worse than a slut

Richard Moore
Investigative Reporter

Rush Limbaugh sure got himself into hot water last week, calling Georgetown University law student Sandra Fluke a slut and worse.

Fluke had opposed the university's policy of not covering contraceptives for students. Democrats then offered her up for fake testimony before Congress, and that's what got Limbaugh's attention. He subsequently spewed out his invective, which stirred the nation, or at least the national mainstream media, then apologized.

Certainly, it should be said, Mr. Limbaugh was wrong to call Ms. Fluke the things he did.

Indeed, Sandra Fluke is far, far worse than a slut. In tossing that nounshell, Mr. Limbaugh let the woman off easy, and even gave her political ammunition. He also enabled liberals to distract attention from the very serious issues revolving around the matter.

Let me clear. I have no idea whether Ms. Fluke is a slut. Nor do I care about her sexual activities or proclivities. Her private life is her personal business, and it's not my place or business to judge it.

But it is my business to judge her political character, and that I will. Ms. Fluke is in fact the worst kind of liberal, a Saul Alinsky radical who will use any tactic to advance her political agenda.

As such, she harbors no aversion to dishonesty. She is a liar and a fraud who uses the tools of duplicity to promote the cause of collectivism. She is, in short, a subversive who despises freedom and tolerance, and who has worked to undermine the United States Constitution.

I'll take a slut any day of the week.

At issue, both in the flap itself and in its aftermath, is the First Amendment itself. Leftists such as Ms. Fluke and her allies have put it squarely in their crosshairs, and they have been somewhat successful in their ongoing bid to kill it. That's why this issue is so important to address.

First, though, let's recap the facts of the case, some of which are much ballyhooed about and some of which have been obscured.

To start with, the mainstream media has tried to present Ms. Fluke as an innocent law student - that's the words used to describe her on MSNBC this week, what else would you expect? - victimized first by a university that would not pay for her contraception and then by Rush Limbaugh.

But Ms. Fluke, as we all know by now, is no innocent but a hard-core, well seasoned radical activist who admitted to The Washington Post she enrolled at Georgetown University with the intent of challenging the contraceptive policy. She knew the university did not cover birth control before she enrolled, and, while there, she served as president of the university's chapter of Law Students for Reproductive Justice.

So, rather than enroll at a university that pays for birth control - she obviously could afford and qualify for any number of high-quality law schools - Ms. Fluke enrolled as a fraud at a Jesuit university, which believes contraception is immoral and violates its religious tenets, with the express intent of forcing the institution to change its policy.

As she told The Washington Post, Ms. Fluke wanted to ensure that "the health reform regulations do eventually require Georgetown University to provide birth control to its students."

To say that another way, she wants to the federal government to strip Georgetown University, and other religious institutions, of their ability to enact policies conforming to their religious faith. She wants to squelch the First Amendment freedom of religion by denying the Catholic faith - and any others - the right to freely practice their religion.

She is a subversive, then, by her own admission. She is also an exquisite liar.

Let us count some of the ways. In her testimony, which, by the way, was not really testimony but a statement before the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee, staged by Democrats to look like a committee hearing, Fluke said contraception was so expensive it should be covered: "Without insurance coverage, contraception can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school."

That's a lie because it's not the whole truth. Yes, perhaps you could pay $3,000 for contraception during three years of law schools (about $82 a month) but women can also purchase the generic versions at Target and Walmart for $9 a month. Not quite the financial burden she makes it out to be.

Then she says the denial of coverage effectively punishes women who need the drug for medical reasons, not for birth control. True, about 14 percent of pill users are for noncontraceptive reasons, and Ms. Fluke took great pains to paint a dire picture of what happened to one student.

Of course, what Ms. Fluke only lightly touched upon - and what Democrats and the mainstream media overlooked - is the fact that Georgetown covers contraceptive prescriptions made for medical reasons.

She picked out one Georgetown example - if this liar can be believed - to talk about a woman who did not get the contraceptive because the insurance provider did not believe her condition, despite a doctor's testament, and went on to rail about bureaucrats making health-care decisions for women:

"When they do exist, these exceptions don't accomplish their well-intended goals because when you let university administrators or other employers, rather than women and their doctors, dictate whose medical needs are legitimate and whose aren't, a woman's health takes a back seat to a bureaucracy focused on policing her body."

Then, Ms. Fluke asserted that her friend and the 20 percent of women in her situation - apparently meaning those needing birth control for medical reasons and having that coverage- "never got the insurance company to cover her prescription."

OK, three things. First, Ms. Fluke is patently declaring that every women needing covered birth control pills for medical reasons is denied that coverage. That's patently false, a lie; more likely the denial is rare.

Second, inserting the government into health care will not restore decision-making to women, it just adds another level of bureaucracy. The government rather than those pesky employers and insurers will be making those decisions. In other words, people like Ms. Fluke. Feel any better?

Then, too, she described the condition of the woman to whom she was referring as polycystic ovarian syndrome. What she didn't say is there are a variety of medical treatments for the condition, and only one among them is birth control, which has not proven more effective than the others.

It's just another red herring by Ms. Fluke, the use of which was most certainly not a fluke.

We could go on about a dishonest and fraudulent student with her $40,000 Georgetown scholarship, but I think the points are made, except to say her true motive is to force the university to pay not for medicine but for birth control.

"These denials of contraceptive coverage impact real people," Fluke said. "In the worst cases, women who need this medication for other medical reasons suffer dire consequences."

In the worst cases. The better word would be in the rare cases when someone is inappropriately denied. But Fluke makes no exception for most cases in which the pills are merely used to prevent pregnancy.

Most egregious, Ms. Fluke expects us to believe the Georgetown students who must pay for their own contraceptives are the suffering, huddling masses.

"When I look around my campus, I see the faces of the women affected, and I have heard more and more of their stories," she said. "On a daily basis, I hear from yet another woman from Georgetown or other schools or who works for a religiously affiliated employer who has suffered financial, emotional, and medical burdens because of this lack of contraceptive coverage."

Seriously, women are walking around the university with pained looks on their faces because the university doesn't cover birth control? Seriously?

But now on to the problems. The first, of course, is freedom of religion. Ms. Fluke's words are chilling:

"In the media lately, conservative Catholic organizations have been asking: what did we expect when we enrolled at a Catholic school? We can only answer that we expected women to be treated equally, to not have our school create untenable burdens that impede our academic success."

Again, there are other universities, and Ms. Fluke has acknowledged she attended for an activist purpose as well as an educational one, as if it were an either-or choice. She wanted to force this religious institution to bend to her own secular moral beliefs, and she wanted the government to back her up with its power.

In other words, Ms. Fluke wants women treated equally but she does not want the Catholic faith or other religions treated equally. Ms. Fluke doesn't want bureaucracies dictating to women, but she doesn't mind the federal government deleting the free exercise of religion from the Constitution and dictating to private, faith-based institutions.

What's next? There are other rights the First Amendment protects. How long before freedom of the press goes the way of freedom of religion? How long before the right of peaceful assembly goes literally on the chopping block?

The answer is, right now. In the aftermath, having scored more national fame than she probably dreamed was possible, Mr. Fluke's leftists allies are using social media to try and force Mr. Limbaugh off the air. They want to deny him his freedom of speech, and the rights of millions of Americans to listen to him.

To the left, he does not have the right to be heard because he hurled a personal insult Ms. Fluke's way. Never mind that 15 million people listen to his show each week.

The true way to dispose of obnoxious speech on the radio - or on TV - is simply to tune out. If people were so disgusted, ratings would fall and advertisers would leave. But now the left tries to bully the advertisers by subtly threatening them, too: Don't advertise, or else.

Advertisers are always rather easily rattled, and so some special interests surrender to another to deprive the people, the audience, of a voice they want to hear. That's not democratic, progressive politics. That's the politics of fear and intimidation, the tactics of totalitarians.

In any event, the left's outrage is fake. When Bill Maher hurled his epithets at Sarah Palin - words I can't write here, or that Mr. Limbaugh could say on his show - there was not a spot of protest. Zilch, zip, nada, as leftie Dan Rather would say.

Mr. Maher says he can say such crude things because, being on HBO, he has no sponsors to answer to. Really? Does that make it any different. If such speech about women is inappropriate, shouldn't the left pressure HBO to take the man off the air? Why didn't President Barack Obama stand up to Mr. Maher's language and cite his daughters and how they might feel if they were called such names?

But, of course, they didn't. The point is not to excuse Mr. Limbaugh by pointing to Mr. Maher, as if two rights make a wrong; the point is to expose the fabricated outrage of the left. They weren't offended when Mr. Maher said terrible things, and they aren't offended now. It's all a tactic against those they oppose.

It's all about silencing protest.

And so it's been a bad week for the First Amendment, especially when you consider the backlash against Kirk Cameron and his negative comments on homosexuality. Roseann Barr both exposed her own contempt for the First Amendment and a glimpse of the leftist utopia once it is gone when she tweeted about Cameron's comment:

"Kirk or kurt or whatever Cameron is an accomplice to murder with his hate speech."

That's what's in store for us, folks, unless we wake up now. The Roseann Barr's of the world, the Sandra Flukes - when they are in charge, they and their allies will impose their will on the nation and dissent will not be tolerated. It will be the will of an iron government and a rigid morality. And those who impose it, believe me, if they have the chance they will herd dissenters to prison as accomplices to murder and for hate crimes.

We are farther down the road and in scarier times than many believe. We should be so lucky if Ms. Fluke and those like her were merely sluts and prostitutes. But, sad to say, they are a whole lot more dangerous than that.

To be sure, the ugliness of their politics and the promiscuousness of their public morality makes the most slovenly slut look beautiful and fairly earned in the red light of the civic night.

Richard Moore may be reached at richardmoore.gov@gmail.com

Reader Comments

Posted: Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Article comment by: Chuck White

@ T. Banks

It's apparent by your lack of insight, thought process and responsive simplicity, that, very likely, you haven't been educated at all!

Maybe YOU need to go back to school.

You flunk!

Posted: Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Article comment by: Kallie Jurgens

Mr. Moore: I think it's high time you got off your high horse and got down to earth! First of all, Mr. Limbaugh is a jerk and your defense of him just makes you a bigger jerk!!!

When you can fully understand anything at all about birth control, then you and other people who think like you do can let us in on what it is you are talking about because just like Russ, you have no clue at all.

Ms. Fluke may not be on the level but then neither is your idea of women and their needs.

Posted: Monday, March 19, 2012
Article comment by: T. Banks

Out of the mouth of an "educator" one can only wonder what will come next.

I am certainly glad my son/daughter will not be educated by one Karen Gumness-Gabert. I would be embarrassed to have her as my child's teacher.

I only wish the all children of the Northwoods could escape her liberal views.

T. Banks,

Non-resident and non-educator of the Northwoods.

Posted: Saturday, March 17, 2012
Article comment by: Jeff Barnes

Thank you Mr. Moore..excellent well done!

Posted: Saturday, March 17, 2012
Article comment by: Karen Gumness-Gabert

I have been on Spring Break and thought I'd catch up on Lakeland news online. Mr. Moore, I stopped reading your "editorial/diatribes" a long time ago, but your headline low caused me to read your article ( which was maybe your intent). I am embarrassed that your sermons in the Lakeland Times are what would be visitors to our beautiful northwoods think the residents here actually believe. You insulted all women who live here, as well as women across our state. You do NOT represent the women of the northwoods, and I hope future visitors can find other venues than the Lakeland TImes to represent who we truly are. You bring shame to Gregg Walker's paper, and a discriminatory lesson to our girls and boys growing up here.

Karen Gabert
Resident and Educator in the Northwoods

Posted: Thursday, March 15, 2012
Article comment by: Marty H.

It's always fascinating to watch a group of cranky old men pontificate on an issue that has absolutely nothing to do with them. From the dribble that started with Limbaugh (he, the one who referred to a teenage girl as 'the White House Dog'...too classy), to the nonsensical ramblings of Mr. Richard 'I never met a misquote I couldn't exploit' Moore, to Mr. Thomas here deliberately misspelling Ms. Flukes name in another of his vain attempts at humor, to the rest of the 'wading-pool depth of thought' by the other esteemed community commentators - it's a non-stop parade of twits tumbling hopelessly over the falls in a barrel.

Here's the long and short of it - if Limbaugh keeps his yap shut (good luck with that), then Richard doesn't go on his diatribe (you know the old saying 'better to keep your laptop closed and be thought a fool...'), Mr. Thomas never leaves his lean-to next to the Kaczynski compound, and the rest of the sheep stay quiet too.

But no, The Mouth goes off, and the lemmings line up - shame on all of you.

Posted: Thursday, March 15, 2012
Article comment by: Tony Arten

UNBELIEVABLE. Mr. Moore has sunk to a new, ridiculous low.

It shows what a lack of character and respect this publication has for our community.

Posted: Thursday, March 15, 2012
Article comment by: Chuck White

Mr. Moore,

I forgot 1 thing how it slipped my grasp, I'll never know and I apologize....."It's amazing to me that anyone would pay you to be stupid."

That's it and that's all.

Posted: Thursday, March 15, 2012
Article comment by: David Michlig

I have a few issues with this piece from an "investigative reporter".

First, to put that designation on the by-line is truly misleading. If you are truly "reporting", then personal opinions are supposed to be kept out. This is what true journalists do.

Also, I find it hypocritical that conservatives are concerned about religious freedom of Catholic institutions when it comes to this issue. These are the same groups that were concerned that John Kennedy was going to be taking orders from the Pope. But I guess it’s different if you agree politically.

Subversive – REALLY!! Did you look up the definition? Merriam-Webster defines subversion as “a systematic attempt to overthrow or undermine a government or political system by persons working secretly from within.” She is not advocating the overthrow of or is undermining the government. If she is a subversive, then every member of Congress is also because of the gridlock we’ve had the last few years.

You’re concerned about the first amendment rights going away and the first one you mention is freedom of religion. The actual phrase from the Constitution is “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. Congress is not establishing a religion nor is it prohibiting the free exercise of religion. One can still worship freely. The only thing that Ms. Fluke was advocating for was the elimination of the use of “freedom of religion” to discriminate.

You also ask “How long before freedom of the press goes the way of freedom of religion?” and answer it in the next paragraph “The answer is, right now.” Then go on to cite Rush Limbaugh. He is not in the “press”. He is an “entertainer”. His rights to free speech have not been abridged. You compare his remarks to those of Bill Maher. What about Ed Schultz? Schultz voluntarily suspended himself from MSNBC after remarks he made about Laura Ingraham. He didn’t blame everyone else. He owned up to it.

You ask “How long before the right of peaceful assembly goes literally on the chopping block?” I ask you to look back at your “investigative reporting” over the last year. You did not like what went on in Madison nor throughout the country with the “Occupy” movements. These have been mostly peaceful assemblies.

Posted: Wednesday, March 14, 2012
Article comment by: Kerry Thomas

Wow! Talk about vicious vile hate speech. These comments are a great illustration of the intolerance of the Left.

NO ONE is trying to deny ANY woman access to contraception. Some people simply expect individuals to accept responsibility for their own actions.

And we have since learned Sandra Flake is nothing but an activist, being used by the Left, in an attempt to turn a matter of Constitutional Rights (Freedom of religion) into a discussion about women's health, something that was never part of Congressman Isa's hearings on the Constitution.

Posted: Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Article comment by: SHERRY PETTIGREW

I enjoyed your article. I thought you were spot on about Sandra Fluke and I look forward to reading more of your opinions.

Posted: Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Article comment by: David Gwidt

Thanks for your enlightening article. When a conservative makes a comment its called extreme. When a Liberal Bill Maher) degards and demeans Sarah Palin's daughter with sexist remarks he is considered to be humorous by the left-wing news media...especially after Maher gave Obama $1,000,000 for his compaign. Keep up the good work and Thanks again.

Posted: Monday, March 12, 2012
Article comment by: John Johnson

WOW! Just what our local readership doesn't need to hear, nasty name-calling and a rambling, angry editorial. This is poison. Very disappointing.

Posted: Monday, March 12, 2012
Article comment by: Linda Nidetz

Richard Moore, it is NOT okay to be insulting and disrespectful to women.You have crossed the line with your shockingly inconsiderate headline.Your use of the word "slut" is an insult and is an offensive term to women.You are no better than Rush Limbaugh by attacking Sandra Fluke and continuing the attack on women. Shame on you for your women-bashing! You too have failed women by refusing to denounce Rush Limbaugh for his verbal attacks on women. I strongly believe that women - not politicians - should make private, medical decisions.When Limbaugh attacked Sandra Fluke, he also demeaned the 99% of women (regardless of religion) who use contraceptives in their lifetimes.Women shall not be silenced nor shamed!

Posted: Monday, March 12, 2012
Article comment by: Rick Smith

What a great article... you are right Fluke is worst the a slut.... May the Almighty protect to us all from the likes of her!

Posted: Monday, March 12, 2012
Article comment by: David K

@Kay S ...

Thank you for representing with your great response to this wing-nut propaganda by Mr. Moore. "Investigative Reporter" indeed.

Your words nail it for a lot of us men out here, but are especially succinct because you DON'T have a penis.

The mere fact that the GOP only allowed penises at their hearing, and one of them is not even allowed to use it, is telling enough for me that investigation was the furthest thing from their minds.

Posted: Sunday, March 11, 2012
Article comment by: Kay S

Just when I was hoping another MAN was going to inject his unasked for opinion into the women's heath care subject, here comes Mr. Moore. I have long ignored your Fox News dribble, but the headline caught my attention. I believe sir, you have crossed the line.
Tell me, do you think Darryl Issa was part of this conspiracy or all the Republicans that thought this was a great can of worms to open? I'm curious about just how many MALE Republicans you think were involved. Since 99% of all women, including Catholic women, have been on some kind of birth control in their lives, it doesn't seem like a real intelligent battle to pick. But I haven't heard anyone accuse them of being intelligent lately.
No one forced the sponsors to drop Rush. They were smart enough to realize that 85% of the purchasing in this country is done by women. Obviously, you haven't figured it out yet but maybe the businesses that advertise in this rag will. And believe me if enough women are as insulted as I am over this crap in print you call an opinion piece, they may decide to pull their ads just like Rush's sponsors did.
By the way, Bill Maher defended Rush's right to free speech. He's never struck me as a fan of women anymore than Rush is. In fact just looking at either one of them is birth control enough for me.
As far as comparing Ms. Fluke to Sarah Palin, you've got to be kidding. Palin is the queen of hate speech, lies, ignorance and has had more than a few of our founding fathers rolling in their graves over her grasp of history. Ms. Fluke wanted to testify not on using birth control for sex, but for controlling other problems women have like heavy bleeding. Republican Daryll Issa thought it a good idea to refuse her that and instead presented five men to discuss giving birth, menstrual cramps and cycles, p.m.s and menopause. Why don't you explain to your readers Mr. Moore, what all of those subjects are like.
When you finish, I'll tell you what it's like to have a penis, take Viagra, and have a prostate exam. Cough please!

Posted: Sunday, March 11, 2012
Article comment by: Chuck White

You said it yourself Advertisers will leave and at last count about 40 have so tuning out is a fabulous suggestion as I now tune you out, having no time nor interest in further listening to narrow-minded, single issue wing nuts who, who in their attempt to promote their hypocrisy only serve to hi-lite the moronic values they subscribe to those being anti this and anti that, on, no and no.

Maybe there should be a screening qualification attached to the 1st ammndment so that morons that espouse hate and loathing are ID'd and, as they serve no one but their loathsome selves, aren't allowed to vote unless their IQ meets a minimum standard.

You're spending way too much time at Walmart I expect you'll show up next in one of those kaleidoscopic 'People of Wamart' videos. I'll tune that out as well.

Posted: Saturday, March 10, 2012
Article comment by: don combs

Wow, I thought most of the wack-jobs had moved to Northern Idaho. Defending Rush Limbaugh by attacking Fluke is a typical right-wing tactic and the attack on women will be the down-fall of the Republicans this November.

Article Comment Submission Form
Please feel free to submit your comments.

Article comments are not posted immediately to the Web site. Each submission must be approved by the Web site editor, who may edit content for appropriateness. There may be a delay of 24-48 hours for any submission while the web site editor reviews and approves it.

Note: All information on this form is required. Your telephone number is for our use only, and will not be attached to your comment.
Submit an Article Comment
First Name:
Last Name:
Anti-SPAM Passcode Click here to see a new mix of characters.
This is an anti-SPAM device. It is not case sensitive.

Advanced Search
search sponsored by

Subscription Login

Life | Snow/Trail Conditions | Road Conditions | Wisconsin Lottery | Facebook

Lakeland Printing, Inc. • P.O. Box 790 • Minocqua, WI 54548

The Lakeland Times • The Northwoods Super Shopper
Phone: (715) 356-5236 • Fax: (715) 358-2121

Members of the Wisconsin Newspaper Association, Wisconsin Community Papers, Rhinelander Area Chamber of Commerce, Minocqua Area Chamber of Commerce

Software © 1998-2016
1up! Software
, All Rights Reserved