enlarge

Credit: Media Matters

Word cloud of Rush Limbaugh's shows, February 29-March 3

After bleeding sponsors for the past couple of days it seems Rush Limbaugh has taken stock of what he said last week and issued a "statement." I call it a statement and not an apology because it really isn't much of an apology. Here's the full text.

For over 20 years, I have illustrated the absurd with absurdity, three hours a day, five days a week. In this instance, I chose the wrong words in my analogy of the situation. I did not mean a personal attack on Ms. Fluke.

I think it is absolutely absurd that during these very serious political times, we are discussing personal sexual recreational activities before members of Congress. I personally do not agree that American citizens should pay for these social activities. What happened to personal responsibility and accountability? Where do we draw the line? If this is accepted as the norm, what will follow? Will we be debating if taxpayers should pay for new sneakers for all students that are interested in running to keep fit?In my monologue, I posited that it is not our business whatsoever to know what is going on in anyone's bedroom nor do I think it is a topic that should reach a Presidential level.

My choice of words was not the best, and in the attempt to be humorous, I created a national stir. I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for the insulting word choices.

Let's take this apart a little bit. We begin with "illustrated the absurd with absurdity..." This is the excuse he always uses for whatever he says. He is an entertainer, entertaining. Yes, because it's so entertaining to suggest that hungry children dumpster-dive for their dinner. Or to call those hungry children "waifs and serfs dependent on the state." Or saying he hopes President Obama fails.

Har-dee-har-har, Rushbo. It's not funny, nor was it intended to be funny. Not even a little bit.

On to the second paragraph, which is where he shows plainly that he did not intend a real, true apology. By framing contraception as something for a "social activity," he endeavors to minimize and trivialize women's health needs. Yes, contraception is used to prevent pregnancy, for married and single women. But Sandra Fluke's testimony very specifically pointed to other uses for it, including treatment of PCOS (an incredibly debilitating condition), endometriosis, pelvic inflammation, ovarian cysts, and other conditions specific to women. Further, some women use it to actually regulate their cycles so they can become pregnant. Some young women use it to treat acne!

These are not social. These are not recreational. These are serious health issues. They matter, and they should be covered as part of health insurance that provides basic benefits. Rush Limbaugh intentionally tried to frame this as a debate about sex when it was never a debate about sex. He did it, and Fox News picked up the banner and marched forward with it to the point where now the "slut" meme has been echoed all over the Internet by the far-right wing.

I wonder, would he find it a joking matter if cholesterol medications were removed from a list of basic benefits? Or heart stents? Or blood thinners? They aren't optional for someone who is at risk of a heart attack.

His attack on a private citizen named Sandra Fluke was reprehensible, but the real damage done is the misinformation he spread about why contraception is a health issue, why it should be deemed a basic benefit in any health insurance policy, and why women should have affordable access to it.

Continue reading »

In Catholic masses all over this country, priests are injecting politics into their sermons, condemning the Obama administration for the new Health and Human Services regulations that religious institutions must offer contraceptive benefits to its members. It doesn't require members to violate their personal beliefs by taking advantage of the benefit, mind you. But this new regulation acknowledges that there are some who may work in a Catholic hospital who may not have the same stricture against contraceptives and want it to be part of their health services. But that's perhaps a too nuanced view:

The Catholic Church reacted strongly Friday to a White House defense of new rules that will force many religious employers to provide contraception to their workers in government-mandated health insurance plans.

"The White House information about this is a combination of misleading and wrong," said Anthony Picarello, general counsel of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. He said the bishops would "pursue every legal mandate available to them to bring an end to this mandate. That means legislation, litigation and public advocacy. All options are on the table."

The new regulations were announced last month by the Department of Health and Human Services as part of an effort to guarantee that women receive free "preventive" healthcare services, including cervical cancer screening, breast pumps — and contraception. They require employers to include those services in their employee health insurance plans by August.

Religious institutions can qualify for an exemption if the services violate their beliefs, but not if they employ large numbers of people who do not share those beliefs. [..]

In a blog post Wednesday, the White House responded that the new rules won't force anyone to buy contraceptives. Cecilia Muñoz, director of the Domestic Policy Council, wrote: "Over half of Americans already live in the 28 states that require insurance companies [to] cover contraception." These include such large states as California and New York, she said.

The Catholic bishops shot back Friday, saying it was misleading to say that no one would be forced to "buy" contraceptives, because everyone who contributes to an insurance plan will be paying a portion of the subsidy that provides for free contraception.

Alex Castellanos and David Brooks are only too happy to pick up the bishops' mantle and further the meme that this is a solid shot across the bow of religious liberty in Obama's war on religion. How nice of them to legitimize Newt Gingrich that way. Rachel Maddow and Xavier Becerra try gamely to point out that refusing contraceptive benefits in the twenty first century is beyond ridiculous, but of course, host David Gregory gives Alex Castellanos the last word.

Out of curiosity, are the bishops equally against ED drugs like Viagra? Why do I hear no denouncing of working against "God's plan" there? The reality is that despite the church's teachings, as much as 98 percent of Catholics admit to using contraception. Would that the church elders focus their efforts on dealing honestly with issues that are in line with the priorities of their members: poverty and social justice, labor unions, climate change and dealing honestly and ethically with their own sex scandals rather than plunge into politicking within homilies on Bizarro World accusations of violations of religious freedom.

Worth reading: Bishop should not insert politics into Mass

I'm still scratching my head over why Jim DeMint is even the tiniest bit concerned about women discussing -- yes, talking about -- abortion with their health professionals. But DeMint is not only concerned, he's going to do something about it, which is why he introduced a bill banning it.

Via Think Progress:

Now Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC), one of the most die-hard anti-choice lawmakers, has jumped on the bandwagon by sneaking a radical anti-abortion amendment onto a completely unrelated piece of legislation. DeMint’s amendment would ban women and their doctors from discussing abortion over the Internet:

Anti-choice Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) just filed an anti-choice amendment to a bill related to agriculture, transportation, housing, and other programs. The DeMint amendment could bar discussion of abortion over the Internet and through videoconferencing, even if a woman’s health is at risk and if this kind of communication with her doctor is her best option to receive care.

Under this amendment, women would need a separate, segregated Internet just for talking about abortion care with their doctors.

Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, said DeMint is essentially mandating “an abortion-only version of Skype.” She points out that a woman with high-risk pregnancy talking to her doctor through video conferencing would have to somehow switch to a separate communications system if abortion came up at all. “It is impractical, ridiculous, and, most importantly, bad for women in rural or remote areas who would not be able to discuss the full set of options with their doctor,” Keenan said.

Basically, if this stupid bill were to actually have a prayer of passing, which it doesn't, women could not use ordinary online channels to communicate with their doctor about their reproductive health. To me that raises all kinds of problems. Who owns the Internet? Who owns the pipes? If a woman communicated via her iPhone to her doctor's iPhone, how would the government have any right to know what they discussed, given that AT&T, Verizon and soon, Sprint, own that air? Moreover, how does a small government conservative reconcile this with big government insertion into women's lives?

I realize that Big Government attitudes arise around the abortion debate from social conservatives, but the construction of this particular measure exceeds even the usual lunatic levels. Is DeMint just wasting time with this bill, or does he plan to use it as some kind of leverage to do other harm to women?

I wonder if DeMint has read The Handmaid's Tale. It would explain his vision for the world he wants to live in.

Recently the Senate passed Sen. Barbara Mikulski's Women's Health Amendment, which requires health insurance companies to provide free mammograms and other preventive health services for women. Sounds good, doesn't it? Women's health needs have traditionally been underserved by the insurance system. But, ironically, the Senate's excise tax will force many women to pay indirectly for these "free" services.

Here's how: For one thing, the cost of the services mandated in the Mikulski Amendment will cause even more health plans to exceed the cost cap for the excise tax. And it's expected that 20% of plans will already be over the limit when the tax takes effect. In practical terms, any added costs for new services provided by these plans (like those mammograms) will be taxable. So, in one very real sense, the Senate plans to tax some of this preventive care for women - at a staggering 40% of cost.

The Mikulski Amendment looks like a step forward, but many women will pay for these services indirectly - in the form of higher premiums or increased out-of-pocket costs. One hand giveth and the other taketh away. And speaking of irony ...

Guess who voted for the Mikulski amendment? Some Senators who haven't even committed themselves to voting for the final bill, including Lieberman, Landrieu, and Snowe (who even cosponsored the amendment. Here's an idea: They can make sure these women's services really remain "free" by supporting the Sanders-Franken-Brown Amendment, which would replace the excise tax with a tax on the extremely wealthy (the way the house does it.)

That would remove the irony in the Senate's actions and replace it with fairness.

CBS5 (San Francisco)

The California Supreme Court is set to hear arguments in San Francisco Tuesday on whether someone who posts a defamatory comment by another person on the Internet can be sued for libel.

Two civil liberties groups say the court's eventual ruling, due in three months, could have far-reaching implications for free speech on the Internet.

While the case before the court concerns individuals-a Canadian doctor seeking to sue a women's health activist for posting a third person's comment about him-the court's ruling could also determine whether Internet service providers can be held liable when they knowingly allow defamatory remarks to be posted. (emphasis added) Read on...

In the interest of disclosure, I have to say that I have a connection to this case that makes me less than impartial (and no, I'm not an involved party) and requires me to be circumspect about some information.

While the Court has agreed to hear this case on the very narrow, specific issue (whether the libelous statement is factually true is considered tangential to the issue before the Court), this could have an absolutely chilling effect on bloggers--to be held liable for libel for reposting a third party's words--which is why the EFF, AOL, EBay and Amazon have submitted amicus briefs, defending the right of Internet service providers.

I know that many of us (myself included) have come to rely on blogs to help us get and/or make sense of the news of the day. Although I rarely comment, I get a lot out of the comments made here at C&L, often finding links that help enhance my understanding of events. How much knowledge and information would we miss if sites like C&L had to be wary of potential liability from your posts?

It's a very scary thought.

The Court's decision should be handed down within 90 days.