|

Rush Limbaugh seems not to understand how contraception works

LimbaughRushAngry

I’ve always figured that right-wing radio blabber Rush Limbaugh isn’t nearly as stupid as he pretends to be. He strikes me as a poseur who plays his vast listening audience of mostly angry old white men for suckers.

On the subject of artificial birth control, however,  El Rushbo almost seems sincere in peddling foolishness, as we see HERE:

The most obvious example of this came when Limbaugh went after Sandra Fluke, arguing, “The women in her law school program are having so much sex, they are going broke buying birth control pills.” In the radio host’s mind, women apparently are supposed to take birth control pills with every sexual experience. (Note: that’s not how birth control works.)
To hear Limbaugh tell it, pregnant women seek emergency contraception, but that’s plainly wrong – the point of emergency contraception is to prevent pregnancy. It’s why it’s called “emergency contraception.”
Contraception really isn’t that complicated, and yet, Limbaugh continues to say things that suggest he doesn’t understand birth control at all. I’m sure if he asked nicely, Planned Parenthood could send him some brochures that would help him with the basics?

Share:

28 Comments

  1. Limbaugh is the Steven Colbert of the Right. Just as right wingers sometimes are confused by Colbert’s brand of sarcasm and take him and his remarks seriously or at face value, so are liberals when they hear comments made by Limbaugh.

    In this case, Limbaugh is making a quip about how some women want government (i.e. someone else) to pay for their birth control. Limbaugh is being entirely sarcastic about the so much sex remark. I can assure you he knows how the pill and “Plan B” work. But leave it to idiot liberal extremists to be offended by it.

    • I’d rather pay for their birth control than pay to raise their child though the welfare system for 18+ years. Likewise, I’d rather provide a small stipend to people who have no work skills or grooming habits to make them desirable to an employer, than pay to incarcerate them when they steal and rob people to get buy. That’s how the welfare programs began, because it was too costly to keep them in jail/prison.

      It’s unfortunate that some people’s upbringing didn’t provide them with the skills to be independent and appealing to an employer, but after serving in a soup type kitchen for the homeless, that’s what I observed. There were many people whose upbringing never taught them how to move from dependent to independent. People making babies who have bad to non existent parenting skills, should have the opportunity to avoid that commitment as it most often leads to making more people who become just as incapable of responsible behaviors as their parents were.

      So, getting back to Rush Limbaugh, if paying for people who have a propensity to do irresponsible acts with long term consequences means paying out a small pittance to avoid an unwanted pregnancy from programs my taxes pay for, I’m all for it.

      Does that piss you off or am I just being realistic in an imperfect world.

      • thehereandnow1

        While yes it is unfortunate, it certainly does not help at all that instead of taking the time and effort to teach these individuals to become responsible people, and thus passing that on to future generations, certain people wish to just make things easier so that they can continue their current path. How effective is saying “We know what you’re doing is wrong, so here, have these so you can keep doing it.” If you wish to change the future you certainly will not do it by encouraging the current ‘wrong’ behavior.

        As to Sandra Fluke, the person trumped up by the left (remember, she started the ball rolling by speaking out first), she was not one of the types of people you mentioned. And going to Harvard, she or her parents are more than capable of providing birth control. Yet too many on the left operate under the misguided idea that government paid birth control is a right.

        • than1, I’m all for offering services that will build skills in the individuals I’ve described. But that’s easier said than done. There’s plenty of services like that now. Problem is as a society we are more willing to pay sports figures million dollar salaries for throwing or chasing a ball around a field or court than we are willing to pay social workers to help improve a person’s lot in life. Many of these adults don’t have the social skills to begin with and many have “issues”,sometimes with anger and just plain anti-social behavior. The though of making a silk purse/wallet out of sow’s ear is endearing, but not reality. Many of these folks are multi-generational in their backgrounds. If you can get to them when they’re children is best but without parents who have basic reading and writing skills, let alone the tech skills necessary for today’s life, they’re not going to have the opportunities you think they should be willing to just step up and say, lay it on me. I suggest you go volunteer in some of these dining halls for the poor and homeless. You’ll get an education, believe me.

          • thehereandnow1

            While you line sounds noble, it is not what is practiced by the Democratic party. Their focus on providing birth control is under the guise of if a woman doesn’t want to get pregnant she doesn’t have to. Instead of providing more money for such things as abstinence education (which the left greatly frowns upon), they push for birth control. Not so that they can avoid the situations you mention, but as if to say, “Screw all you want, we’ll give you more.” And then, if a woman does happen to get pregnant, well then if she doesn’t want it she can by all means go and kill it before it becomes an inconvenience to her.
            But going further on your premise, let’s be blunt, the main group which is affected by fatherless children and mothers with too many kids is the African-American community. By your logic, providing government paid for birth control so that they don’t keep having babies, isn’t that akin to saying, “We don’t want your kids when they’re trouble, so we’re just not gonna let you have them”?

          • “But going further on your premise, let’s be blunt, the main group which is affected by fatherless children and mothers with too many kids is the African-American community.”

            You mean like this story implies? Single mother of 10?

            http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/26/single-mom-_n_4346179.html

  2. thehereandnow1

    I believe Pat is of the mindset that only liberals are allowed to be funny/comedians/sarcastic. His post just shows that either he’s easily duped or he can’t find anything else since his golden child is screwing the pooch with his signature piece of legislation.

    And Pat I don’t know what circles you run around with, but I happen to know many people who are not “angry old white men” who listen to Rush. Some are even quite attractive, intelligent women. So either your sources are wrong or you have an obsession with angry old white men. Question, why is it that for a group that claims to be the only one for tolerance and equality of all libs are incredibly quick to bring up one’s gender,race, and/or sexual preference/orientation?

  3. Angry old men.

    I suspect it takes one to know one.

  4. Steverino

    His addiction to oxycontin has started to erode his brain.

  5. shawnnews

    I’ve heard Rush go on and on about how he’s here to educate people. Then when someone catches him in some ridiculous statement, he plays the entertainer card.
    You can sit around listening to someone talk about how the world is all about you and that the liberals, the illegal immigrants and the poor want to take all the fruits of you labor. But what is the consequence other than self-delusion?

  6. Thanks for parenthetically pointing out to your regular.readers how birth control works.
    More of them should know about and practice it.

  7. Chuck Cossey

    Believeit or not I do not listen to conservative talk show hosts to educate myself and formulate my own opinions. Most of the time these hosts say things I’ve already thought of but I don’t have media outlet that provides so many listeners.
    Rush has the ability to get his point across through the use of sarcasm and humor. Actually, he doesn’t need me to defend him.
    And no, I should not pay for contraception for anyone, period. Individuals have the money to indulge in all sorts of optional services: huge cable bills, unlimited cell phone plans, name brand clothing and shoes, very nice vehicles and then I should be expected to pay for their contraception. How foolish. It tells me liberals are gullible and have no concept of individual responsibility and making decisions based upon consequences.

    • You can individual responsibility all you want but until you live in the real world, all the spouting of righteousness and indignation at the irresponsible choices of some people isn’t going to change them. Some people are just plain users and takers.

      Now, do you want to pay to incarcerate them which cost what amount each year (you look it up). Or provide sex education and cheap pills to inhibit or make less of those children that you and I don’t like paying to raise when I’ve got all I can do to take care of my households needs.

      That’s your choice bud.

  8. BBishere2

    Funny how when you liberals can’t come up with something intelligent to say, the first thing out of your mouth is name calling…. You must have a copy of Alinsky’s book on your nightstand to read, just as those Bible thumping, gun clinging angry old white men right-wing Christians do with their Bibles.

    You can poo-poo El-Rushbo all you want, but when it comes to facts, you’ll have a hard time disproving him. I’ll take him over the likes of anything you’ll follow or support any day of the week.

  9. shawnnews

    The entire Sandra Fluke episode of Limbaugh’s career demonstrates that he is the name caller and the one who needs to look up his facts.

    • thehereandnow1

      Since you are such a champion of Ms. Fluke, and Rush was dealt such a devastating blow (remind me again, which of these two is still relevant today?), I will deduce that you are of the mind that since you are a lib, you are far better knowledgeable on the rights of women than any Republican / Conservative. In that case I anxiously await your comment on here decrying Martin Bashir, who, on a nationally televised broadcast on a major cable news channel said that Sarah Palin should have done to her a practice done in the days of slavery whereby a person would defecate and urinate in the mouth of a slave. Because I know you, Pat and others would be busting your britches if a right-leaning news personality said the same thing about Hillary Clinton (I mean look at how batty you’re getting of what Rush said about Flukey). Since you are the champion of women, I look forward to hearing you stick up for this woman.

  10. shawnnews

    Limbaugh hasn’t been relevant to anyone of political sense ever. He has people who listen to his show. The only relevance Limbaugh has is as a benchmark to how many people enjoy getting poor information. The number of listeners equals the amount of people who keep going back to silliness.
    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/08/08/1229638/-Rush-Limbaugh-Claims-3-Day-Slutzkrieg-on-Sandra-Fluke-was-an-Accident
    We can see here that Limbaugh chose to obfuscate her testimony on the expenses of birth control — what reasonable people do when they don’t want to make babies or abortions — rather than address the legitimate debate of price reductions vs. subsidies of medical services. However, I think Limbaugh is speaking directly to the mentality of his audience of probably think they are the good people while everyone else just doesn’t measure up.
    If you are upset about Martin Bashir, do what the liberals do — ask people to remove their advertising from his program or demand his resignation. This is a “free market” solution in that you are asking a network to hire someone else, or an advertiser to take their business elsewhere, rather than enacting a law or fines.

  11. thehereandnow1

    Your attempts at portraying Obamacare covering birth control as a noble and just deed are greatly diminished when you remember the recent ad campaign put for by the liberal backed agency in Colorado, which featured several messages where the gist was that now that birth control was covered under Obamacare girls can now bang that hot looking guy without worrying about consequences.

    And I’d take Limbaugh as more factual than all of those scrubs on MSNBC combined any day of the week.

  12. shawnnews

    I speak for myself not for liberals. On national issues I usually take their side although being a Democrat seems to mean having what you want done compromised away or diminished. I suppose this is still better than supporting conservative ideas which are usually disastrous — like abstinence education or supply-side economics.
    As a result of speaking for myself, if one group runs careless ads taken as if Obamacare is a safety net for male and female promiscuity, they can defend themselves. My reasons for supporting birth control are valid, clear and good for public health. I suspect any country without access to birth control and contraception will be poor and superstitious. If Martin Bashir says even more careless things in addition to Palin’s irresponsible slavery analogy, he will pay the price.

  13. Shawn,

    Abstinence education isn’t disasterous, not abstaining is. Contraception (whether free or not) doesn’t prevent the many negative consequences of unfettered sexual freedom.

    • shawnnews

      I haven’t and won’t make the argument for “unfettered sexual freedom.” Abstinence education in and of itself is a failure. I support proper use of contraception and I see it as a routine part of women’s health care. There is nothing in the Bible banning contraception — just a few phrases here and there that can be used for selective purposes like any other.
      Anyone who takes the position that he is against contraception while claiming to be pro-life is a rote thinker who probably claims to obey a religion. We know very well that anyone properly using contraception probably wouldn’t need to get an abortion. If a person was genuinely “pro-life” they should be thrilled that easy access to contraception would prevent abortions. We also know that a gay or a lesbian couple would be happy to adopt a child rather than have it aborted.
      But instead, people lobby for foolishness because some said it was a part of a religion.
      Not wanting to pay for someone’s birth control is a different argument — but I don’t want to pay for faith-based programs or Catholic-related anything but in the end I suppose I do.
      Adam Faber is making good arguments over on Ted Biondo’s blog.

  14. Shawn, if the truth be known, I bet you’d find the root religious reasons against birth control are more related to growing potential tithers and new members to be recruited into the religious life than it has anything to do with being pro-life. The same can be said about the roots of religious based anti-homosexual doctrines. Homosexuals by design don’t reproduce, hence no babies to be recruited into the faith, become waring members for the cause, and provide donations to buy land and arms. Look how rich the Catholic church is and some of the other dynasty’s built around religious faith.

    Back when religion doctrines were created, people aligned amongst religious and cultural lines more so than nationality or regional ones (although you could draw distinct lines on a map). The more people that belonged to a religious sect, the more powerful that group was. So breeding was pretty much mandatory as a way of increasing their numbers and strength.

    Of course, things have changed quite a bit since those days but much of what motivates the religious mindsets that we see in all those countries, where heavy handed religion is used as a tool to control people, comes from very primitive beginnings that is for all intent and purpose, a genetic pre-disposition. Just like liberal and progressive dispositions are genetic to those who hold those kinds of views. Of course, there will always be a mix of both values within people, but people tend to lean one way more than another.

    The human race is experiencing a worldwide questioning of the religious values that have driven much of the world’s political agendas to date. Many of the newer generations aren’t buying the old doctrines that have been used to control people over the centuries. It is the newer generations that are moving away from such rigid beliefs that is causing the old time believers and the leadership of those sects, to dig in their heels so to say, and stand on old values that never ever worked even in their times. We see those failures when we read stories about the Catholic church that ran laundries with the help of “bad girls” who were sent to those places because they just weren’t upholding church doctrines. That kind of abuse happened more than we are lead to believe and it happened in all religious sects.

    Christianity went through a modernization over the past few centuries, a modernization that the Middle East is beginning. Christians would have you believe that their history of killing people in the name of God was just a small part of their past and they’ve done more good than not, but in reality they killed huge amounts of people and all in the name of God. If you want a more recent example of missionairy’s going to a country to do good and ending up doing very well for themselves, look to Hawaii. Many of the big name companies that come from that state, like Dole and Castle, started when their forefathers went their to convert the savage natives and saw the wealth that could be garnered from those islands. And don’t forget the crusades and all the other killings that were done in the name of God but were really about grabbing land, riches and power.

    So to get to point, when you’re dealing with people who use religion as the main force behind their beliefs, you’re dealing with very primitive mindsets and your never going to change them. The best thing you can do is show them the hypocrisy’s of their beliefs.

  15. Shawn,

    I didn’t mention religion at all and it has no bearing on my comment.

  16. expdoc, just because you didn’t print it, type it, or use the term in your comment doesn’t mean your religion or religious beliefs or beliefs formed from religious dogma you’ve been influenced by aren’t inspiring your comments.

  17. shawnnews

    I don’t believe religions are bad or good. They just wind up being belief systems and clubs run by people based on books or ideas claiming to cone from deities or divine sources.
    Expdoc, what other reason does someone have for continuing “abstinence education” when it’s been shown not to work?
    Also do you think someone should continue doing something that doesn’t work and teach others to do the sane because of religious beliefs? If so why? Also do you think you could have any argument at all with Muslims?
    I say no on all counts.

  18. shawnnews

    I’m not against abstinence by the way. I’m against “abstinence-only” education. My article from WaPo above has this to say:

    “Brown said Mathematica’s results underscore what other, smaller studies have shown: “The most effective programs are those that say abstinence is the best choice but birth control and protection are also worth knowing about.”

    An official at the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States agreed.

    “Comprehensive education means teaching about abstinence and a myriad of other topics,” said spokeswoman Martha Kempner. Among them, she said: “contraception, critical thinking, one’s own values and the values of your family and your religious community.

    “Abstinence-only was an experiment and it failed.”

    Given that the best education includes both teaching about abstinence and contraception, it is in the best interest of the public that contraception be recognized as a routine part of women’s health and be covered under any insurance policy.

    Catholic women never have to use birth control if they don’t want.

    Being for promiscuity is a terrible idea and that is not what I argue here.

  19. “Brown said Mathematica’s results underscore what other, smaller studies have shown: “The most effective programs are those that say abstinence is the best choice but birth control and protection are also worth knowing about.”

    Exactly.

    But the emphasis needs to be on abstinence. Not because of religion, but because of medicine, psychiatry and social well-being. No method of contraception is perfect and many methods do nothing to prevent sexually transmitted disease.

    Contraception is nearly free as it is and it isn’t only available to women.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

CAPTCHA Image

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>