Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Will Sandra Fluke Sue Rush Limbaugh (Vanity)
Vanity | March 5, 2012 | Scoutmaster

Posted on 03/05/2012 10:38:29 AM PST by Scoutmaster

I've seen references in some of the threads on Rush Limbaugh, Sandra Fluke and Limbaugh's apology, wondering whether Fluke will sue Limbaugh for defamation or libel. I'm not an expert in this area, but here are a few thoughts.

First, for those who haven't read Fluke's testimony, and although it may well have been factually incorrect in many ways, Fluke never mentioned her own sex life or use of contraceptives. She was going to be called by the Democrats as a expert primarily how women with medical issues that could be treated by oral birth control were being denied 'medical care' in the form of oral birth control because it was also a contraceptive.

Right after being introduced, Fluke said:

"When I look around my campus, I see the faces of the women affected by this lack of contraceptive coverage. [I]n the last week, I have heard more and more of their stories. On a daily basis, I hear yet from another woman from Georgetown or from another school or who works for a religiously-affiliated employer, and they tell me that they have suffered financially and emotionally and medically because of this lack of coverage.

“And so, I’m here today to share their voices, and I want to thank you for allowing them – not me – to be heard.

Fluke then went on to share the stories of six other women (who may or may not exist). As an example, Fluke told of a friend who allegedly has polycystic ovarian syndrome, and her birth control prescription is 'technically covered by Georgetown’s insurance because it’s not intended to prevent pregnancy', but the 'gay' friend was denied coverage because the insurance company interviewed her and decided that she really wanted birth control to prevent pregnancy.

The stories were almost all about women who allegedly had medical issues that should have been treated with oral contraceptives, but payment for the medical treatment was allegedly denied because it would have meant paying for a contraceptive. Most importantly, none of the stories was about Fluke, Fluke's sex life, Fluke's use of contraceptives, Fluke's cost of contraceptives, or Fluke's need for contraceptives.

Remember, Fluke was supposed to be an expert on the issue of why oral contraceptives were needed for all of these non-sex purposes.

When Rush Limbaugh called Fluke a "slut" and a "prostitute" repeatedly over the course of four days, he constantly made specific allegations about what Fluke had said. Among the four days of comments, Limbaugh said Fluke was "a woman who is happily presenting herself as an immoral, baseless, no-purpose-to-her life woman." Which is odd, because Fluke never spoke of her own life. Rush claimed Fluke had testified that "she's having so much sex she can't pay for it," although Fluke never said she was having sex or using contraceptives. Limbaugh said things like:

What does it say about the college coed Susan Fluke [sic], who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex? What does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex.

None of the statements about her sex life that Limbaugh attributed to Fluke were true, because Fluke never spoke about her sex life or her use of contraceptives. But Limbaugh repeatedly called Fluke a "slut," and a "prostitiute" based on her statements that he made up.

Rush blew it. He made hours of specific demeaning (at least to conservatives) allegations about what Fluke said, and those allegations weren't true. And he called her insults (at least to conservatives) based on the false statements he attributed to her.

So what if she sues for defamation? It's clear that Limbaugh made hours of claims attributing statements to Fluke that she simply didn't make. If you deny that then you need to read Fluke's statement and compare it with the statements Limbaugh attributes to her. It's hard for Limbaugh to assert that he didn't intend 'slut' to be a bad thing. He said he'd be ashamed of her if she was his daughter, and many similar comments. And let's put aside for a moment the issues of whether she suffered damages and how she would prove them.

Since New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), a public figure suing for defamation must prove that that the defendant/publisher had 'actual malice,' which means the defendant must have known that the statement was false or acted in reckless disregard of its truth or falsity.

Was Sandra Fluke a public figure? Simply appearing before Congress, or appearing in the public, isn't enough to make one a public figure. If Sandra Fluke had been subpoenaed to appear before Congress and had been required to make her statements as testimony, she almost certainly would not have been a public figure. Fluke also wasn't a standard public figure at the time she gave her presentation because she hadn't earned that role by being 'pervasively' in the news.Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 345. Without further research into the issue, it sounds to me as if Fluke fits this description; she has worked in this area and agreed or offered to appear before Congress. And you can't kid anyone; we know it was in order to influence the issue of the Obamacare mandate on payment for contraception.

If Fluke is a public figure, what is the standard she must prove? The actual malice standard requires that she prove Limbaugh knew that the statement was false or acted in reckless disregard of its truth or falsity.

"Actual malice" is very had to prove. It goes beyond mere neglect in fact-checking, or not meeting professional standards. Generally the publisher must have an actual doubt as to the truth of the statement, or a "high degree of awareness of . . . probable falsity.'" St. Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727, 731 (1968)

So . . . I'd love to hear some experts in the area of defamation of public figures weigh in, but my quick-and-dirty is that if Fluke were not a public figure, it's clear that Limbaugh defamed her repeatedly. (And we'd get to the issue of whether Fluke could prove damages; in her sphere, being called a 'slut' by Rush Limbaugh may have improved her future earning potential.) He attributed demeaning statements to her that she simply didn't make, and he did it repeated on national/international radio over a period of four days. Then he called her some unflattering terms based upon his own false attributions.

Fluke looks like a limited pubic figure for the purpose of her presentation. Did Limbaugh act with a high degree of awareness that his attributions were probably false? That's a very tough standard to meet, although just because the standard's tough to meet won't keep a liberal attorney from suing Limbaugh and keeping this issue in the headiness and Limbaugh on the hot seat.


TOPICS: Health/Medicine; Politics; Society
KEYWORDS: contraception; fluke; fluked; flukerama; limbaugh; rolemodel; rushlimbaugh; sandrafluke; sandytheslut
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-158 next last
Before you post: "Limbaugh was right, Sandra Fluke testified she was a slut," I'd respectfully ask that you pause and read Fluke's statements. Fluke may collected a number of extreme tales that are difficult to believe, but Fluke never mentioned her own sex life, her own use of contraceptives (in the past, present, or future), or her own cost of contraceptives).

All of the statements Rush Limbaugh made about the amount of sex Fluke claimed she was having? They were false. Limbaugh's claims that Fluke was a 'slut' were specifically based (by Limbaugh, in Limbaugh's on word) on Limbaugh's erroneous claims that Fluke talked about the amount of sex she was having, or the cost of her contraception.

FR posters who have figured that out have asked on some threads "is Fluke going to sue Limbaugh?" In response, I briefly touch on defamation of a limited public figure.

"Briefly," because I'm as far from an expert on Times v. Sullivan and its progeny as anyone.

1 posted on 03/05/2012 10:38:37 AM PST by Scoutmaster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Scoutmaster

Truth is a defense in a libel suit.


2 posted on 03/05/2012 10:41:05 AM PST by AU72
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Scoutmaster

If that will keep the story in the headlines and keep advertisers from the show and push Limbaugh off the air, of course she will sue.


3 posted on 03/05/2012 10:42:10 AM PST by GeronL (The Right to Life came before the Right to Pursue Happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Scoutmaster

Math is absolute.... with the testimony she gave, applied mathematically PROVES she is a slut.... at least according to the websters dictionary definition...


4 posted on 03/05/2012 10:42:25 AM PST by joe fonebone (Project Gunwalker, this will make watergate look like the warm up band......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Scoutmaster

Sandra fluke is a PR prostitute, being pimped by the DNC.

She will do what they tell her.


5 posted on 03/05/2012 10:43:21 AM PST by PGR88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Scoutmaster
Gotta luv what passes as newz.
6 posted on 03/05/2012 10:43:40 AM PST by allmost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Scoutmaster

The lawsuit will likely be against Rush and against each and every station that carries Rush. After all when you have Hoyer(sp?) and Obama on your side . . . .


7 posted on 03/05/2012 10:44:08 AM PST by JimSEA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Scoutmaster

Not a snow ball’s chance in Hell.

It’s called “discovery” and there is NO way she will go under oath and answer questions. Too many things about how her ‘testimony’ was arranged would be fair game.


8 posted on 03/05/2012 10:44:48 AM PST by I cannot think of a name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AU72

Not when the leftists get done with it


9 posted on 03/05/2012 10:45:03 AM PST by GeronL (The Right to Life came before the Right to Pursue Happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Scoutmaster
I apologize.

Many of you know I had shoulder surgery and am working one-handed.

I lost part of the post (as far as I can tell acting under the influence of Percocet).

Fluke was probably a limited public figure. That's an indivudal those "thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved." Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 345.

I lost part of the post because of the mis-use of tags.

10 posted on 03/05/2012 10:46:22 AM PST by Scoutmaster (You knew the job was dangerous when you took it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Scoutmaster

That’s a very astute analysis. In fact, the only part I disagree with you about is that conservatives feel Rush’s comments were demeaning. I’m conservative, and I don’t feel that way at all.

Once question: since you read the woman’s testimony (and I have no intention of doing so — I’m not big on having women publicly enthuse over promiscuity) can you tell us where Rush got the $3000 figure?


11 posted on 03/05/2012 10:46:22 AM PST by hampdenkid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Scoutmaster

Of course she’s going to sue him, but it has nothing at all to do with the merits, or lack thereof of any legal action. The entire point is to attempt to link Rush to the Republican candidate, whoever that turns out to be in the minds of “moderate” and “independent” voters, and at the same time, create problems for the candidate with the base if/when he attempts to distance himself from El Rushbo.

Oh, and it also helps that we’re not talking about the crappy economy.

For the Rat machine, this is, in their minds, a “win win win”.

I think it’s going to backfire, because the left will enjoy the theater, but it won’t really put the fire in their bellies, because they see it for what it is: theater.

On the other hand, the activist right is really going to get pissed off, the harder the ‘Rat strategy gets pushed, because we see it as further evidence of the craven demagoguery of the left. Which is also what it is.


12 posted on 03/05/2012 10:48:11 AM PST by absalom01 (You should do your duty in all things. You can never do more, you should never wish to do less.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Scoutmaster

I think Rush should hire her as a spokesperson for Twoifbytea for one million dollars per year, with the stipulation that she pose for nude photos with bottles of tea. Thus creating a self-fulfilling prophecy ;-)

Like the old joke, it’s just a question of negotiating the price.


13 posted on 03/05/2012 10:48:20 AM PST by bigbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: joe fonebone
Math is absolute.... with the testimony she gave,

We have a winner, folks. joe fonebone didn't read or listen to the testimony.

14 posted on 03/05/2012 10:49:13 AM PST by Scoutmaster (You knew the job was dangerous when you took it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: hampdenkid; Scoutmaster
Once question: since you read the woman’s testimony (and I have no intention of doing so — I’m not big on having women publicly enthuse over promiscuity) can you tell us where Rush got the $3000 figure?

From Ms. Fluke's testimony:

“Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school. For a lot of students who, like me, are on public interest scholarships, that’s practically an entire summer’s salary. 40% of the female students at Georgetown Law reported to us that they struggle financially as a result of this policy."
$3,000 during law school, not per year.
15 posted on 03/05/2012 10:53:16 AM PST by Yo-Yo (Is the /sarc tag really necessary?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Scoutmaster

No, she won’t sue.

First, an opinion cannot be libel or slander. It is an opinion.

Second, truth is a defense to libel or slander ... so, if she convinced a court that it was a factual statement (rather than an opinion), she’d have to endure the other side trying to prove she’s a slut. I doubt she’d want that adjudicated. It wouldn’t be pretty.

No chance.

SnakeDoc


16 posted on 03/05/2012 10:53:58 AM PST by SnakeDoctor ("I've shot people I like more for less" -- Raylan Givens)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Scoutmaster
None of the statements about her sex life that Limbaugh attributed to Fluke were true, because Fluke never spoke about her sex life or her use of contraceptives. But Limbaugh repeatedly called Fluke a "slut," and a "prostitiute" based on her statements that he made up.

Thanks for an intelligent discussion on this topic. I always like RUSH and this was the one time I was actually cringing listening to him. I watched some of her testimony and I couldn't understand why he was calling her a slut.

He clearly went over the line and I think it will sort itself out legally but I believe if she won some defamation suit she would deserve to win - I don't understand why he didn't realize how harsh it was to hear him speak like that.

17 posted on 03/05/2012 10:54:28 AM PST by SunnyUsa ( It is error alone which needs the support of government.Truth can stand by itself. Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Scoutmaster

Her testimony said she paid some huge amount for tuition and shouldn’t be expected to pay $3000 for birth control. She wants others to pay for it by having insurance pick it up...which means everyone’s insurance goes up to pay the cost of the drug plus administrative costs. That’s the nut of what Rush talked about.

A responsible person either says to themselves ‘I want to have sex and need to get protection and put it in my budget’, or says ‘wow, I may have to abstain until I can afford it.’ He tied her testimony to the similarities to prostitution. Then, when the math is done, and you add the amount of condoms one could purchase for $3000 it means multiple times per day every day.

The rest of her testimony was typical liberal sob stories that help justify more government.


18 posted on 03/05/2012 10:55:01 AM PST by ilgipper (Everything you get from the government was taken from someone else)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hampdenkid
Once question: since you read the woman’s testimony (and I have no intention of doing so — I’m not big on having women publicly enthuse over promiscuity) can you tell us where Rush got the $3000 figure?

Yeah. And you owe me a Diet Coke some day for making me go back to be certain I am absolutely correct in phrasing this.

Yeah. Fluke, the expert, who was talking about generalities, said:

Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school.

Law school is three years long. That's $1,000 per year.

Well, from enrollment to graduation is less than 36 months, but you get the idea. She never said $3,000 per year. And she didn't say her contraception cost $3,000. She was being offered as an expert who talked about medical issues and contraception, as Limbaugh pointed out today when he explained why he apologized. And that's why she wasn't allowed to testify to Congress. She's not an expert on other women and the whole topic (she could have testified about herself).

19 posted on 03/05/2012 10:57:46 AM PST by Scoutmaster (You knew the job was dangerous when you took it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Scoutmaster
You might find a doctor suing Fluke before she gets to sue Rush.

Fluke keeps saying you can't get contraceptives from doctors...there's the untruth...Of course the doctor will give them for a condition including birth control but there are sometimes restrictions.

My doctor wouldn't write a prescription for me at age 35....because I smoked.....making me "stroke" material.

20 posted on 03/05/2012 11:00:10 AM PST by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Yo-Yo

Thanks so much for the explanation. Sounds to me like she included herself among those who are paying an average of $1000 a year for birth control. Were I her, I would not want to parse this sentence in a court of law.


21 posted on 03/05/2012 11:00:10 AM PST by hampdenkid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Scoutmaster
I don't think Rush ever called her a slut. He said something like what do you call a woman who wants you to pay for her to have sex. He was pointing out that she was demanding that contraception be given to undergraduates and payed for by someone else because they couldn't afford to pay for it themselves.

Her testimony(was it under oath?) was very slimy and dishonest. She testified that she represented other woman who were not identified and had not authorized her to speak for them. The stories she made up could never be verified. She also said female undergraduates were suffering financially and in other ways because they could not afford contraception. She said the cost of contraception for a law school student was $1000 per year or $3000 for the time in law school. Condoms cost less than $1 each, birth control pills are available for $9 per month. Tuition at Georgetown Law is over $20,000 per semester.

None of the articles talked about the specifics of her testimony.

Can someone get a list of Rush's sponsors who quit his show because of this? Someone should get the names and the contact information. Someone should draft a sample letter to send to them telling them how strongly we resent their cowardly political correctness and how we will NEVER use any of their products ever again and we will tell our friends not to buy their products.

The leftist MSM should not have the power to force sponsors to quit. We should tell these sponsors that they will pay a price for their cowardice.

22 posted on 03/05/2012 11:00:54 AM PST by detective
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: I cannot think of a name
It’s called “discovery” and there is NO way she will go under oath and answer questions. Too many things about how her ‘testimony’ was arranged would be fair game.

We have the winning answer. I hope she does sue Rush. Rush has the money to hire the best lawyers and discovery would destroy Fluke and also bring to light that in all probability she is working hand in glove with the DNC or other Democrat organizations.

Stephanopolus started this whole issue when he asked Sanatorium about contraception. The whole purpose of this was to create a fire storm of controversy and news that would get the subject off the fact that our economy under Obama really sucks!!!!!!!!!!!!!

23 posted on 03/05/2012 11:01:25 AM PST by cpdiii (Deckhand, Roughneck, Mud Man, Geologist, Pilot, Pharmacist. THE CONSTITUTION IS WORTH DYING FOR!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Scoutmaster

wondering whether Fluke will sue Limbaugh for defamation or libel.

You are kidding right?
She is a political operative that has gotten what she wanted. She has served her purpose.
To sue would mean that she would have to prove that being called a slut was libel. Somehow I doubt she wants to go there.


24 posted on 03/05/2012 11:02:16 AM PST by SECURE AMERICA (Where can I sign up for the New the media American Revolution and the Crusades 2012?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SnakeDoctor
First, an opinion cannot be libel or slander. It is an opinion.

It's not an opinion when Rush says "Sandra Fluke said she was have to much sex . . . " That's a statement of fact by Rush. The 'slut' thing is the least of Limbaugh's worries. He made dozens and dozens of specific 'factual' statements about what Fluke said . . . and Fluke didn't say any of those things.

truth is a defense to libel or slander

Well, yeah. Which is why Rush would clearly be in trouble if Fluke weren't a limited public figure. Because Rush made up all of those thing he claimed that Fluke said, and presented as fact as her statements.

The suit wouldn't be about whether she was a slut, it would be about whether she claimed she was having all of this sex and wanted to be paid for it. Did she make those claims? No, she did not. She never mentioned her own sex life a single time. Or her own contraception. Rush made all of that stuff up.

25 posted on 03/05/2012 11:03:54 AM PST by Scoutmaster (You knew the job was dangerous when you took it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Yo-Yo
What's a Public Interest Scholarship?? Ohhhh...A Dem Activist Scholarship....certainly a prostitute of a sort.

Let him/her/whatever buy condoms....Bunch of over educated dummies..It's more about disease than pregnancy. Stop spreading diseases...you've turned our nation into a bunch of _ _ _ _ _.

26 posted on 03/05/2012 11:04:59 AM PST by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: AU72

Rush was extrapolating, not quoting. But his words were rude.


27 posted on 03/05/2012 11:06:24 AM PST by luvbach1 (Stop the destruction in 2012 or continue the decline)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: cpdiii

On the other hand, destroying her in court might win the lawsuit, but alienate women to Rush and conservatives. Surely the MSM would just portray it like attacking a rape victim as ‘asking for it’. This whole thing is a mess and distracts from the real issue of religious freedom.


28 posted on 03/05/2012 11:07:35 AM PST by MrShoop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: ilgipper
Her testimony said she paid some huge amount for tuition and shouldn’t be expected to pay $3000 for birth control.

No it did not.

First, she never mentioned her tuition or the amount of her tuition.

Second, she never mentioned what she paid for her birth control.

Third, she never said whether she was on birth control or paying for it at all.

Fourth, she didn't give testimony. She wasn't sworn.

Would you like to read her statement and come back and play another round?

29 posted on 03/05/2012 11:08:37 AM PST by Scoutmaster (You knew the job was dangerous when you took it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau
What's a Public Interest Scholarship.

Ms. Fluke was the Fran Kandel Public Interest Grant Recipient of the Women Lawyers Association of Los Angeles, for "projects that make governmental and social institutions and agencies more accessible and responsive to members of society whose interests are not otherwise adequately recognized or asserted."

Nobody has yet established that Ms Fluke needs contraception.

30 posted on 03/05/2012 11:14:20 AM PST by Scoutmaster (You knew the job was dangerous when you took it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Scoutmaster

In view of the volatility of the issue that she was testifying about, doesn’t that immediately make her a public figure?


31 posted on 03/05/2012 11:18:59 AM PST by unique1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: I cannot think of a name
It’s called “discovery” and there is NO way she will go under oath and answer questions

It would never get that far. The suit would be settled.

But count me among those who think she won't sue. All this talk about suing is just fanning the flames to keep a controversy alive.

32 posted on 03/05/2012 11:19:36 AM PST by gdani
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Scoutmaster
So what you're saying is she was asked to be an "expert", based on WHAT again? If nothing, then WTF was she doing in front of a congressional panel?

If what you say is true, she has even LESS credibility than I thought. It's like Jessica Lange giving testimony about how hard it is for farmers.

33 posted on 03/05/2012 11:19:47 AM PST by boop (I hate hippies and dopeheads. Just hate them. ...Ernest Borgnine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Scoutmaster

Rush said what he said on his radio show and then he fully apologized on his radio show.

That would be taken into account it if came to damages and probably won’t gain her a large settlement either.


34 posted on 03/05/2012 11:20:41 AM PST by Berlin_Freeper (Cometh the hour, cometh the man. NEWT GINGRICH 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: detective
I don't think Rush ever called her a slut.

He did. Multiple times. For example:

What does it say about the college coed Susan Fluke [sic], who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex? What does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex.

But forget about calling her a slut. Given that Fluke never discussed her own sex life or contraception, what was the basis for this statement by Limbaugh: Sandra Fluke is

"a woman who is happily presenting herself as an immoral, baseless, no-purpose-to-her life woman. She wants all the sex in the world whenever she wants it, all the time, no consequences. No responsibility for her behavior."

Immoral, baseless, no-purpose-to-her life? Fluke never described her own life. Fluke never said she wanted 'all the sex in the world.'

Rush didn't just miss the bulls-eye on this on, or the target. He missed the wall and the dart hit the floor.

35 posted on 03/05/2012 11:21:20 AM PST by Scoutmaster (You knew the job was dangerous when you took it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: cpdiii
The 1000 dollar a year cost is just plain Bravo Sierra from Ms. Fluke. In some very rare instances it might be necessary to use a very expensive product for birth control but this is normall confined to older women with extreme menstrual bleeding problems. In that case those expensive pills can work but more often than not, a hysterectomy is performed if the woman is past child bearing age or does not desire more children.

Click on the link to see the prices of many birth control pills. They are actually cheap. And if you are broke Planned parenthood will give them out at even cheaper prices. Prices of Birth Control Pills

36 posted on 03/05/2012 11:22:01 AM PST by cpdiii (Deckhand, Roughneck, Mud Man, Geologist, Pilot, Pharmacist. THE CONSTITUTION IS WORTH DYING FOR!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Scoutmaster

They will just have Eric Holder sic his lefty lawyer attack dogs on him.


37 posted on 03/05/2012 11:23:04 AM PST by Argus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Scoutmaster

They are just playing into the hands of the media, however, since the world today is so twisted, it would not be far fetched to believe both sides are playing the middle for dough. That should be miserable prospect, but not too unlikely given todays growing uneducated populace.


38 posted on 03/05/2012 11:25:14 AM PST by Joshua Marcus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Scoutmaster

Thank you for a rational discussion of this whole mess. Everyone who wants to continue this debate needs to read her testimony. It is only a few pages long. Rush went way out on a slender branch here and has handed all sorts of live ammunition to the leftist enemy. There is also background showing she is a longtime womens’ issues activist, is about 30 years old and enrolled to challenge the school health care policy. Those would have been better arguments to use. The name calling aids the left and will peel off some who don’t thoroughly research the issues.


39 posted on 03/05/2012 11:26:51 AM PST by Truth29
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: boop
So what you're saying is she was asked to be an "expert", based on WHAT again?

Yes. That's what was ridiculous. That's what Rush should have had a field day with. And that's why she wasn't permitted to testify before Congress.

Instead, she was allowed to give a statement in front of a bunch of Democrats. And the ever-willing media covered it as if she were testifying before Congress. She wasn't under oath.

So. Think about it. She was there as an 'expert' on the topic of medical reasons why women needed birth control pills but were being denied them because 'contraception' wasn't covered by a health plan for religious reasons. It was a carefully written presentation that dealt with all of the outlier medical situations, and evil insurance companies interviewing women with medical conditions and physician orders, and deciding not to provide care because the insurer thought the woman just wanted the birth control pill so she could have sex.

That kind of nauseating Democrat story for the public.

But . . . it wasn't about having lots of sex at all. By Fluke or anyone else. It was about medical conditions that required the pill and evil healthcare plans denying it.

And Rush turned it into testimony about having lots of sex (wrong) by Fluke (who never mentioned her own sex life or use of contraception).

40 posted on 03/05/2012 11:27:54 AM PST by Scoutmaster (You knew the job was dangerous when you took it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Scoutmaster
I agree. IMHO, when one assumes a role of being a public advocate for a cause, that person, by definition, becomes a public figure.

Her voluntary appearance with the specific intention of influencing public policy would I believe, qualify her as a public figure.

41 posted on 03/05/2012 11:28:00 AM PST by Joe 6-pack (Que me amat, amet et canem meum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Scoutmaster

What’s the point of this thread? Is this like the third or fourth time you’ve posted this “analysis”?


42 posted on 03/05/2012 11:30:33 AM PST by VeniVidiVici (Liberal Democrats love direct democracy until it's time to vote on something)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Joe 6-pack

bingo, and the appology essentially immunizes him from any litigation.

It also opens her entire life, not just this episode.

Also, it makes every democrat, phone record subject to discovery.

It also makes her school transcript history (ALL of it) subject to discovery.


43 posted on 03/05/2012 11:33:17 AM PST by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: cpdiii
The 1000 dollar a year cost is just plain Bravo Sierra from Ms. Fluke.

Yeah? The blowhard Ms. Fluke didn't say it cost all women on the pill $1,000. She said the pill without insurance "can cost" over $1,000 per year (over $3,000 in three years).

That's a true statement, not Bravo Sierra. It's carefully written to shock, but it's true, isn't it?

And because Ms. Fluke's presentation was about women who allegedly needed the pill for specific medical conditions, I don't know that generic birth control pills work for the conditions she named.

Isn't it true that birth control pills can cost over $1,000 per year without a prescription if you have to have specific ones for a medical condition?

That's why this activist was asked to speak to Congress. To bring up this statistical outlier situations and present them as a crisis.

44 posted on 03/05/2012 11:33:55 AM PST by Scoutmaster (You knew the job was dangerous when you took it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Scoutmaster
Good luck with that. I would love to do the discovery in such a case. "How many times have you had sex in the past 5 years, Ms. Fluck? How many different partners have you had sex with?"

It would also be a vehicle to expose all her ties to the feminazi underground, which is how she was asked to testify in the first place. It would not be a good idea on her part to sue, she and the leftists are better off making as much hay as they can and then moving on to the next effort to destroy America.

45 posted on 03/05/2012 11:34:58 AM PST by Defiant (If there are infinite parallel universes, why Lord, am I living in the one with Obama as President?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Scoutmaster
She also lied before Congress on numerous counts.


46 posted on 03/05/2012 11:36:24 AM PST by Minus_The_Bear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Scoutmaster

Rush was discussing her testimony, not her personal life. He then asked the logical question about her testimony.

Fluke never specifically said who she was referring to. She was very dishonest about that. No one had authorized her to speak on their behalf. No other women were identified. Fluke said $3000 for contraception was as much as she herself made in one summer. She said women at Georgetown are suffering because they can not afford contraception. She did not specifically include or exclude herself from the women she said she was talking about.

Rush was commenting on her testimony, not the personal life of this 30 year old law student. The MSM coverage avoids all the specifics of Fluke’s testimony.

The point is Fluke’s testimony was dishonest and probably perjury. Rush commented on her testimony and it was taken out of context.


47 posted on 03/05/2012 11:36:58 AM PST by detective
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau
Fluke keeps saying you can't get contraceptives from doctors

I want to be certain I have the facts straight. Can you tell me when and where she said that?

In her statement to Congress, she refers several times to doctors prescribing contraceptives for medical conditions - but insurers refusing to pay for them.

48 posted on 03/05/2012 11:39:36 AM PST by Scoutmaster (You knew the job was dangerous when you took it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Scoutmaster

Fluke made several statements that were either falsehoods or mistakes.


49 posted on 03/05/2012 11:41:19 AM PST by Minus_The_Bear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Scoutmaster

Jury,,,,,Nullification


50 posted on 03/05/2012 11:41:19 AM PST by DesertRhino (I was standing with a rifle, waiting for soviet paratroopers, but communists just ran for office)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-158 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson