David Moss: Birth control 'dust-up'

The purpose of this letter is to discuss, as simply as I can, the recent “dust-up” about birth control in this country. I am using the comprehensive definition of birth control that includes contraceptive devices (pills and condoms), the morning-after pill and abortion. The discussion has been about who should pay for birth control.

This country was founded on the individual rights from God, including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, which gives us great personal freedom. The roll-out of Obamacare added the right to free birth control. This was achieved by requiring the employer to pay for the cost of birth control in the premium for the worker to the health insurance company. In turn, the insurance company would offer free birth control to the insured. The Catholic church, as a matter of conscience, objects to birth control and strongly objected to this process on religious freedom grounds.

President Barack Obama, after a couple of weeks of intense discussion, recently offered a compromise. The compromise would allow the employers who objected to paying the birth control premium not to have to pay it, but the health insurance companies still would be required to continue to provide free birth control to the insured. They, like any other company, would have to recover this cost in some way or go out of business. How this would occur was not explained, but someone would end up paying the cost.

It is worth noting that paid birth control widely is available in our community. Planned Parenthood prides itself on offering free or low-cost birth control to the uninsured and people with limited means. Planned Parenthood receives federal tax money and some, including me, object because this money, at least indirectly, supports abortion.

In summary, President Obama wants to add the right to free birth control. The election this fall offers a clear choice between visions and direction for the country. President Obama and the Democrats want bigger government, more spending and more intrusion and control over our lives. In my view, this is not about who is going to pay for birth control but what are the limits on government and how far should government control infringe on our personal freedoms.

David Moss


Community comments

Note: The Steamboat Pilot & Today doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy.

(Anonymous) heboprotagonist says...

Our country might have been founded on the ideas of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" but those were the ideas of men, not God.

There are no such things as God-given rights, only God-given responsibilities. To confuse the two is arrogant, blasphemous even.

Posted 16 February 2012, 9:01 p.m. Suggest removal

(Anonymous) 1999 says...

if the catholic church is so worried about doctrine...perhaps they should quit hiding, covering up and perpetuating child abuse in that is rampant in thier church.

Posted 17 February 2012, 7:06 a.m. Suggest removal

(Anonymous) thalgard says...

It is pretty funny that the Church who ignored the Holocaust, hid pedophiles from prosecution, smuggled Nazis out of Europe, and directly profited from the seized properties of murdered Jews in Europe should be talking about morality at all!

Posted 17 February 2012, 7:42 a.m. Suggest removal

(Anonymous) KirryJ says...

thalgard, your bigorty, ignorance and misinformation about the catholic church and its history are truely astounding, the abuse scandal aside.

This is a religious liberty issue plain and clear. The government is trying to tell religious organizations they have to set their faith aside and follow the rules of of the government. This is an unprecedented over reaching of gov. power and infringment on religious freedom. Could the gov compell Kosher Deli's to buy and sell pork? It is a direct attack on the Catholic church and everyone else's faiths are next. We have been the proverbial frog in a pot basking as the heat slowly gets turned up. There have been over 1000 exemptions to the "health care law" granted by the administration to unions, states and even McDonalds.... but he wont give one to religions that are opposed? This adminstration is trying to marginalize and disinfranchise the church. If you wonder at his agenda I suggest brushing upon your history by reading about the agendas of socialism and communism.

The left tries to accuse the right of trying to limit womens access to birth control but that is propoganda. There is an abundance of and unlimited access to anyone who wants it. If they are low income they can get it cheap and subsidized by the government at Planned Barrenhoods everywhere. Just a bit of info for you...the pill has been catagorized as a Group 1 carcinogen by the W.H.O. right up there with Radium and cigarettes but you wont hear that in the "heath care" debate.

Be careful who you side with, they will come after your firmly held beliefs next (if you have any).

Posted 17 February 2012, 11 a.m. Suggest removal

(Anonymous) thalgard says...

If altar boys could get pregnant,this wouldn't even be discussed!

Posted 17 February 2012, 12:30 p.m. Suggest removal

(Anonymous) blue_spruce says...

good luck with santorum. bahahahahahaha !!!

Posted 17 February 2012, 1:20 p.m. Suggest removal

(Anonymous) KirryJ says...

For all of you in favor of the HHS mandate...here's food for though.

I think we can ALL agree the number one contributor to poor health (and consequently heath care costs) in this country is being over-weight or obese. In the intrest of the common good and lowering health care costs for all...why dont we outlaw junk food and mandate health insurance pay for 8 servings of veggies a day? We could also fine people for being overweight, with their best intrests at heart of course. That way we are making money as well. Or how about free dental and eye care? Those seem to me to be more important than imposing birth control. Why doesnt the government give us free toothpaste? Why? Beacuse someone has to pay for it? That means you and me? Do you see how absurd this gets when you take it to its logiocal conclusion.

thalgard, you obviouly have been hurt by someone and have feelings of anger and resentment toward the church. Seems like its eating you up inside. From this end it looks like the only person that is getting hurt by that is you. You should find some forgivenss, its very theraputic.

Posted 17 February 2012, 1:31 p.m. Suggest removal

(Anonymous) KirryJ says...


You sound like a Roman watching Christians getting eaten by the lions. Christians have always appeared to be on the loosing end of things. Look how well that worked out for the Romans. Are they still around? Unforunately for you, we are the ones who get the last laugh.

Posted 17 February 2012, 1:36 p.m. Suggest removal

(Anonymous) KirryJ says...

More accurately.... we wont be laughing, we will be weeping for you.

Posted 17 February 2012, 1:50 p.m. Suggest removal

(Anonymous) SMRFF says...

It's so funny how the religious right has no issue with the co-mingling of government and religion when it comes to things like gay marriage, abortion, what we can and cannot put in our body, etc., yet they cry attack on religious freedom when this same government has a stance about which they do not agree.

The religious right is essentially the party of convenience - if they are congruent with my beliefs, I'm all for big government policies. If it goes against what I believe, I shall declare our government to be socialist and declare myself to be a staunch defender of personal liberties. I want to have my cake and eat it too!


Posted 17 February 2012, 2:45 p.m. Suggest removal

(Anonymous) NamVet says...

The Catholic Church has been against birth control for decades. Fortunately 98% of Catholics ignore this man made law otherwise abortion and teen pregnancy would be on the rise instead of decline. I have yet to see a man get pregnant so it should be up to women to decide what happens to her body and not a bunch of jealous old men. The Right is trying to make this a political issue for the upcoming election. They say they want government out of our lives providing you live your life the way they say you should. They want to tell you what God to worship, who you can marry, who can you live with and whether or not you should have children etc. Freedom is living your life as you see fit. Women health issues should be decided by women and not men in Congress or a Church. Having gone to Catholic School for 12 years I can tell you that the Church has larger problems they are still trying to hide. In January a Bishop in LA had to resign because he fathered 2 children with his secretary. He didn't want to use birth control because it was a sin. That is the logic the Church uses today. Maybe he should have given her a Bayer aspirin to hold between he knees.

Posted 17 February 2012, 3:02 p.m. Suggest removal

(Anonymous) thalgard says...

....the papacy kidnapped Jewish orphans during ww2, spread lies about Jews to encourage their wholesale slaughter and disenfranchisement, committed mass genocide in the Americas and Europe...need i go on?

Posted 17 February 2012, 3:10 p.m. Suggest removal

(Anonymous) thalgard says...

KirryJ...the Church, unlike a Kosher Deli, does not pay taxes like a private business, so hence is in part subsidized by the taxpayers...that is why they have to obey federal law! Tax the Church! Jail the baby-rapers! The minute the Church, or any religious institution for that matter, takes a political stand, they no longer deserve their tax-free status. The minute they engage in illegal activity(like shuttling pedophile priests from jurisdiction to jurisdiction to avoid prosecution), they should lose their tax-free status. FYI, I have never had any personal contact with Catholic Clergy, I'm Jewish, so my anger at the Church stems from it's inherent evil nature and not from some diddling creep.

Posted 17 February 2012, 3:24 p.m. Suggest removal

(Anonymous) thalgard says...

...for a great link that explains Rick Santorum's Taliban Code: spreadingsantorum.com

Posted 17 February 2012, 3:36 p.m. Suggest removal

(Lisa-Marie Baker) lithamarie says...

Oh, Catholic bashing. Isn't that just the fun old stand-by??? Why bash anyone else when you know that there won't be any backlash from the Catholics? Well, you could bash Islam, but then the public outcry would be so great and and you'd be labeled politically incorrect. Sadly, Catholic bashing is the last safe haven for those who want to attack religion. Because, clearly, we can take it. We've been around for 2000 years. And we're still here. Wonder why that is...

A few interesting points to ponder:

"Do you know - the Catholic Church educates 2.6 million students everyday at
the cost to that Church of 10 billion dollars, and a savings on the other
hand to the American taxpayer of 18 billion dollars. The graduates go on to
graduate studies at the rate of 92%.

The Catholic Church has a non-profit hospital system of 637 hospitals, which
account for hospital treatment of 1 out of every 5 people - not just Catholics - in the United States today.

But the press is vindictive and trying to totally denigrate in every way the
Catholic Church in this country. They have blamed the disease of pedophilia
on the Catholic Church, which is as irresponsible as blaming adultery on the
institution of marriage.

Let me give you some figures that Catholics should know and remember. For
example, 12% of the 300 Protestant clergy surveyed admitted to sexual
intercourse with a parishioner; 38% acknowledged other inappropriate sexual
contact in a study by the United Methodist Church, 41.8% of clergy women
reported unwanted sexual behavior; 17% of laywomen have been sexually
harassed. Meanwhile, 1.7% of the Catholic clergy has been found guilty of
pedophilia. 10% of the Protestant ministers have been found guilty of
pedophilia. This is not a Catholic problem."

So, says Sam Miller...a jewish man.

A clarification is in order. The Catholic Church has not been against contraception for "a few decades." Writings of the Church Fathers as early at the 2nd Century clearly stated the evils of contraception and abortion. You know who else condemned contraception??? Martin Luther and John Calvin!!!!!!!!!!! Clearly, this is NOT something the Church made up recently.

The Church stands for the TRUTH. Not for what's popular. And to be forced to comply in the face of adversity is not something she accepts or bends to. Oh yes, there are not many Catholics who comply with all the teachings of the Church. The road to hell is wide and well traveled--and yes, many Catholics are travelers on that road. But that does not testify to whether the Church is valid. It is witnessed by the fact that critics, persectuors, and dissenters come and go, but the Church remains. The Church does not lower her standards, but raises the bar to invite her children into true peace and joy. Contraception leads to higher divorce rates, an increase in STDs, abortion when birth control fails, health issues, bad economies, and infidelity--not true peace and joy.

Posted 17 February 2012, 3:44 p.m. Suggest removal

(John Fielding) JohnFielding says...

How did it come to be that employers must provide health benefits at all other than for work related injuries? And how is it that the federal government decides what will be covered?

Many people take personal responsibility for health issues, including pregnancy. My late wife, (a Catholic) did not use chemical contraceptives. She expected me to share the responsibility of family planning, reminding me each time we made love. In 20 years of marriage, (plus 3 of dating) we concieved 1 child, and knew exactly when that occured as it was deliberate.

My present wife also does not use chemical contraceptives, but for health rather than religious concerns. Again, family planning (aka birth control) is a mutual responsibility.

The same applies to medical treatments. Many people take good care of their health and only want coverage for catastrophic injury or illness. Yet these people will be expected to pay for the consequenses of other peoples unwise lifestyle choices.

Costs of treatment go up dramatically when personal involvement in paying for treatment is removed. A persons health insurance should be a personal choice based on what they want to have covered and how much they are willing to pay. The premium should be based on that persons committment to healthy lifestyles.

If the employer wishes to offer a benefit of health insurance, let it be in the form of a voucher that the employee may use for a policy that suits their individual needs.


Posted 17 February 2012, 3:48 p.m. Suggest removal

(Lisa-Marie Baker) lithamarie says...

By the way, separation of church and state in no way says that religion cannot have influence on the political policies of the state. It means that the state shall not establish a "state religion". This was due to the fact that there were states, like Virginia, who established state religions and were denying people who were not of that religion certain rights. It was NEVER intended, no does it even mean, that law should be divorced from religious morals. in fact, ALL of our nation's laws were initially founded on religious principles. People, READ your history!!!!

Sounds to me like the country has established a state religion. Atheism. And if you're not part of the state "religion", you are denied certain rights. Like conscience rights. And freedom of religion.

Thalgard, do have ANY idea how many priests were killed in the holocaust?? Read the story sometime of the Catholic Priest, Fr. Maximilian Kolbe. He gave up his life in Auschwitz for a another man. A Jew. He took his place when the man was to be thrown into a starvation tank. Your view of history is filled with anger and distorted by lies. People like Maximilian Kolbe showed real love, not bigotry. And his love was grounded in the Church and the Eucharist.

Posted 17 February 2012, 3:54 p.m. Suggest removal

(Anonymous) thalgard says...

"Contraception leads to higher divorce rates, an increase in STDs, abortion when birth control fails, health issues, bad economies, and infidelity--not true peace and joy."
What a pitiful joke! The Catholic Church has been responsible or stood by while it's leaders perpetrated some of the worst acts of Genocide in history! Birth control leads to what? That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard! Go spread some more "Santorum" around...and take another swig of your koolade. You are free to practice whatever religion you want, and so am I, just give up your tax-free status if you want me to subsidize your political beliefs! This is not about forcing anyone to use birth control, this is about non-catholics who work for tax-exempt corporations having access to the same benefits as people who work for any other federally subsidized business. This is not about freedom of religion...unless you consider the people who work for these Catholic corporations who have to suffer under Papal decrees! The last time I checked, condoms prevent the spread of disease. The last time I checked, the thousands of young men and women who have suffered sexual abuse by priests are not enjoying true peace and joy. The last time I checked, it's countries like Mexico who don't use birth control who are suffering from bad economies, health issues, etc.

Posted 17 February 2012, 4:04 p.m. Suggest removal

(Anonymous) thalgard says...

Lithamarie...many priests did get killed during the Holocaust, but they were the exception, not the rule. The Vatican provided safe haven and transportation to South America for some of the most evil of the Nazis...Joseph Mengele and Adolph Eichman among them. The Vatican also kidnapped Jewish orphans during the war(See Edgardo Mortara). The Vatican was the largest landlord in Europe before the war, and Jewish land and real estate that was "unclaimed" at the end of the war reverted back to the Church(Billions of Dollars worth!) The Vatican spread lies like the infamous "blood Libel", which led to mass killings of Jews throughout history. The Church perpetrated the famous Spanish Inquisition, which led to the murder and disenfranchisement of millions of my ancestors. The Church has recently exasperated the spread of AIDS by its condemnation of condoms....the list goes on, and on, and on..........

Posted 17 February 2012, 4:16 p.m. Suggest removal

(John Fielding) JohnFielding says...

Why has this become a discussion of religon and history?

This is an issue of liberty vs government control.

No one should be forced to pay for coverage they do not want.

No one is forced to work for employers that do not provide benefits they want.


Posted 17 February 2012, 4:28 p.m. Suggest removal

(Anonymous) thalgard says...

Why is this a discussion about religion and history? Because you have a morally corrupt organization(the Catholic Church) enforcing its religious doctrine upon its employees, while receiving tax-exempt status from the Government...that's why!

Posted 17 February 2012, 4:41 p.m. Suggest removal

(Anonymous) KirryJ says...

thalgard, your a Jew? The person I love most in the world is a Jew. His name is Jesus. Dont you know salvation is from the Jews?

On a side note: God chose the Jews to be his chosen people. Did that make them perfect? Not if your reading the same old testament I am. They often fell short of the ideal. They did unspeakable things. Did that make their Theology wrong? NO. Just because they fell short didnt make them evil or wrong. It made them human. Have individuals in the catholic church always lived up to the ideal...of couse not. Does that make her wrong... the answer to that is also NO.

The rate of sexual abuse among the Jewish clergy is just as high if not higher than that of the Catholic church so dont go pointing fingers. Like Lithamarie pointed out the Catholic church is the largest charitable organization in the history of then world. But I am sure you knew that. What do you think they do it for....GOLBAL DOMINATION!!!! I am sure Mother Theresa had that in her sights when she headed to Calcutta to serve the untouchables.

I would like to know where you are getting your information about the Catholic church during the holocaust from. I hear there was a book on this subject where the author was confronted about the "facts" in his book and he openly admitted to falsifying much of the imformation. I am not saying it is all wrong but I know there were many children whose parents pleaded w/ the church to save thier kids and thats why they were taken. Its not all like you are suggesting. I would also appreciate a bit more civility. Hostility does nothing for your credibility.

Posted 17 February 2012, 4:50 p.m. Suggest removal

(Anonymous) thalgard says...

RWD...agreed...the Church and it's tax-exempt businesses should be held to the same standards as any other federally subsidized business....just because you receive birth control as a benefit from your insurance provider, it doesn't mean you have to use it! KirryJ, I suggest you read Constantines Sword, it is a very enlightening book about the Church's ultimate goal to exterminate world Jewry. For all in this conversation...I never said nor implied that all Catholics are bad...it is the Institution that is evil, not its practitioners!

Posted 17 February 2012, 5:07 p.m. Suggest removal

(Anonymous) blue_spruce says...

Kirryj. Do you honestly think santorum represents the beliefs of mainstream america?

Posted 17 February 2012, 10:31 p.m. Suggest removal

(Anonymous) blue_spruce says...

An asprin a day keeps the stork away...right. Again, good luck with that! Bahahaha

Posted 17 February 2012, 10:37 p.m. Suggest removal

(Jeff Kibler) Jeff_Kibler says...

Thaltard, you can climb on your high horse when your tribe rids itself of the ritualized barbaric practice of male genital mutilation.

Posted 17 February 2012, 11:35 p.m. Suggest removal

(Anonymous) blue_spruce says...

Jeff...wtf? Bs comment!

Posted 18 February 2012, 2:19 a.m. Suggest removal

(John Fielding) JohnFielding says...

"Everything else is a job and should be regulated like every other job in the USA"

How should every job in the USA be regulated? By what agency? With what direction?

In most cases the role government assumes in the workplace would be filled by the insurance industry. Take OSHA for example, employers that followed these safety standards would receive lower premiums. Or the EPA, oil drillers that were sloppy would have to pay higher prices for their coverage because of the claims against them.

The only regulation needed is one that makes all persons and companies responsible for the consequences of their actions, and requires some form of security to assure it.

And again, no one is forced to work for Catholic charities or any other employer.

Posted 18 February 2012, 8:13 a.m. Suggest removal

(John Fielding) JohnFielding says...

There is no doubt that abuses in pollution and worker safety have existed, The question is how to best prevent them. The means applied has been big government agencies. The alternative I presented avoids the inherent problems of inefficiency and abuse of authority associated with government programs. There is no doubt that also exists.

Health care is not a lawful right associated with work, it is a benefit employers use to attract superior employees. The cost is taken from what could have been additional direct pay, so the employee actually pays for it. If that amount was offered to the worker, perhaps in a form that assured its use toward health care, many would select less expensive catastrophic coverage and take care of the preventive maintenance (such as birth control) themselves.
The rights at stake here are those of individuals and employers to make their own decisions about insurance coverage and employee benefit programs. That has been usurped by the federal government without any sound constitutional basis. In its present form, that is being challenged in the Supreme Court. But it is only the tip of the iceberg, unconstitutional interference and regulation in the legitimate business of citizens and companies is now pervasive and its impact is the biggest factor in our economic decline.

Posted 18 February 2012, 9:22 a.m. Suggest removal

(Anonymous) thalgard says...

Hey nibbled,we are just trying to even things out so little boys like you don't feel so inadequate!

Posted 18 February 2012, 10:24 a.m. Suggest removal

(Steve Lewis) lewi says...

On the note of individual rights, this new Colorado House Bill1277 would give Local Control over regulation of Oil and Gas development in Routt County. You can sign the petition here:


Have a nice day :)

Posted 18 February 2012, 11:09 a.m. Suggest removal

(Anonymous) the_Lizard says...

RWD said "All evidence indicates that access to birth control is one of the surest ways to assist single women and working-poor families out of poverty."
We aren't talking about access. 99% of women 15 44 years old have used bc, they have access. This is about me paying for it, I'm sorry, I pay enough as it is, do you mind if I opt out and send them to PP for free bc. (heck I pay for that too)

Posted 18 February 2012, 5:31 p.m. Suggest removal

(Anonymous) cheesehead says...

My understanding of this whole thing is that the government will require everyone to have health care, and birth control coverage is to be a standard in this required coverage. Is that accurate?

Posted 18 February 2012, 9:27 p.m. Suggest removal

(Anonymous) NamVet says...

Hitler was raised by devout Catholic parents. He got along very well with the Pope which is why he looked the other way as millions were slaughtered. Just think how many people would not have been killed around the world had Hitler's parents used birth control.

Posted 19 February 2012, 9:29 a.m. Suggest removal

(Anonymous) heboprotagonist says...

God doesn't make laws, he has no use for them. Man makes laws, claims their divine origin and via this process attempts to elevates himself as a deity on earth.

Actual Christians pray for guidance, worry about themselves and look forward to an eternity where the shrill cries of self-righteous hypocrites are drowned out by a chorus of angels.

Free will cannot be taken away by anything you don't willingly give it to.

Posted 19 February 2012, 9:50 a.m. Suggest removal

(Anonymous) seeuski says...

Free will has been taken away by numerous regimes throughout history and we are living the example here in the USA today. Bury your collective leftist heads in the sand all you want but that will not change the facts.
The more this Regime grows Government and reaches it's tentacles into our lives the less free will we have, how about your POTUS and his media propaganda tool Media Matters and the revelations coming out how they are controlling the media message under direction from the White House?
And as far as laws go, try reading the Mishnah and see where our laws have come from.
The problem with things today is that power hungry Elitists are controlling our lives with their "social justice" made up version of life and not the "equality of Justice" that the Judeo/Christian divine laws gave us and which guided the Founders in the creation of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. The perversion of these laws will be our downfall, especially political correctness.

Posted 19 February 2012, 3:46 p.m. Suggest removal

(Anonymous) seeuski says...

"The claim is sometimes made by atheists that Hitler was a Christian, but Hitler rejected and hated Christianity."

Posted 19 February 2012, 3:52 p.m. Suggest removal

(bill schurman) expublicdefender says...

Dear David,

You are full of it. Obama gets my vote.

Posted 19 February 2012, 10:48 p.m. Suggest removal

(Anonymous) seeuski says...

Defend this, separation of all Church's and State except one? Vote away.... vote your freedoms away.

And don't forget to remove all references to the God of Abraham while singing to the Islamic prophet in your local public high school.

Posted 20 February 2012, 4:59 a.m. Suggest removal

(Anonymous) trump_suit says...

You know See, if you read the comment forum underneath your posted article at krextv.com, you will find that the large majority of those comments think that your inflammatory argument is BS. Did you read the prevailing opinions? Or did you just read that article with venom and hatred?

Posted 20 February 2012, 7:01 a.m. Suggest removal

(Anonymous) thalgard says...

Trump..See just cherry picks whatever he can to support his paranoid and twisted view of reality. He is a sick, sad, and lonely person....I just leave him be.

Posted 20 February 2012, 7:14 a.m. Suggest removal

(John Fielding) JohnFielding says...

It really becomes a question of how much you want the government to do. Clearly, some people trust the feds, state and city officials to make decisions for them, want them to control other peoples behavior and tax them to provide all kinds of services. Others, including the vast majority of founding fathers and many in the generations since warn that government must have its powers closely restricted by the governed.

What do you want the feds to do for you?

Posted 20 February 2012, 9:19 a.m. Suggest removal

(Anonymous) NamVet says...

Aside from this birth control and religious nonsense lately why don't we have a referendum on SS and Medicare. At the very least allow all Republicans and others the right to opt out of SS and Medicare and buy their health insurance on the open market as the Ryan budget plan dictates. I'm sure all those that see gov't as evil will jump at the chance. This will cut spending on those 2 programs by at least 40% and bring a balanced budget. ( until Israel forces us into a war with Iran). The last time I checked it is only about $2000 a month for someone over 65.with no pre-existing conditions for health insurance which I'm sure most people over 65 can afford.

Posted 20 February 2012, 9:49 a.m. Suggest removal

(jerry carlton) jlc says...

I wish I could have opted out of SS 53 years ago. I would have put my money into the stock market and been a multi millionaire now. In those days the market was at least semi honest. Oh well, too late now so I will hope for some of my money back that that the Feds confiscated for 51 years. I have collected for 2 years and 5 months so that is a start.

Posted 1 March 2012, 7:01 p.m. Suggest removal

(Scott Wedel) Scott_Wedel says...

So the tone of these boards is better by banning semi-anonymous posters so named people can libel a young woman?

I'd guess that her parents are quite proud of her, but are disgusted at Limbaugh and his mindless drones resorting to sexist degrading personal attacks.

That anyone would repeat Limbaugh's personal attacks on her on these forums is simply disgusting.

Posted 3 March 2012, 11:52 a.m. Suggest removal

(Brian Kotowski) Sep says...

Just a few days ago, Scott Wedel announced: "If anyone cares, I am done posting at this site..."

Not a man to be taken at his word, evidently.

One of Ms. Fluke's fellow Georgetown coeds has posted quite a nice takedown of the sniveler: Sandra Fluke Does Not Speak For Me http://thecollegeconservative.com/201...

Posted 3 March 2012, 1:17 p.m. Suggest removal

(Melanie Turek) Melanieturek says...

Brian, you do know how birth control pills work, right? Whether you have sex once a week or once an hour, you still need to take the pill daily for it to work; same is true whether you are married, single or, indeed, a prostitute. But what does it say of Limbaugh (and maybe you?) that he wants to watch Ms. Fluke have sex... what, exactly, does that make him?

Posted 3 March 2012, 4:54 p.m. Suggest removal

(Brian Kotowski) Sep says...


Why is it Georgetown University's responsibility to insure that Ms. Fluke can have consequence-free sex? And whoever said anything about wanting to watch her in the act? Project much, Melanie?

Posted 3 March 2012, 5:02 p.m. Suggest removal

(Jeff Kibler) Jeff_Kibler says...

Limbaugh apologizes to Sandra Fluke:


Yet the crickets still chirp awaiting apologies from misogynists such as:
Bill Maher
David Letterman
Ed Schultz

and many more from the left that slur conservative women every day and yet magically get a pass from their vile faux pas, via our unbiased fourth estate.

Posted 3 March 2012, 5:32 p.m. Suggest removal

(Brian Kotowski) Sep says...

Melanie evidently pays a lot more attention to Limbaugh than I do. However, I've listened enough to know that he's a wicked satirist. Digging into Jeff Kibler's link, it appears Limbaugh called Ms. Fluke a slut. I called her a sniveling idiot. I am unaware of anyone expressing a desire to watch her have sex. I'll leave it to authorities like Melanie to enlighten me to the contrary.

Let's make a deal, Melanie: why don't we hold each other accountable for what we actually say and express, as opposed to indicting one another for the pronouncements made by creatures of the media?

Posted 3 March 2012, 6:02 p.m. Suggest removal

(Scott Wedel) Scott_Wedel says...

Well, pretty low of you to avoid taking responsibility for your own vile comments by quoting me out of context to then criticize me.

I said I would only comment on the stupidity of the paper's policy of banning semi-anonymous posters to improve the forums. So an offensive post repeating comments so offensive that even Limbaugh apologized before losing yet more advertising struck me as showing how banning semi-anonymous posters failed to improve the tone of the forums.

That named people can be offensive further convinces me that if the paper wishes to improve the tone of the forums then the solution is not banning people, but setting standards for what is an acceptable post and making a reasonable attempt to enforce those standards.

Posted 3 March 2012, 6:06 p.m. Suggest removal

(Brian Kotowski) Sep says...

Keep whining, brother. It's what you're good at. Rock on, Scott Wedel!

Posted 3 March 2012, 6:22 p.m. Suggest removal

(Melanie Turek) Melanieturek says...

Brian, last Thursday, Limbaugh said, “If we’re going to pay for your contraceptives and thus pay for you to have sex, we want something for it. We want you to post the videos online so we can all watch.”
I assumed you were basing your reaction on Rush Limbaugh's, since they sound so similar. Perhaps you came to your own, equally despicable conclusion, and if so, I apologize for my assumption.
Look, you have every right to oppose birth control, and although I disagree with you, you also have every right to oppose its being included in health care plans (like all other prescription drugs, including Viagra). But to go from that to calling women who want access to birth control sluts and prostitutes degrades your argument and offends many of the people you're trying to pursuade. Why do it? Do you really believe women who are on the pill are asking us to help her get laid?

Posted 4 March 2012, 9 a.m. Suggest removal

(Marie Matta) mcminsteamboat says...

Brian, I didn't think there was anyone on the planet who would echo Rush Limbaugh's outrageous statements, so I was shocked to read your posts on this subject. Melanie, thank you for challenging Brian's demeaning comments.
Brian, there are so many arguments that can be made in response to the recent birth control issues and to Rush Limbaugh's sickening statements, but I would just like to make one simple point: do you have a wife or a daughter? If so, how would you feel if a male stranger (particularly an overbearing bully like Rush Limbaugh) made such comments and assumptions about them, or about any other female relative of yours? In fact, how would you feel if somebody called them "a sniveling idiot", like you called Sandra Fluke? Think about that!

Posted 4 March 2012, 9:35 a.m. Suggest removal

(Brian Kotowski) Sep says...

Melanie & Marie:

I do not oppose birth control. I oppose sniveling idiots like Ms. Fluke trying to coerce others to pay for her choices. My girlfriend pays 9 bucks a month for hers, and has never considered trying to get someone else to pick up the tab. If Ms. Fluke can't afford it (which I don't believe for a minute), Planned Parenthood gives away free condoms by the handsfull.

Fluke is a past president of Law Students for Reproductive Justice, and an organizer with Catholic Students for Women’s Health. She is an activist with an activist’s axe to grind. She researched Georgetown ’s health coverage before enrolling. I'll wager she enrolled explicitly to use the University as a stage for her activism, from which she could proclaim ‘oh woe is me, what a victim I am, why won’t those evil Jesuits help me get laid?’ She deliberately sought out the the biggest media platform she could find to implore others to subsidize her sex life.

Interesting too, how President Obama has no qualms about calling me and millions of other Americans “teabaggers”, but an entertainer calling Fluke a slut gets his panties in a wad; and how David Letterman calling one of the Palin teenagers "a slutty fight attendent" merits no concern from the Pres.

Posted 4 March 2012, 9:50 a.m. Suggest removal

(Dan Hill) steamboatlion says...

Sep, I agree with much of what you say. Ms Fluke is an activist with an axe to grind and I strongly disagree with her position.

But why the personal vilification? Why can't you stick to telling us why you think she is wrong without calling her a sniveling idiot or defending someone who called her a slut.

Is civil discourse where we stick to discussing the issues no matter how strongly we disagree too much to ask? How about you address Marie's question - how would you feel if someone attacked your mother or sister or girlfriend like this simply because they disagreed with their views?

One other point, what birth control is available for $9 a month? That's not even the copay on the contraceptive pill.

Posted 4 March 2012, 10:11 a.m. Suggest removal

(Mark Helle) dorje says...

From your very first comment it appears as though your mind was made up and closed to objective information. Name calling does nothing to further ones' case or inform people of an issue so they can make an informed decision - it does beat the drum for those whose want to blindly follow a pied piper. Rush has proclaimed himself the leader of the conservative movement and many conservatives embrace that stance -much to the party's demise - in my opinion.

The essence of Ms. Fluke's brief comments are here - she's not asking anyone for "free sex."

"In sixty-five percent of cases, our female students were interrogated by insurance representatives and university medical staff about why they needed these prescriptions and whether they were lying about their symptoms. For my friend, and 20% of women in her situation, she never got the insurance company to cover her prescription, despite verification of her illness from her doctor.Her claim was denied repeatedly on the assumption that she really wanted the birth control to prevent pregnancy. She’s gay, so clearly polycystic ovarian syndrome was a much more urgent concern than accidental pregnancy. After months of paying over $100 out of pocket, she just couldn’t afford her medication anymore and had to stop taking it. I learned about all of this when I walked out of a test and got a message from her that in the middle of her final exam period she’d been in the emergency room all night in excruciating pain."

As for the other comedians and their vile comments - they are low class humorists (not self pro-claimed party leaders) aimed at people who are largely trying to profit from thier fame and controversy with books and reality shows.

Maybe, since Rush apologized (after losing 7 sponsors to date) he has offered you some expanded view?

Posted 5 March 2012, 10:04 a.m. Suggest removal

(Melanie Turek) Melanieturek says...

It's also worth noting, Brian, that both you and Mr. Limbaugh misrepresent the nature of the issue. No one is asking the taxpayers to fund birth control for Ms. Fluke or her fellow students/employees at Georgetown. She is asking the school to make birth control one of the prescription drugs covered by the university's insurance plan. So, the benefit would be paid for by Georgetown's insured population (presumably in their premiums). The law proposed by Obama, of course, would make this mandatory--i.e. it wouldn't allow Georgetown to opt out of such coverage simply on religious grounds. But again, that does not put the bill at taxpayers' feet.
Now, personally, I support national healthcare, and in that situation would have no problem asking the taxpayers to pay for birth control, which among many other things is a *great* way to save money. But that is NOT what this issue is about.

Posted 5 March 2012, 4:39 p.m. Suggest removal

(Jason Krueger) jasonkrueger says...

Brian, the reason you haven't heard a response from your accusations is because they are false. Regarding the "teabagger" term; the first time it was used in relationship to the tea party was by a tea-party demonstrator in Washington DC on Feb 27, 2009. Don't cry because your own movement didn't bother to learn its alter meaning. It is unfortunate that our President chose to use the term in an interview- much the same way a certain VP decided to use the F-bomb on the floor of congress. You tell me which one is worse. I contend they are both inappropriate.
Comparing Mr Limbaugh to Letterman or Maher is just foolish. Neither Letterman or Maher are considered leaders of the "liberal" movement. By all rational accounts, they are considered entertainers and their comments are treated as such. Mr. Limbaugh is considered by the Republican party itself as one of its vital voices and is often featured as one of their keynote speakers- something Letterman and Maher have never been asked to do on behalf of the Democratic party. The only time Limbaugh considers himself an "entertainer" is when he tries to defend his actions. As for Shultz, you are correct, he did make an inflammatory statement on MSNBC against Laura Ingram (I assume this is what you guys are whining about). In response to that statement he was SUSPENDED for 1 week by MSNBC. I don't see ClearChannel doing the same thing.

Posted 5 March 2012, 6:18 p.m. Suggest removal

(Brian Kotowski) Sep says...

Jason & Mark - I'm pleased Limbaugh apologized, just as I appreciated Shultz's apology to Laura Ingraham. I'm disappointed, though, that you are so willing to rationalize misogynistic bile when spewed by anyone other than Limbaugh. Shultz, Maher, & Letterman are "low class." That makes Limbaugh "high class," and excuses the double standard you've applied here?

If one of these 'low class' dudes gets in front of their audiences of millions and drops the "c" word to denigrate your wife, sister, daughter... you're gonna brush it off because they're "low class?" And anyone with the temerity to call them on it is just "whining"?


Posted 6 March 2012, 10:33 a.m. Suggest removal

(Jeff Kibler) Jeff_Kibler says...

Posted 6 March 2012, 12:16 p.m. Suggest removal

(Brian Kotowski) Sep says...

An open letter to the President of the United States:

Dear President Obama,

You don’t know my telephone number, but I hope your staff is busy trying to find it. Ever since you called Sandra Fluke after Rush Limbaugh called her a slut, I figured I might be next. You explained to reporters you called her because you were thinking of your two daughters, Malia and Sasha. After all, you didn’t want them to think it was okay for men to treat them that way:

“One of the things I want them to do as they get older is engage in issues they care about, even ones I may not agree with them on,” you said. “I want them to be able to speak their mind in a civil and thoughtful way. And I don’t want them attacked or called horrible names because they’re being good citizens.”

And I totally agree your kids should be able to speak their minds and engage the culture. I look forward to seeing what good things Malia and Sasha end up doing with their lives.

But here’s why I’m a little surprised my phone hasn’t rung. Your $1 million donor Bill Maher has said reprehensible things about my family. He’s made fun of my brother because of his Down’s Syndrome. He’s said I was “f—-d so hard a baby fell out.” (In a classy move, he did this while his producers put up the cover of my book, which tells about the forgiveness and redemption I’ve found in God after my past – very public — mistakes.)

If Maher talked about Malia and Sasha that way, you’d return his dirty money and the Secret Service would probably have to restrain you. After all, I’ve always felt you understood my plight more than most because your mom was a teenager. That’s why you stood up for me when you were campaigning against Sen. McCain and my mom — you said vicious attacks on me should be off limits.

Yet I wonder if the Presidency has changed you. Now that you’re in office, it seems you’re only willing to defend certain women. You’re only willing to take a moral stand when you know your liberal supporters will stand behind you.


What if you did something radical and wildly unpopular with your base and took a stand against the denigration of all women… even if they’re just single moms? Even if they’re Republicans?

I’m not expecting your SuperPAC to return the money. You’re going to need every dime to hang on to your presidency. I’m not even really expecting a call. But would it be too much to expect a little consistency? After all, you’re President of all Americans, not just the liberals.


Bristol Palin

Posted 19 March 2012, 6:56 p.m. Suggest removal

Post a comment (Requires free registration)

Posting comments requires a free account and verification.