Political Animal


March 03, 2012 11:47 AM Limbaugh Unfairly Attacked By Dems?!

By Adele Stan

Ordinarily, I love me some David Weigel. This prolific Slate scribe is not only one of the most insightful reporters covering the G.O.P. and its right wing, but also a terrific writer. Oh, yeah, and I like the guy. (Okay, Weigel suck-up complete.) But his post today on the backlash against Rush Limbaugh’s hateful and misogynist comments about Sandra Fluke, the Georgetown Law School student who testified before Congress in favor of the Obama administration’s birth-control mandate has me scratching my head:

But let’s be clear about what this is. Limbaugh is a private citizen who has not endorsed any Republican candidate. (The closest he’s come is praise for Santorum, which the candidate quotes on his campaign lit.) There is not a pressing public interest here. There’s only the advantage that Democrats have carved out, by moving the discussion on birth control from the conscience exemption to the existential reasons why conservatives might want to limit birth control. The complex is winning this one.

Let’s start with: “There is not a pressing public interest here.”

Call me crazy, but I consider health care for women “a pressing public interest” — and not just for the majority of the public who happen to be women. I also find the legitimization of hateful rhetoric to be “a pressing public interest.”

If you somehow managed to miss the frenzy attending Limbaugh’s disgusting diatribe, the shorthand version goes like this: on the Wednesday edition of the Rush Limbaugh Show, the morally erect bloviator described Ms. Fluke as “a slut” and “a prostitute,” equating the mandatory provision of no-copay coverage of prescription contraception by employer-provided health insurance plans with having taxpayers “pay for [Fluke] to have sex.” (Never mind the fact that taxpayers don’t pay a dime for the contraception provision; insurance companies do.)

With each ensuing day, Limbaugh doubled down, demanding that Fluke and other women who receive their contraception via the mandate should — well let me let Rush tell you in his own words:

So, Ms. Fluke and the rest of you feminazis, here’s the deal. If we are going to pay for your contraceptives, and thus pay for you to have sex, we want something for it, and I’ll tell you what it is. We want you to post the videos online so we can all watch.

Media Matters, natch, has the full compendium of noxiousness here.

Limbaugh’s vicious attack prompted President Barack Obama, in a deft political move, to call Fluke, as Brother Kilgore blogged, to tell her she was courageous.

Weigel’s issue is with what he calls the “Democratic media complex” for capitalizing on Limbaugh’s hatefulness, knowing that this is a weak spot for Republican politicians, who are famously loath to play any role but ditto-head in relation to the right-wing radio host, who has millions of listeners. By making the call to Fluke and confirming that bit of news to The Huffington Post’s Sam Stein, Weigel writes, Obama “turned this into the sort of thing reporters are comfortable asking Republicans about.”

Is there some reason that Republicans shouldn’t be asked for comment about remarks by a Big Deal Radio host who seeks to advance their anti-birth-control policy by using hate speech?

And Weigel bemoans the fact that the mobilization of petition-crazed feminists, progressives and, yes, Democrats, has already cost Limbaugh advertisers, such as the makers of the SleepNumber bed. All for something that is “not a pressing public interest.”

The bottom line, Weigel concedes, is that Democrats, with Limbaugh’s inadvertent help, have now succeeded in turning the discussion of the contraception mandate from one about religious freedom (which, I’m sorry, was always a trumped-up complaint) to one about women’s health.

And that, I’d say, is as it should be. Limbaugh’s misogyny is hardly beside the point of the right-wing Republican push-back on the birth-control mandate; it is the point. Limbaugh simply gave voice, in the crudest of terms, to the true nature of the Republican position, which is a ferocious bid to rob women of whatever power they have.


  • SYSPROG on March 03, 2012 12:34 PM:

    I agree with you. This IS a 'major pressing issue' and Limbaugh with his hateful rants has pointed out that the GOP (NOT the Dems) has decided that if you speak out (you know that OTHER pesky first amendment right) that the power of the microphone trumps (sorry Freudian slip) the power of the Constitution. Limbaugh as a 'private citizen' with a HUGE microphone can lie and denigrate a young woman for disagreeing with him.

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

  • Joe on March 03, 2012 12:36 PM:

    Ah yes, our cherished Slate contrarianism.

    Other fun articles from Slate:

    1. Is the Moon Actually Made of Cheese?
    2. Reagan a Pelosi Democrat?
    3. Beach Sand in Underwear Is a Great Thing.

    And don't forget their culture thumbsucker:

    Elvis Costello: the Godfather of R&B?

  • K Miller on March 03, 2012 12:37 PM:

    Actually I boggled at the anointing of a successful radio host as a "private citizen."

    But part of Dave's charm is his dry understatement, so I tried to let it roll.

  • Bernard HP Gilroy on March 03, 2012 12:39 PM:

    Every time one of these Republican media yahoos opens his (or sometimes her) mouth and says something truly asinine, rightly suffers condemnation for it, and then complains that people are SO unfair to criticize, protest, or boycott... I want to grab them by the lapels and scream, "Hey, nimrod, this is the free market in action!" No government investigation, no FCC fines, just consumers expressing their disgust and corporations -- which, as we often hear, exist solely to maximize profit -- safeguarding their bottom line.

    Live by the hand of Adam Smith, die by the hand of Adam Smith.

  • Gandalf on March 03, 2012 12:55 PM:

    First and foremost anybody with one working braincell knows that Rush Limpdick is a blight on humanity. But a guy who went to other countries for the express purpose of having sex with young girls calling anyone a slut just proves he's a raving lunatic.

  • jjm on March 03, 2012 12:56 PM:

    "Harris Poll crowns Rush Limbaugh America's 'least favorite' political pundit" http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/03/1069206/-Harris-Poll-crowns-Rush-Limbaugh-America-s-least-favorite-political-pundit?via=blog_1

    He's lost several advertisers due to customer complaints to companies who buy ads for his show.

    As for Mr. Weigel--his main claim to fame is not that he is bright and insightful, because he isn't, it is that he crossed over from being one of 'them' to reporting on 'them'. Whenever I've heard him speak on Maddow, he is always trying to minimize the right's insane belligerence. This is no different.

    And don't forget, Mr. Weigel, that the Democrats long ago noticed that Rush Limbaugh is the de facto head of the Republican party, and no one has ever contradicted that.

  • emjayay on March 03, 2012 1:08 PM:

    "And don't forget, Mr. Weigel, that the Democrats long ago noticed that Rush Limbaugh is the de facto head of the Republican party, and no one has ever contradicted that."

    Or at least the preferred if only venue for many Bush administration officials to communicate to their employers, the public. The de facto spokesplace, if not spokesperson.

  • hells littlest angel on March 03, 2012 1:10 PM:

    Is today Right-Wing Shit-Head Day?

  • bobatkinson on March 03, 2012 1:18 PM:

    May be slightly off here but I believe it was Bush the Elder who carried Limpbaugh's bags into the White House and gave him credit for his victory in the '88 election.

  • Haystack Calhoun on March 03, 2012 1:20 PM:

    Wiegel: just another media milquetoast paid to legitimize, pretending a critic's skeptical eye, the accelerating rightwing push to destroy every last remnant of intelligent discourse and social obligation in the US. Note the reflexive pearl-clutching when he senses a Democrat victory at hand.

    I'm surprised you like him.

  • Geoff G on March 03, 2012 1:24 PM:

    Back in the sixties, WF Buckley famously kicked the John Birch Society and other hate groups out of the conservative movement. This had a moral component - racism and anti-Semitism are bad - but a practical one too. Buckley was clearly afraid that if the movement became associated with kooks, it would have difficulty attracting people of conservative disposition who were offended by attacks on blacks and Jews (and later, women, gays and Latinos).

    Today's conservatives believe that the practical concern doesn't apply any more - lose the haters and there won't be enough Repubs to fill a phonebooth. And they're probably right, but embracing hate is as much a loser in the long run as kicking out the haters and building a coalition of mostly decent people. They're going to lose, the question is when and how. Hopefully the "when" will be shortly after Repubs lose in November.

  • Peter C on March 03, 2012 1:30 PM:

    " Limbaugh is a private citizen who has not endorsed any Republican candidate."

    Wrong! Limbaugh is central to the Republican brand; they are one. Until the Republicans cast him off, they own him in my mind. Limbaugh personifies the Republican party. He is their mouthpiece and speaks for them. If not, let them show otherwise.

  • Robert Paehlke on March 03, 2012 1:41 PM:

    It is about women's health, but it is also about fairness and about protecting children and parents from having miserable lives. Some people unable to have their birth control covered will be unable to take it and will then just take chances. Siblings and parents and the newly conceived child then end up a lot poorer than the whole family might have been with one less child. Someone won't go to college. Everyone might be homeless in some situations (as might have been the case had my wife gotten pregnant shortly after we were married and one of us had been unable to work. It means that more of the people least able to afford children at a particular time will end up having them. There are many public interests involved in this issue.

  • Cha on March 03, 2012 1:42 PM:

    I don't read David Weigal and now I know why. I don't like whiners who distort reality. Poor widdle lying pigstye. boo hoo.

  • Anonymous on March 03, 2012 1:42 PM:

    Limbaugh is a "private citizen" with a nationally syndicated bully pulpit. (and I do mean "bully.")

    The difference between private citizen Sandra Fluke and private citizen Rush Limbaugh is like the difference between my individual limited political contribution, and Sheldon Adelson's 11 million contribution to Gingrich's PAC.

  • pj in jesusland on March 03, 2012 1:43 PM:

    So Rush is now an advocate for the porn industry. We already knew he likes his Oxycontin. The mind reels.

    Just what constituency does he speak for? Apparently all the Church-going, Republican-voting, foul-mouthed, bigoted, drug-addicted voyeurs.

  • Pam on March 03, 2012 1:45 PM:

    No doubt, Limbaugh has been unfairly attacked!In response, the women in my town who have used birth control formed "Sluts Anonymous." First up, my 78 year old neighbor who uses her social security to buy wild yam cream to help her maintain her libido. Next, the neighbor on the other side. She had a hysterectomy and her husband had a vasectomy so they are a pair of wild hornballs, ready to film their sex romps if the taxpayers will buy them a video cam. I could go on and on.

  • 2Manchu on March 03, 2012 1:45 PM:

    "..There is not a pressing public interest here."

    If by "pressing public interest" he means "important for guys like me", then I guess he has a point.

    Just like how Jim Crow wasn't a problem for white people.

  • Peter C on March 03, 2012 1:46 PM:

    Limbaugh has not been 'attacked' by anyone. He's been CRITICIZED for being an ass, but 'criticism' is not an 'attack' - not when it is true - not when it is backed by facts. 'Slander' can be an 'attack', as when Mitt Romney says that President Obama wants and equality of outcome or when Orly Taitz says that he's not an American citizen.

    It's OK for the Republicans to clutch their pearls, but we shouldn't let them change what words mean. Limbaugh may feel 'attacked' when he is held accountable for his words, but that's only because he can't withstand just criticism.

  • j_h_r on March 03, 2012 1:58 PM:

    Way back when I was in high school in the late 80's, my friends and I spent a lot of time with Rush on the dial because we thought of him as a more respectable version of Howard Stern-you know, a shock jock who delighted in deflating the overblown pretensions of the powerful.

    I never thought I'd see the day when I deny any comparison so as not to sully Howard Stern's good name and reputation O_o

  • Texas Aggie on March 03, 2012 2:04 PM:

    Slightly off the topic of the Great White Whale, but the business of this being about religious freedom because it forces the insurance carriers of some religious institutions to pay for something that institution doesn't condone is a blatant red herring for the following reason. These very same institutions, the Catholic Church, voluntarily on their own dime carry insurance to cover cases where their priests get some woman pregnant. Their insurance also covers cases of sexual abuse of children by priests.

    If in fact, they are upset about their insurance companies being forced to go against their religious sensibilities, the only thing I can conclude is that priests having heterosexual sex outside of marriage and buggering altar boys is not contrary to their religious sensibilities. Someone needs to ask them about it.

  • Kathryn on March 03, 2012 2:22 PM:

    Methinks Mr. Weigal is still overcompensating for losing his gig at the Washington Post after being involved in the "Journalist" (sp?) kerfuffle. I believe it was the weasel Tucker Carlson who exposed private emails among journalists including Weigal, Ezra Klein and others that were judged to favor the Democratic view of the world which then turned into a mini scandal a couple of years back. Weigal lost his position with the WaPo and I've noticed he's been skittish ever since, erring often into GOP rationalization world.

    The coverage of Limbaugh's latest outrage is deserved but poorly reported as no mention of the fact that the porker is outright lying about the content of Ms. Fluke's testimony as he slanders her.

  • jjm on March 03, 2012 2:37 PM:

    to @ Texas Aggie: "Slightly off the topic of the Great White Whale, but the business of this being about religious freedom because it forces the insurance carriers of some religious institutions to pay for something that institution doesn't condone is a blatant red herring for the following reason."

    I believe that Obama's regulation does NOT force the institution to pay for this health care provision in the health insurance they provide their employees, students, etc.

    Correct me if I'm wrong. I had gathered that's why they really have no standing to sue, since they have no obligation to pay.

  • Hedda Peraz on March 03, 2012 2:37 PM:

    Thumbs up to Texas Aggie! Logic that would make a Jesuit smile.
    When churches start paying taxes I will start listening to them.

  • zandru on March 03, 2012 2:59 PM:

    "Democratic Media Complex"?!? I wish...

    However, Ms Stan has really hit the nail on the head with her conclusion. For weeks, the reactionary right has been beating the drum of "religious freedom" (of employers) to try to deny no-copay contraception to women. Just when it looks as if they've made their case with the public, ol' gasbag "On Loan from Gawwwd"™ Limbaugh cuts loose with a blast of misogyny not seen since the 1960s, exposing the whole rotten charade.

    Now EVERYONE knows that it's all about demonizing women and restricting their basic freedom of being able to care for their own bodies. Moreover, it's brought the absolute wingnuttery out of the "G"OP presidential candidates, who are falling over themselves now to assert that ANY contraception is wrong -- as is sex in general.

    Young women - who rarely vote, as a general rule - are starting to take note. This is definitely "about them."

  • Rey on March 03, 2012 3:20 PM:

    Be honest, Rush Limbaugh is the de facto head of the Republican Party, and the fact that none of the candidates or the Right Wing media will disavow his hate speech is proof that he owns them.

  • dalloway on March 03, 2012 3:29 PM:

    The war is on women, but it's part of a larger war on our democracy. It kills me when the right wing screams that duly-passed laws violate their religious freedom -- but imposing their religious beliefs on those who don't share them is A-OK. THAT'S the violation of the First Amendment, which states that government shall make no law with respect to the ESTABLISHMENT of religion -- in other words, the government can't make religion-based rules. Denying birth control coverage is a violation of OUR First Amendment rights, not theirs. They're still free to give up birth control. They're not free to order me to do it.

  • beyond left on March 03, 2012 3:36 PM:

    Its not what Rush said odious as it is, it is how public figures react to what he says, that is revealing. After all we already know that Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot.

    The interesting thing is who is willing to call him on his egregious behavior and how they do it.

    So far, I haven't seen as much as a slap on the wrist...

    That is not the language I would use...Romney...now there's some condemnation...

  • C. L. Ward on March 03, 2012 3:42 PM:

    For anyone who believes Rush's bullshit about what contraception does or does not cost, here are some prices. $3000/year is about $8/day. The cost of contraception itself is not cheap without insurance, then add the costs of your gynecologist and regular checkups, which will range from $100-$250.

    Prenatal care involves about 14 OB/GYN visits, and a cost for delivery ranging from $6,000 for an uncomplicated delivery to $15,500 for a complicated C-section, exclusive of the doctor's fees for delivery and any labwork during the pregnancy. The Department of Agriculture reported that raising a child to age 18 costs as much as $475,680, which works out to more than $26,400/year. These estimates DO NOT include the cost of sending that child to college.

    I would suggest that $3,000 a year for reliable birth control pills is an extraordinary bargain.


    • Yasmin 21: 63 tabs (21x3) - USD $65 | $21.67 / month CAD $76 | GBP 33 | EUR 49
    • Yasmin 28: 84 tabs (28x3) - USD $76 CAD $89 | GBP 39 | EUR 57
    • Yaz: 84 tabs - USD $73 CAD $85 | GBP 37 | EUR 55
    • Triquilar 28: 84 tabs - USD $65 CAD $76 | GBP 33 | EUR 49
    • Triquilar 21: 126 tabs - USD $89 CAD $104 | GBP 46 | EUR 67
    • Tadalafil: 96 tabs - USD $219 CAD $257 | GBP 113 | EUR 165
    • Plan B: 1 pack (2 tabs) - USD $42, Free Shipping CAD $49 | GBP 22 | EUR 32
    • Portia 28: 168 Tablets (6 Packs of 28) - USD $79 CAD $93 | GBP 41 | EUR 60
    • Ortho-Evra: 18 patches - USD $215 | $35.83 / month CAD $252 | GBP 110 | EUR 162
    • Ortho Tri-cyclen 21: 63 tabs - USD $69 CAD $81 | GBP 35 | EUR 52
    • Ortho Tri-Cyclen Lo 28: 28 tabs - USD $38 CAD $44 | GBP 19 | EUR 29
    • Ovral 21: 63 tabs - USD $89 CAD $104 | GBP 46 | EUR 67
    • Ortho Tri-cyclen 28
      84 tabs - USD $69 CAD $81 | GBP 35 | EUR 52
    • Ortho 777 21: 63 tabs (21x3) - USD $67 CAD $78 | GBP 34 | EUR 50
    • Ortho-Cept 21: 63 tabs - USD $52 | CAD $61 | GBP 27 | EUR 39
    • Nuvaring: 1 ring - USD $40 | 3 ring - USD $90 CAD $105 | GBP 46 | EUR 68
    • Mirena: 1 units - USD $441 CAD $516 | GBP 226 | EUR 331
    • Alesse (21): 63 tabs - USD $79 CAD $92 | GBP 41 | EUR 59

  • T-Rex on March 03, 2012 4:00 PM:

    Here's a hypothetical case to ponder. Suppose a Muslim group founds a religiously affiliated university in the U.S. -- unlikely, but perfectly possible. Suppose also that like other religiously affiliated institutions, they hire some faculty members who do not subscribe to their faith. Would they have the right to require all female faculty, Muslim or not, to wear hijabs on campus? How about requiring them to wear them on AND off campus, on the grounds that as long as they get their paychecks from the university they should comply with the moral beliefs of the religious group that runs it? Now, that is a much less intrusive demand on women than what Georgetown wants to do, by limiting what medical services an insurance company may cover, especially when those medical services involve the most private aspects of a person's life. But I'm sure the screams of indignation would be heard from coast to coast. And anyone who called a student or faculty member a "slut, a prostitute" for refusing to wear the hijab would be getting death threats by the truckload.

  • schtick on March 03, 2012 4:13 PM:

    So now they are throwing out a conspiracy theory about Sandra Fluke being a plant to take the focus off of Obama's war on religion. She's lied about it all because she's 30, not 23, she's been a full time activist and the only reason she went to Georgetown was because they DIDN'T cover contraception there and wanted to make it an issue for herself so she could talk about sex in front of Issa's religious committee.
    It never stops. It's gotten so now that if a tealiban says it, you know it's a lie. If they ever yell fire and there really is one, no one is going to believe them.

  • Russ Davis on March 03, 2012 4:39 PM:

    Right wing aside, is Weigel's writing always this incomprehensible?

  • Marc on March 03, 2012 5:23 PM:

    Turnabout, being fair play, I assume that RL uses viagara, paid for by health insurance, and therefore can expect to see videos of his sexual behavior on YouTube before long.

    I would sign the petition.

  • Robert on March 03, 2012 5:53 PM:

    Limbaugh is a repugnant vulture and anyone who defends him, or invents some have assed reason to criticize those who have rightly condemned his latest offence against common decency, should be shunned as idiots or worse.

  • rrk1 on March 03, 2012 5:57 PM:

    'Lush Bimbo' is more than the "big fat idiot", as Al Franken famously called him in his book of the same name. He has become the leader of the hate mongers, the bigots, the racists, the homophobes, and he has always been a blatant (and proud) misogynist. Don't forget he coined the phrase "feminazi", and used to open his 'show' with subtle stuff like, "OK you feminzis, I'm going to get you today." All of the most reactionary, revanchist, elements have coalesced in what was once a recognizable, if not entirely an acceptable, political party.

    Lush has been for thirty years all but bullet proof. He never backs down, he only doubles down on criticism on which he thrives, although he considers any criticism an attack, and he gets away with it. He has never paid a price for his vile, vulgar, vitriolic, crass, cruel, use of language. His ditto-heads, empty heads is more like it, keep him on the air, but let us not forget that it was Saint Ronald who let the Fairness Doctrine expire, and that's what's given us this wealthy cesspool of a human being who daily spews his poison to the world.

  • thebewilderness on March 03, 2012 6:28 PM:

    This is why we can't have nice things.
    Misogyny is a bipartisan political position.
    We are talking about half the population and he can blithely dismiss it as not a pressing matter.

  • smartalek on March 03, 2012 7:12 PM:

    "Is today Right-Wing Shit-Head Day?" -- hells littlest angel 3/03/12 1:10PM

    Every day that right-wingers are shit-heads is Right-Wing Shit-Head Day.
    Hence, every day is Right-Wing Shit-Head Day.

    "I assume that RL uses viagara, paid for by health insurance, and therefore can expect to see videos of his sexual behavior on YouTube before long.
    I would sign the petition.
    " -- Marc 3/03/12 5:23PM

    I would do a lot more than sign a petition never to have to consider this concept, let alone actually face such imagery, ever again.
    Remember we're supposed to be for the Geneva Conventions, and against torture?

    "'Democratic Media Complex'?!? I wish..." -- zandru 3/03/12 2:59PM

    Would this be the same "media complex" that's been reporting the untimely (because it should have happened years ago) death of the congenital liar and professional scumbag Andrew Breitbart, and reminding us of his "accomplishments," without ever mentioning that it was later proven that the Acorn "takedown" video was -- like the Sherrod Brown one -- demonstrated to have been a complete fabrication?
    That "media complex"?

  • G.Kerby on March 03, 2012 11:41 PM:

    "First and foremost anybody with one working braincell knows that Rush Limpdick is a blight on humanity. But a guy who went to other countries for the express purpose of having sex with young boys calling anyone a slut just proves he's a raving lunatic"
    ... fixed it for you.

  • Ted Frier on March 04, 2012 8:25 AM:

    You gotta love how right wing conservatives are always complaining that "intolerant" liberals never give their "ideas" any respect -- until we learn that the right wing's idea of an "idea" is to call any woman who disagrees with them a "slut."

    But more importantly, let's not let Limbaugh's listeners off the hook quite so easily. They've gained enormously from tirades just like this over the last 20 years, which is why Republicans made him an honorary House member back in 1994 as the Robspierre of their Revolution.

    Don't expect Republicans to sign petitions to boycott Rush's program anytime soon because there is method to Limbaugh's madness. The reason Republicans don't attack Limbaugh for his outrageous remarks is not so much that they fear his retribution (which they do) but that he makes it easier for the Koch Brothers and other Republican Oligarchs to plant the seeds of their "survival of the fittest" conservative dogmas in the scorched earth of anger and hatred and bigotry that Limbaugh -- and Coulter and Hannity and O'Reilly -- have plowed for them with outrageous smears just like this that serve to coarsen our political culture.

    A liberal society -- and by extension a liberal social program with the taxes on the rich that go with it -- cannot survive in a harsh climate where empathy and compassion have been obliterated altogether. And that is why Limbaugh and the others make the big bucks.

  • Anonymous on March 04, 2012 8:29 AM:

    Someone should let the God Party know that the Second Coming has already occurred, and they all were left behind.

    Jesus (Just Call Me Barry) Christ

  • left reach on March 04, 2012 9:37 AM:

    Very well written, Adele.
    Dave Weigel falls way short in his effort to salvage from destruction the property known as Rush Limbaugh. To suggest that the controversy is not a "pressing public interest" borders on obtuse! Beyond Weigel's dishonesty on the matter of women's health, the fact that he aspires to salvage the merchandise of Limbaugh from the sunken ship is equally troublesome. He comes across as the typical Republican, intimidated by Limbaugh and carrying the water --this time in a horse-drawn cart along Highway 95. Impossible!! By this morning Weigel must know he's merely propped up the carnage...and...he has demeaned himself.

  • Aynsley on March 04, 2012 10:07 AM:

    Rush's Apology is on the Front Page of WaPo !!!
    I love me some Weigel, too, but he blew on this one.
    Big Time.

  • Icecold on March 04, 2012 1:11 PM:

    I hate David Weigel. His opinions border on insanity.

  • natsteel on March 04, 2012 4:29 PM:

    This is one of the better pieces I've read dealing with this whole affair. Congratulations on an excellent piece, Adele.

  • Anon on March 05, 2012 5:07 PM:

    Let's say, as an example, that I have a moral objection to smoking tobacco. Although it is a legal activity for adults, many people disapprove of the habit. Perhaps I am one of them. Using the logic provided by the Republicans regarding birth control, I might disallow treatment for lung cancer or emphysema for my employees, based on my moral objections.

    Given how many men in Red States smoke, this argument could have some traction.