I believe Rush Limbaugh was using hyperbole (yes, in poor taste) to make the point that Sandra Fluke, who wants the government / taxpayers to underwrite her evidently extensive sexual habits (so much so that she cannot afford the $3,000 she needs in order not to become pregnant or pick up an STI) is not an innocent victim deserving public subsidy. The point is: She is free to do whatever she wants sexually, but she is not free to demand that the rest of us underwrite it.
Someone paying $40,000 a year for tuition at Georgetown Law (if that is the figure) should not expect the rest of us pay for her condoms. If you say it is uncouth or insensitive for me to say this, so be it. Fluke is the one who said she cannot afford the $3,000 cost in birth control she has rung up. To me, that’s what’s really indecent about this story.
Rush is a satirist who sometimes steps over the line, as he did in this case. But I find the behavior that she has acknowledged, combined with her sense of entitlement about it, to be quite indecent. I cannot overlook her behavior and attitude simply because I wouldn’t have called attention to them as Limbaugh has done–but I would call attention to them. Sad to say, they are relevant.
But remember, it is Mr. Obama and Nancy Pelosi who have forced us to talk about this issue. And it is the president who is shamelessly pandering to female voters by actually calling Fluke, a grown woman who has inserted herself in an ongoing controversy over government overreach and religious liberty, to ask if she is OK. Wow. Doesn’t our commander in chief have anything better to do with his time?