Rush Limbaugh’s slander of Sandra Fluke

So, it’s Saturday morning.  Here I sit, drinking a cup tea in my fleece pajamas, cozy on the couch with my laptop, surfing the ‘net, when all of a sudden…  Are you in the mood to get riled up?  zOMG me too!

I know it’s bad to read any piece of news related to Rush Limbaugh.  It is guaranteed to raise your blood pressure significantly (“urge to kill rising…”).  On Friday, Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke received a telephone call from President Obama, telling her not to take Limbaugh’s calling her a prostitute to heart.  Oh yes, get ready.

At a hearing at Georgetown about health care coverage of contraception at religious institutions, Fluke spoke about the high cost of contraception and about their importance to women’s health.  Limbaugh made these comments about Fluke’s testimony:

What does it say about the college coed Susan [sic] Fluke, 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.

She’s having so much sex she can’t afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex. What does that make us? We’re the pimps.

The johns, that’s right. We would be the johns—no! We’re not the johns. Well—yeah, that’s right. Pimp’s not the right word.

Can you believe it?  Can you fucking believe it!  Then, after a public outcry against these comments, he responds with:

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.

…. I’m not questioning her virtue. I know what her virtue is. She’s having so much sex that she’s going broke!

This is jaw-dropping, shocking stuff.   This is hate-speech.  How is he still allowed to voice an opinion about anything?  Oh wait, I forgot.  He’s actually aligned with Republican politics.  Reproductive rights belong only to those who can afford them.  ”‘She’s going broke!’ — that’s what makes [Fluke] attackable,”  says Amy Davidson in The New Yorker.  ”The real target here is poor women — poor families.”    So, while Limbaugh’s bullshit might seem extreme, this sort of slander really isn’t anything new.

Tags: , , , ,

5 Comments on “Rush Limbaugh’s slander of Sandra Fluke”

  • Hari B.

    On the bright side (um…), I’ve noticed quite a bit of web activity along the lines of petitions to Limbaugh’s advertisers to drop him–and at least 3 have now done so. Being allied with ‘conservatism’ is one thing, but it seems being allied with ‘hate speech’ is another. One company, SLeep Train (mmm, Sleep Trainer? sorry), put out a press release saying they would not advertise with anyone who disvriminated against any group. This is a little bit of relief, at least. In other campaigns, members of the public and even some democratic poiticos are calling for the rebublican reps and senators to publically denounce Limbaugh for this fuckery. Not that any of them have rushed to do so…but the challenge is out there. I’m not the only one, it seems, who realizes that Limbaugh is not saying anything new really, for the religious right in the US–he’s just saying it more plainly. Womyn–most especially, poor womyn–are the targets of Limbaugh no more than the rest of the wingnut right.

    And people wonder why some of us think the end of the world as we know it is surely hard upon us! Thanks for this piece, Anna and F-word–this is the only kind of attention Limbaugh deserves. I hate to give him any at all–but there are some things it just ain’t right to ignore.

  • Hari B.

    eek, typos, why don’t I ever notice them til it’s too late?

  • David Duriesmith

    Similarly hateful shock jocks have come out with misogynist trash like this in Australia. The problem is they are required to give an apology, maybe docked a little pay and then the advertisers rush back. I hope this is not the case for Rush, but my hopes aren’t high.

  • I find it strange that there is a sudden rush to condemn the word “slut” by some of the Left – when only very recently there was Slutwalks and the claim that it was a reclaimable word.
    But if you look at the reasoning – it becomes clearer – it is about protecting acceptable women who the Left will support, whilst at the same time keeping the Prostituted Class to be Sluts. This give the Left the best of both world – it can condemn the Right for being utterly sexist – whilst keeping the sex trade, and having access to what they claim to be Leftist porn and access to indoors prostitution.

  • For some reason my computer won’t let me “like” Rebecca’s comment. Too true, Rebecca!

Leave a Comment

Blog Categories


The purpose of the blog is to create dialogue and debate around current issues related to women, feminism, and social justice.
We enjoy active participation in the blog, however, we reserve the discretion to remove any comments that are threatening or promote hate speech.

Search This Blog:

Site by Anne Emberline