Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

IL Lottery says Limbaugh ad buy was a network error - IR doubles down

Posted in:

Illinois

* A group of liberal Democrats around the country is monitoring Rush Limbaugh’s radio talk show and compiling a list of his advertisers. The idea is to use the list to enforce a boycott of Limbaugh’s show over his grotesque remarks about birth control and a woman who testified in Congress.

John Majka is monitoring Rush’s show on WLS radio for advertiser names. One of the advertisers he added to the master list yesterday was the Illinois Lottery.

* So, does the Illinois Lottery really advertise on Rush Limbaugh’s show?

Well, as it turns out, a Lottery ad did run on Rush’s program yesterday during a WLS traffic report. But the ad was mistakenly placed by an advertising network, a Lottery spokesperson claimed today. Metro Networks buys ad time for the Lottery’s traffic spots.

According to the Lottery, it doesn’t advertise on national programs and doesn’t advertise on WLS radio. It also doesn’t advertise on “political” programs. Metro Networks is supposed to follow the Lottery’s rules, but apparently didn’t in this case.

The company is refunding the Lottery’s money, according to a Lottery spokesperson. Two Metro Networks execs werent able to immediately confirm the Lottery’s explanation. I’ll let you know if the company has a statement.

The Lottery was all over this when I alerted them to the fact that they were on the Rush advertiser list. They don’t need or want that sort of publicity.

* Meanwhile, Illinois Review has doubled down on the Rush controversy by publishing a new cartoon…

Discuss, but keep it clean, people.

posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Mar 6, 12 @ 1:50 pm

Comments

Wait for it … yep … IR’s credibility is now gone.

Rush’s apologized, and you want to go down THIS road.

Fran Eaton.

Not an “up” week.

Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Mar 6, 12 @ 1:54 pm
With 98% of women in this country using birth control at some point, when will the conservatives realize this is nothing but a winning issue for Democrats?

And will they ever acknowledge the variety of health benefits birth control can provide?

Comment by Anon Tuesday, Mar 6, 12 @ 1:58 pm
oh now I remember why I never visit IR anymore.

Comment by too obvious Tuesday, Mar 6, 12 @ 1:58 pm
gubba..dubba…buuullluuubbaaa…

(I’m sorry, I’m just dumbfounded by that cartoon)

Comment by jerry 101 Tuesday, Mar 6, 12 @ 1:59 pm
Surprised you posted this Rich. Looks like a sure fire trap for someone to get banned.

Comment by John A Logan Tuesday, Mar 6, 12 @ 2:04 pm
===Looks like a sure fire trap for someone to get banned. ===

My evil genius is finally exposed! Heh.

Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Mar 6, 12 @ 2:05 pm
I mean this doesn’t even make sense. In no way is this about prostitution and casting her as such is beyond stupid. If you want to make an argument that tax dollars should not be used to subsidize birth control then fine but this suggest to me that you don’t even understand the issue at hand. If you have something substantive to say say it. If you have something funny to say say it. However, this is neither.

Comment by dizzycow Tuesday, Mar 6, 12 @ 2:05 pm
==If you want to make an argument that tax dollars should not be used to subsidize birth control then fine but this suggest to me that you don’t even understand the issue at hand==

Neither extreme wing understands the issue at hand. Dems are trying to spin it as “Republicans don’t want women to have access to birth control”, when that’s not the issue at all. It’s about whether taxpayer money should fund it, and insurance companies forced to cover it.

Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Mar 6, 12 @ 2:19 pm
Oswego, he did not apologize in the manner that decent human beings express regret for the pain they caused another, he apologized for his choice of words, then resumed his multi-day attack on Ms. Fluke.

Comment by Knee Jerk Tuesday, Mar 6, 12 @ 2:21 pm
Kathleen Parker’s column alone is occasionally sufficient justification to buy a paper. Her comment,

“It is entirely possible that Limbaugh himself never needed contraception in college, but virtue in the absence of opportunity is hardly a moral triumph.”

Comment by Bigtwitch Tuesday, Mar 6, 12 @ 2:21 pm
IANAL, but I know a little about Illinois defamation law.

Unless Illinois Review wants to make a $100,000+ contribution to Sandra Fluke’s foundation, I recommend IR contact an attorney for guidance on how to proceed.

Under Illinois law, calling a woman a prostitute is defamation per se. That means she doesn’t have to prove specific damages, damages are assumed.

Defending a defamation lawsuit can easily cost $100K. Fluke doesn’t have any reason to settle early since the cartoon is, you know, factually incorrect and defamatory.

I don’t know what IR’s lawyer will advise IR to do about that cartoon, but I expect there will be a very short period of time that elapses between the conversation with the lawyer and the cartoon disappearing from the website.

Comment by Carl Nyberg Tuesday, Mar 6, 12 @ 2:25 pm
That cartoon says more about IR’s fellow travelers than they realize.

Comment by Northsider Tuesday, Mar 6, 12 @ 2:32 pm
The question at hand is whether the “right” to have someone else pay for your birth control (which is not in the Constitution) trumps the right of individuals and organizations to free
Y exercise their religion (which is in the Constitution quite clearly). If the answer is “non-enumerated rights” win, we no longer have a constitutional system and nothing stops anything in the US Constitution from being swept away.

Comment by recovering IR reader Tuesday, Mar 6, 12 @ 2:38 pm
People who eat too much and get overweight and then expect “free” bypass surgery from their insurance provider are obviously bad people too. But a lot of Republicans don’t want to go down that road.

Comment by too obvious Tuesday, Mar 6, 12 @ 2:45 pm
Why wasn’t this an issuewhen Bill Mayer made nasty comments about Republican candidates and elected officials?

Comment by Louie Tuesday, Mar 6, 12 @ 2:48 pm
Rush was so out of line, Ms. Fluke was also letting him know many women need Birth control pills, rather hormone pills, for hormonal therapies.

Rush went way out of line to accuse her of things and said if we pay for birth control, that we should be able to see video of women, meaning Ms. Fluke doing things that would need birth control.

Why Rush is polluting the airwaves is beyond me. More sponsors should boycott his show so we can clean up the airwaves from this trash.

Comment by 3rd Generation Chicago Native Tuesday, Mar 6, 12 @ 2:49 pm
I know this is a side point, but what I actually find the most offensive about the cartoon is the suggestion that being forced to sell your body is “recreational”.

The rest of the cartoon is just foolish, as expected.

Comment by haverford Tuesday, Mar 6, 12 @ 2:52 pm
Hey, Recovering:

In what conceivable way is the right to exercise one’s religion threatened by a rule that insurance providers have to include birth control in their group coverage? That’s what the rule now says.

Before it was changed, it required institutions (colleges, hospitals, etc.) to put those medications in their insurance coverage. A) that is no longer the law, and B) Religiously affiliated hospitals don’t have Constitutional rights.

You clearly have not finished recovering.

Comment by Ray del Camino Tuesday, Mar 6, 12 @ 2:52 pm
No, the question is whether birth control and contraceptives are considered legitimate health care. If you think they are, you’re probably not a fan of Rush and Illinois Review.

If you think they aren’t, then you don’t believe women should be allowed to control whether and when they have children.

This isn’t about religious freedom. It’s about access to legal health care for women. Anyone who argues otherwise is not being honest.

If men got pregnant, do you think we’d be having this debate?

Comment by 47th Ward Tuesday, Mar 6, 12 @ 2:53 pm
Oh, and I would sue IR so fast it would make their empty, nasty little heads spin.

Comment by Ray del Camino Tuesday, Mar 6, 12 @ 2:54 pm
===Oswego, he did not apologize in the manner that decent human beings express regret for the pain they caused another, he apologized for his choice of words, then resumed his multi-day attack on Ms. Fluke.===

I think I am confused on what you are saying here. Rush continued to “attack” after apologizing for the choice of words, so are you saying then the cartoon is ok too? Or, are you even more upset about the whole thing?

I am of the ilk that Rush went too far, and Rush is not helping the cause. The IR and Fran Eaton went one step further that that with a colorful cartoon, using Rush’s “poor choice of words” as its fulcrum of humor.

You want to go after the religious aspect of Catholic institutions and the employees getting contraception and the constituionality of that, I am cool with that.

Rush’s initial choices are horrible, and IR cartoon goes even beyond that.

So, are you calling me out that rush didn’t apologize the way you or others want? I said its horrible, and my point is that the cartoon is worse…

Is that clear enough?

Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Mar 6, 12 @ 2:56 pm
47th Ward, isn’t part of the issue that Ms. Fluke, a non Catholic, choose to attend a Catholic university (in which she got admitted) and demands that they change for her? I haven’t heard much on this part. I agree that Rush was completely idiotic on his part, but I’m a little confused why she’d want to go to a Catholic school and be surprised by their ideals.

Comment by "World Class City Champ" Lori Healey Tuesday, Mar 6, 12 @ 2:58 pm
Religious institutions have to pay the bill for that health coverage per fedetal law, so they are being forced to subsidize that which they are morally opposed to. If religious hospitals don’t have rights, neither do churches undere the same no corporate personhood argument.

Or to put it another way, if I as an individual have rights but when I bind together with a dozen other like-minded people and form an orgazation, do I no longer have those rights?

That is patently absurd.

Comment by recovering IR reader Tuesday, Mar 6, 12 @ 3:00 pm
WCCCLH,

Georgetown is a Catholic (and Jesuit) university, and is one of America’s finest. It has a medical school and a hospital too. It doesn’t restrict its admissions to Catholics, nor does it restrict its employment to Catholics. It is organized under US law as a non-profit institution. It is not a Church.

It has to obey local zoning laws, federal employment laws, higher education regulations and workplace safety laws. Why should it not follow healthcare laws?

Comment by 47th Ward Tuesday, Mar 6, 12 @ 3:03 pm
==This isn’t about religious freedom. It’s about access to legal health care for women. Anyone who argues otherwise is not being honest.==

Baloney. There are plenty of policies currently out there that cover birth control. If it’s that important to a person, they should go with that policy. What this is about is forcing every insurer to cover it, including self-insuring religious institutions (many religious hospitals self-insure). As noted above, the person being talked about CHOSE to go to a CATHOLIC law school. If she wanted an institution that would pay for her birth control, she had every right to go to another school. Instead she wants to force this religious school to go against its beliefs

Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Mar 6, 12 @ 3:10 pm
Rachel Maddow did a great bit on this issue. Rush has NO IDEA about a women’s body. He thinks a women just pops a pill each time she has sex, instead of understanding that a women takes a pill daily no matter if she has sex or not so that if she chooses the option of sex, she has a great chance of not getting pregnant. Just another republican man telling women what to do with their bodies. You have to love a party that screams liberty, but wants the government in your personal life and in your doctors office.

Comment by Union Tuesday, Mar 6, 12 @ 3:11 pm
World Class -

Question: Do you think it’d be okay for Georgetown’s insurer to require employees to prove they’re married before a doctor prescribes drugs for ED?

just wondering because it doesn’t seem as much about ideals as it does about what our employers and group health providers should be able to require from us.

Comment by haverford Tuesday, Mar 6, 12 @ 3:11 pm
If you wanted to prevent any consideration of the religious liberty aspect of funding for contraception, this was a simple and effective way to ensure that any adult conversation about this conflict of fundamental values is set back at least 5 years. Well played, IR!

Comment by Agricola Tuesday, Mar 6, 12 @ 3:16 pm
In addition to being misogynist pigs, Rush and IR can’t even get their facts straight. 1., the law doesn’t require taxpayers to buy the pills — it’s on the insurance plans and by extension, the employers. 2. Fluke’s testimony wasn’t about herself, but a fellow student. And, 3., according to her testimony, the student wasn’t taking the pills to have recreational sex, but for a specifically identified medical condition. Birth control pills have numerous non-sexual applications — unlike Viagra, which is strictly for recreational sex, and which we know (from that old drug-airport story) that Rush takes. (Sorry for that mental image, folks.)

Comment by anon Tuesday, Mar 6, 12 @ 3:17 pm
Birth control is for the prevention of pregnancy, among other expensive medical conditions women face. This isn’t any different from vaccinations as preventatives, in my opinion.

Comment by Wensicia Tuesday, Mar 6, 12 @ 3:18 pm
What about male contraceptives? After all, they help prevent pregnancy *and* transmission of STDs. Are/shouldn’t they be covered? (After all, if this is really an argument about health, that sounds pretty convincing to me.)

Comment by anonymous Tuesday, Mar 6, 12 @ 3:21 pm
==Birth control is for the prevention of pregnancy, among other expensive medical conditions women face. This isn’t any different from vaccinations as preventatives, in my opinion.==

That may be your opinion, but not everyone looks at a living human being in the same way as they look at the influenza virus

Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Mar 6, 12 @ 3:22 pm
OK, I get the debate…legitimate arguments on both sides. Rush calling this young woman names and inviting her to post herself having sex on the internet blew out any point he was trying to make. The thing that bothers me more than anything is the lack of civility when it comes to persons offering different opinions.

Comment by Stones Tuesday, Mar 6, 12 @ 3:29 pm
- He thinks a women just pops a pill each time she has sex -

Well, from what we know about his troubles bringing pills on an airplane, there may be a reason for him thinking this is how it works…

Comment by Small Town Liberal Tuesday, Mar 6, 12 @ 3:34 pm
small “a” anonymous, the religious freedom issue is the effort by religious entities be it the Catholic Bishops or Santorum or Islam to impose religion on public policy and, therefore, on others. Whether it’s killing Christians in the Middle East and Africa or the Blunt Amendment in Congress, the goal is to restrict my freedom and equal right to my religion or non-religion by preventing government from doing things you don’t like because of your religion.

Comment by D.P. Gumby Tuesday, Mar 6, 12 @ 3:46 pm
The discussion about what should be mandated in insurance and where the first amendment starts and ends (it is a two way street, government influence in the church as well as the role of the church in government) are both discussions worth having.

You can and should have that argument without calling someone the sort of names you would resort to in a bad middle school argument. You can have a discussion without trying to establish your moral superiority. Those discussions are worth having.

Saying she wanted someone else to pay for a specific activity, I still don’t see that.

Where in any of this is the proposal the government pay. I get it would require a private insurer to pay or a self insured non-government entity to pay. But the government, I don’t see that.

As for the ‘what about when xyz said something bad about Republicans’ who the heck cares. Be responsible for the implications of your own actions…. I thought that is what we all about as Republicans.

If we really are going to base our political future on this social issue stuff and the idea that the GOP is somehow morally superior, count me out. I am sure I can find someplace for a fiscal conservative.

Comment by OneMan Tuesday, Mar 6, 12 @ 3:51 pm
==small “a” anonymous, the religious freedom issue is the effort by religious entities be it the Catholic Bishops or Santorum or Islam to impose religion on public policy and, therefore, on others.==

And the left who wants birth control covered is doing the exact same thing, attempting to imposing their beliefs on others.

Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Mar 6, 12 @ 3:54 pm
Elwood: Illinois Review.
Jake: I hate Illinois Review.

Comment by Boone Logan Square Tuesday, Mar 6, 12 @ 3:55 pm
I think the real issue was Ms. Fluke’s unfortunate sense of entitlement. She said it would cost $1,000/year for her to buy contraception. Subsequent media reports have indicated that she could purchase birth control pills at a pharmacy less than two miles away from Georgetown for $9/month. Whatever the price, I don’t believe it’s anybody’s responsibility but Ms. Fluke’s to purchase her contraception. If it is, it certainly does not seem to be the responsibility of a Catholic institution, and she should have known that Georgetown did not offer such coverage when she chose to enroll.

Rush calling Ms. Fluke a pejorative played right into his opponents’ hands and obscured the real issue. While Rush can afford to do so on occasion, Illinois Review cannot. That cartoon brings new meaning to “tin-eared.”

Comment by LincolnLounger Tuesday, Mar 6, 12 @ 4:02 pm
None of us have control of how our tax dollars are spent. If that was the case, I would like a refund of the portion of my taxes spend on the Iraq and Afghan wars. I find them morally objectionable and don’t want to fund them. That argument takes us down a road I don’t think we would like. As far as Rush understanding anything about anyone’s health care, I think we know most of us would depend on his knowledge. His personal attack on someone he doesn’t agree with just proves he is a bully and isn’t interested in the best interest of the country. We need someway to deal with adult bullies in this country.

Comment by RetiredStateEmployee Tuesday, Mar 6, 12 @ 4:03 pm
“Why wasn’t this an issue when Bill Mayer made nasty comments about Republican candidates and elected officials?”

Because it was an issue. I know you guys like to pretend we don’t hear our side exposing themselves as jerks (that took three rewrites to find words I can use here) but yes, we know Bill Maher is as much of a misogynist as Limbaugh. Although I don’t think he blames the Right for his misogyny when he is forced into an “apology.” I could be wrong, I don’t listen to him anymore.

And IR really, really ought to be sued for that cartoon. I hope someone has brought it to Ms. Fluke’s attention.

Comment by Cheryl44 Tuesday, Mar 6, 12 @ 4:09 pm
===I don’t believe it’s anybody’s responsibility but Ms. Fluke’s to purchase her contraception===

What if it was insulin instead? Would you mind that being covered? And where is she asking anyone else to pay for her coverage? She is simply asking that it be included in her coverage the same way insulin would be covered.

Or maybe you don’t believe contracptives are legitimate health care. If so, just say that and leave this poor woman out of it.

Comment by 47th Ward Tuesday, Mar 6, 12 @ 4:10 pm
When Illinois Review and other nut job organizations do this type of thing (on either side) they just make it that much harder for sane, legitimate people to make arguments. I would question those that would even continue to read and go to Illinois Review.

Comment by Demoralized Tuesday, Mar 6, 12 @ 4:11 pm
anon: Neither extreme wing understands the issue at hand. Dems are trying to spin it as “Republicans don’t want women to have access to birth control”, when that’s not the issue at all.”

Actually, that is the issue. Romney, Gingrich and Santorum all support an amendment to the constitution defining life as beginning at conception. This would ban all hormonal birth control, even those prescribed for non-birth control purposes.

Comment by Danny Tuesday, Mar 6, 12 @ 4:13 pm
On this thread, both sides have provided thoughtful comments. Unfortunately, IR and Rush have tried to be cute with the topic. Their type of cuteness (snugness) is beginning to be a consistent theme by the GOP during important discussions. This is not a recipe for the GOP to win friends and influence people (independent moderates).

Comment by Stateline Tuesday, Mar 6, 12 @ 4:13 pm
==Actually, that is the issue. Romney, Gingrich and Santorum all support an amendment to the constitution defining life as beginning at conception. This would ban all hormonal birth control, even those prescribed for non-birth control purposes.==

Um, no, it’s not. The woman in question was testifying at a hearing which had nothing to do with such an amendment.

Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Mar 6, 12 @ 4:17 pm
@ LincolnLounger

Lincoln Lounger, there are different types of birth control. When I was on it, it was $90 a month. Because I have Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome, I HAD to take a prescription that was $90. In other words, a total of $4,500 through 2 years of undergard after my diagnosis and my 2 years of graduate school.

You have precisely described the dilemma here. People simply do not understand women’s reproductive health needs!

Comment by Danny Tuesday, Mar 6, 12 @ 4:18 pm
Rich, am I the only person who sees the pimp portrayed here as resembling the President?

Comment by Knee Jerk Tuesday, Mar 6, 12 @ 4:21 pm
Anon - If one is looking at this issue in a complete and total vacuum and only addressing the spat the popped up between Ms. Fluke and Rush, then yes, my bringing up of the presidential candidates’ stances was irrelevant. But to me this hearing was just one small component of a much broader national dialogue about women’s health needs fueled by the sustained Republican assault on women’s reproductive health rights. I naturally associate the hearing with the broader dialogue which is why I thought it was fair for me to bring up that point. But I should have clarified that I don’t think the hearing was about any personhood amendment!

Comment by Danny Tuesday, Mar 6, 12 @ 4:35 pm
Georgetown Univ. already provides contraceptive coverage, it has been one of the few Catholic institutions which do.

Comment by orlkon Tuesday, Mar 6, 12 @ 4:53 pm
I’ve received multiple requests to sign petitions asking Limbaugh show advertisers to stop running their ads.

I wonder how many of those signing the petitions even listen to Limbaugh. I don’t — at least not more frequently that two or three times a year for less than five minutes at a time — so didn’t sign the petition.

Comment by Blinking fee: $20 Tuesday, Mar 6, 12 @ 4:54 pm
” but not everyone looks at a living human being in the same way as they look at the influenza virus.”

A single celled organism is not a “human being”. Get over it.

Comment by wishbone Tuesday, Mar 6, 12 @ 4:55 pm
OK, I guess this is pile on day, so let me offer a different perspective as one of the Illinois Review contributors.

Appropriateness is in the eye of the beholder, so I won’t try to dissuade people from their opinion about whether or not this cartoon is appropriate.

However, let me say something about the entire controversy and Ms. Fluke in general. Over the years, we have devolved in this society from one where all medical was paid for by the individual, to a true “insurance” for medical, to today, where we don’t have medical insurance, we have medical coverage, meaning that we pay for all of the cost for medical expenses whether they are catastrophic or routine.

In the case of contraceptives, I think most people would contend that it is a “routine” expense. Why should the government dictate to an insurance provider that they have to pay for something that is routine? Shouldn’t that be a decision left up to the individual?

This whole controversy started in the attempt to have Catholic groups pay for something that they feel (and no, I’m not a Catholic) is against their moral principals. The question, that few seems to feel comfortable with is why was this made into a big issue during the middle of a Presidential race? It was designed to be political in nature. Why do we have young ladies such as Ms. Fluke come forward to testify to Congress about the inability to be able to pay for contraceptives, when it has been widely reported that such contraceptives are obtainable for either free or for low costs?

It was a political move to bring this issue forward, and now we have a political dialogue.

Criticize Illinois Review all you want for the response. I guarantee you that Fran is a big girl and she can handle it. However, there are larger issues that needs to be addressed such as the propriety of the government requiring coverage and whether or not it was appropriate to bring this issue forward in the middle of a campaign.

Comment by Ghost of John Brown Tuesday, Mar 6, 12 @ 4:56 pm
Rush had an “Imus Moment”. He made a mistake. He has acknowledged that he stepped over the line. We forgave Bill Clinton when he danced the light Fandango with Monica. Bill was also sincere in his apology to the public. I am inclined to believe Limbaugh’s apology was totally sincere. What more do we expect him to do? I am satisfied. And–life goes on. Fran was simply showing (via a cartoon) public perception of Rush’s comments that was making the rounds. She hasn’t done anything wrong.

This reminds me of the villagers marching up to Doctor Frankenstein’s castle with pitchforks and burning torches. Geeze, are they going to burn Fran at the stake because she reported the news about Rush Limbaugh? This ought to Eaton Fran.

Comment by Wilson Pickett Tuesday, Mar 6, 12 @ 5:00 pm
@ Cheryl44 - “And IR really, really ought to be sued for that cartoon. I hope someone has brought it to Ms. Fluke’s attention.”

I wish IR *could* be sued for it, but I’m pretty sure a lawyer would tell Ms. Fluke she voluntarily thrust herself into the debate on a public policy issue and thereby qualifies as a limited purpose public figure for purposes of discussing that issue.

I agree the cartoon is disgusting, but I don’t think the best remedy is in the courts.

Comment by olddog Tuesday, Mar 6, 12 @ 5:02 pm
===when it has been widely reported that such contraceptives are obtainable for either free or for low costs?===

Yes, free and low cost reproductive health care is available at Planned Parenthood, which is under attack from conservatives too.

As to your oblique claim that somehow Obama and/or the Democrats injected this issue as a political ploy in a presidential campaign year, I disagree. This came about because the Healthcare bill was passed by Congress and signed into law by the President. In order to implement the law, HHS needed to outline uniform coverage levels that employers must provide.

Just say what you think Ghost: contraceptives are not real health care and it’s OK to deny them to women.

Comment by 47th Ward Tuesday, Mar 6, 12 @ 5:09 pm
olddog -

You are talking Federal law and the Sullivan Decision.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan

It is possible that under Illinois law that word might be defamation.

Comment by Anyone Remember? Tuesday, Mar 6, 12 @ 5:37 pm
You want birth control, then YOU bloody well pay for it. I am sick of all the freebies the left wants.

Comment by RichardtheLionHearted Tuesday, Mar 6, 12 @ 5:50 pm
When advertisers drop off a radio program for reasons like the Rush incident, it has a “zipper” effect: the advertisers still left feel more and more exposed, so more drop off… Nobody wants to be the last one standing without a chair when the music stops. That’s why we see the advertisers dropping out going from five to seven to probably more by Friday.

I can’t say I feel any pity for a millionaire who got rich and influential by basically doing the radio version of the old “knock the insulting clown into the water, three balls for five bucks” carnival act.

We see too that the GOP behind-the curtain guys, like Roger Ailes and Murdock, are getting nervous that this is generating bad juju against republicans fore the upcoming elections. The pressure from them must be equally great on Rush.

Delicious.

Comment by Newsclown Tuesday, Mar 6, 12 @ 6:07 pm
@ 47th Ward- Diabetes and Sex are pretty much the same thing.

Comment by Don't Worry About the Government Tuesday, Mar 6, 12 @ 6:24 pm
@ Anyone Remember? “It is possible that under Illinois law that word might be defamation.”

Cool! I stand corrected, and I hope she sues.

Comment by olddog Tuesday, Mar 6, 12 @ 6:52 pm
===Diabetes and Sex are pretty much the same thing.===

I think the analogy you’re looking for is diabetes and women’s reproductive health are pretty much the same. That’s what I’ve been talking about anyway. Health care is health care.

You, Rush Limbaugh and others keep bringing sex into this, which while weird and salacious, isn’t really the issue, is it?

Comment by 47th Ward Tuesday, Mar 6, 12 @ 7:45 pm
Limbaugh called a young woman participating in the public arena a “slut,” a “prostitute,” and suggested that he was entitled to watch her have sex.

This multi-millionaire did so on the public airwaves, by the way, and made a lot of money doing it.

Some have found his language “inappropriate”(Boehner). Some justify it as “absurd” entertainment (Santorum). Others just say it was “words I would not have used” (Romney).

I’m an old-fashioned and, dare I say it, conservative dude, in my own way. I’m a father, husband, son, brother and friend to glorious women.

If I ever see Limbaugh, he’ll be picking his teeth off the floor. That’s how I was raised. That’s how we old Illinois farm boys roll.

For the life of me, I do not understand the cowardice of GOP leaders for not smacking this loser down. And I don’t understand how anyone could vote for a man who would not do so.

What kind of men are they?

Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Mar 6, 12 @ 8:30 pm
47th Ward

Don’t put words in my mouth. That is not at ALL what I said.

Comment by Ghost of John Brown Tuesday, Mar 6, 12 @ 9:02 pm
In very very poor taste makes me ashamed to be a RINO.

Comment by mokenavince Tuesday, Mar 6, 12 @ 9:04 pm
I hate tossing reality into this debate for some of you, but as somebody who has worked with the insurance industry for most of my adult life, I can safely report that insurers LIKE providing birth control.

Birth control is cheaper than pregnancy. Women on birth control save money for insurers.

Part of the President’s compromise was that insurers would provide it for free. That makes sense. Heck, if they can charge for it they will. Insurers would also charge you for air if they could. If people are willing to pay, why not charge?

But given the choice of providing it for free or having it not used at all, they will take providing it for free every time since the use cuts their claims.

This whole discussion of “she wants something for free” is just ridiculous. She wants something for free that her insurer is willing to give her for free, but certain institutions (and if the Blunt amendment was passed, corporations) would block insurers from giving it away for free.

It just seems that the people at IR and others feel compelled to comment without any real understanding of insurance.

Comment by Skeeter Tuesday, Mar 6, 12 @ 9:09 pm
to quote Liz Lemon, what the blurg? Rush is a sludge pot of wrong. the appearance of Ms. Fluke on the View is a must watch because she is far more critical of Rush than what has come out in the media. he did not just call her those names and say make a sex tape, she counted 53 times that she considers that he insulted the women of Georgetown collectively. it goes beyond her.

just talked with someone this evening who is an ovarian cancer survivor and who must take birth control pills to keep her remaining ovary going. she is single. slut shame at your peril, Rush.

besides, what year is this? sex shaming?!? maybe those of us with female parts and minds to let people decide for themselves what to do with their bodies should start walking around with a scarlet letter. married, single, gay, straight, I am Spartacus.

Comment by amalia Tuesday, Mar 6, 12 @ 9:20 pm
Skeeter,

I have to admit I am a bit surprised by that. I seem to recall having multiple employers who didn’t cover BC, I think they all would have paid for the clip and snip however.

None of those employers were either the government or anything approaching a religious entity either.

Not saying you are wrong, but it wasn’t my experience.

Comment by OneMan Tuesday, Mar 6, 12 @ 9:36 pm
To put it more plainly…

olddog said “I wish IR *could* be sued for it, but I’m pretty sure a lawyer would tell Ms. Fluke she voluntarily thrust herself into the debate on a public policy issue and thereby qualifies as a limited purpose public figure for purposes of discussing that issue.”

But Ms. Fluke was talking about how hormone medicine could have saved her friend’s ovary but IR, Limbaugh, etc. are ignoring those facts and instead claiming she is a prostitute and worse.

This is akin to the late Andrew Breitbart’s attack on Shirley Sherrod where he twisted her words to defame her and it directly resulted in her unwarranted dismissal from her job.

The more that right-wing media outlets and personalities ignore the facts whilst lying about Ms. Fluke’s personal life the stronger her case grows.

Comment by G. Willickers Tuesday, Mar 6, 12 @ 10:51 pm
Dear Lord…I think we’ve FINALLY hit a topic that’s more explosive than guns. And I have stayed, and will continue to stay, out of both conversations.

Oh, look! A kitty! (Too late?)

Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Mar 6, 12 @ 11:39 pm
====I think the real issue was Ms. Fluke’s unfortunate sense of entitlement. She said it would cost $1,000/year for her to buy contraception. Subsequent media reports have indicated that she could purchase birth control pills at a pharmacy less than two miles away from Georgetown for $9/month.

I want to thank conservatives this week for making me look like a much better husband. I just keep showing my wife these sorts of comments and she appreciates me more every day.

Because a generic pill may work doesn’t mean it’s the best suited for individuals. That’s why women get prescriptions and go to the doctor to figure out what is best to take. Especially since Fluke was talking about some non-contraceptive uses of the birth control pills it entirely depends on the condition and individual reactions to different hormones and levels.

===Whatever the price, I don’t believe it’s anybody’s responsibility but Ms. Fluke’s to purchase her contraception. If it is, it certainly does not seem to be the responsibility of a Catholic institution, and she should have known that Georgetown did not offer such coverage when she chose to enroll.

Actually when you pay for insurance, the states and federal government mandate all sorts of specific coverage in health care plans. Autism has been added by many states in the last few years as has contraception (in all it’s forms) in many states. One can argue that such things are bad, but it flies in the face of bipartisan actions in every state. Insurance is a regulated industry and is required to cover many areas of health care. Part of taking responsibility for health care is buying insurance and in the cases Fluke testified about, the individuals purchased insurance as part of their benefit package.

While the Bishops may complain about this, the university itself allows employee benefit packages to be offered that cover contraceptive serices:
http://benefits.georgetown.edu/
Look at the different medical plans. Aetna covers those services at least and probably the others. It’s only for student health plans then that contraceptive services aren’t covered. Don’t be surprised, Notre Dame and SLU are the same.

So in Georgetown’s case they distinguish between their moral beliefs for employees and students. Or they don’t really care and are just putting on a show so the Bishops don’t get upset.

Fluke, specifically in addressing needs of other women–she didn’t testify about her need–discussed medical need for non-contraceptive use of some contraceptives. One of the women she was discussing was a lesbian if you actually paid attention to her testimony. The woman Fluke discussed didn’t want birth control for the contraceptive use.

So getting back to your point–it’s about personal responsibility and when you have insurance that’s being personally responsible.

Comment by ArchPundit Wednesday, Mar 7, 12 @ 12:41 am
==I have to admit I am a bit surprised by that. I seem to recall having multiple employers who didn’t cover BC, I think they all would have paid for the clip and snip however.

I am not sure when this changed, but Skeeter is correct about the current view. It’s part of the reason why insurance companies generally shrugged about the rule.

As more states mandated coverage, the companies have found that it’s cheaper to provide free or nearly free contraceptives. It makes sense once you think about the costs of pregnancy and especially unplanned pregnancy where women may not be taking care of themselves as well as they would before a planned pregnancy.

My insurance provided a vasectomy without any co-pay (it’s not free–they insurance costs another pet peeve of this discussion), but it also provided benefits for my wife’s choices. Where it gets confusing is when you have a separate drug plan. The drug plans have typically charged their typical fee for the level of pharmaceutical you choose, but non-pharmaceutical options such as IUD or implants are covered by your regular plan (usually)

All of this may have changed since you last checked is the basic point.

Comment by ArchPundit Wednesday, Mar 7, 12 @ 12:47 am
===Insurers would also charge you for air if they could.

I believe that is billed as oxygen non-dispensed.

Comment by ArchPundit Wednesday, Mar 7, 12 @ 12:49 am
===This whole discussion of “she wants something for free” is just ridiculous. She wants something for free that her insurer is willing to give her for free, but certain institutions (and if the Blunt amendment was passed, corporations) would block insurers from giving it away for free.

There is no charge–individuals through their benefit packages and premiums very much pay for the service.

Comment by ArchPundit Wednesday, Mar 7, 12 @ 12:51 am
Avast ye mateys… “Keep it clean” filters strike again. Apologies if this ends up as a repost. I’m trying to eliminate a clinical yet apparently offending 3-letter word.

All of what Arch just wrote gets back to the basic point that while Fran Eaton, et al, may find it funny to post political cartoons depicting Pres. Obama as a pimp declaring that Sandra Fluke “just wants to have recreational — and you to pay for it” the reality is that Ms. Fluke was talking about her friend WHO LOST AN OVARY because the Pill wasn’t covered.

Maybe if the lazy media in this country would add a sentence or two in their articles to note this fact there’d be a lot less confusion.

Rush Limbaugh is crudely talking about —.

Sandra Fluke is talking about women who’ve lost body parts even though the ailments causing those losses are totally preventable and/or curable … if the coverage is adequate.

Not even comprehensive, just adequate.

Comment by G. Willickers Wednesday, Mar 7, 12 @ 1:40 am
Is it just me?

Does anyone else see a cartoon-character resemblance to Pres. Obama in the other figure in IR’s graphic?

Comment by G. Willickers Wednesday, Mar 7, 12 @ 1:42 am
I don’t think most people realize how much insurers will do to reduce claims.

When I started using heart medication, I received information from my health insurer and was a bit suspicious. Then I stopped using the drugs as often as I shoulld and got a reminder from my insurer to take the damn meds. The reason for both is simple — heart medication is cheaper than emergency heart surgery.

A similar thing happens with construction companies. Many insurers will visit jobs to review safety. This is not for underwriting, but to point out safety issues that will reduce the claims.

Insurers will pay small amounts in order to avoid paying large amounts.

So IR and John Brown, nobody is asking you to pay for her birth control. They want to do it to reduce claims.

A final note — IR bills itself as conservative and in the past, conservative meant pro-business. In this case at least, IR’s position flies in the face of the business interests of insurance companies. Either IR doesn’t understand insurance (very possible) or IR thinks that if we can just prevent all people from having sex, all of our problems will be solved. Maybe both.

Comment by Skeeter Wednesday, Mar 7, 12 @ 5:25 am
“Does anyone else see a cartoon-character resemblance to Pres. Obama in the other figure in IR’s graphic?”

I agree. Cartoons of the President typically feature a skinny guy with big ears. IR readers probably thought so. IR portrays the President as a ghetto pimp, and then IR wonders why people think IR is racist. Hmmm, I wonder where people get that idea.

Comment by Skeeter Wednesday, Mar 7, 12 @ 5:28 am
I was right about the “zipper effect”: Rush has as of this morning lost 34 or 35 of his sponsors.

Comment by Newsclown Wednesday, Mar 7, 12 @ 6:32 am
>Why wasn’t this an issuewhen Bill Mayer made nasty comments about Republican candidates and elected officials?

Comment by Tommydanger Wednesday, Mar 7, 12 @ 7:24 am
Tommy, Whose “Bill Mayer”?

Bill Maher did call Sarah Palin a word that rhymes with “punt”.

Hardly excusable.

But he never devoted days and days of programming to it. Maher did it, owned up to it, and moved on.

Maher also never lied about Palin. He just insulted her.

Limbaugh has not only insulted Fluke, he has been and still is lying about her.

Neither are excusable.

Comment by G. Willickers Wednesday, Mar 7, 12 @ 8:12 am
Of course we can get birth control down to a fine mechanism for controlling population growth in certain population segments to the point that billboards will appear that say something like “endangered species” and show a baby of a certain race.

We could soon see our population dwindle much like France and Japan…but we are fortunate to have Illegals and certain others to help us maintain.

But I digress…If you want contraceptives and day After pills, fine. Work it out with your Insurance Company. I too think Rush went way off on a tangent here, but for the perceived elite to ask for something to prevent pregnancy on a wholesale basis, could just be their demise?

Wonder if anyone thought about abstaining? But then that becomes a potential moral discussion and I would fail in that one.

.

Comment by Sunshine Wednesday, Mar 7, 12 @ 8:20 am
Thanks for the clarification, Willy - I thought you were saying his apology was acceptable and should have ended the mess, and I’m annoyed the media and dittoheads are characterizing his “apology” as an acceptable apology. I believe we agree.

Glad to see others see the pimp character in the cartoon as Obama so that we can appreciate this is a doubly hateful statement.

Comment by Knee Jerk Wednesday, Mar 7, 12 @ 8:33 am
It’s a stupid cartoon. The joke doesn’t even make sense. I’m not overly sympathetic to Ms. Fluke because, as others have rightly pointed out, she is a political activist who sought to become a public figure. Considering some of the hateful and completely demeaning comments that have been made again conservative women by the likes of Bill Maher and Chris Matthews, I don’t see how anyone on the left can get worked up into a righteous lather over this.

What bothers me more than anything is that such ridiculousness takes away from a legitimate, and ironic, point. For most of my lifetime the left has been claiming that birth control, abortion, et al are private issues. But Obamacare has made it a matter of public interest, much in the same way it has made obesity and other ill affects of poor diet. As someone pointed out here earlier, the public’s financial responsibility to by-pass surgery has made salt intake and trans-fats a public policy question. The same applies to the medical implications of other previously “personal” behaviors.

This, by the way, is what conservatives mean when we say that more government means less freedom.

Comment by grand old partisan Wednesday, Mar 7, 12 @ 8:46 am
grand old partisan, comparing birth control re healthcare to obesity is just silly.

Comment by amalia Wednesday, Mar 7, 12 @ 9:56 am
===The same applies to the medical implications of other previously “personal” behaviors.

Except this has been a political issue for sometime. It’s gender parity for health insurance–and many states, including Illinois, passed similar laws mandating coverage of preventative health care for women be included in health plans just as other health care areas have been mandated for coverage.

This isn’t a new issue, it’s just become controversial recently.

Comment by ArchPundit Wednesday, Mar 7, 12 @ 12:53 pm
Go figure…

IR got nervous but instead of deleting the racist/misogynist cartoon they just changed the URL.

It’s now at http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2012/03/cartoon.html

Yesterday, the file was at …/ir-cartoon.html which is the URL Rich had linked above.

PS - The cartoonist is a fellow from Georgia who was arrested in 2009 for domestic battery after he shoved his wife into a window.

Truly classy company IR keeps.

—

Hey Sunshine 8:20am — how do you expect a woman to “abstain” from ovarian cysts or endometriosis?

That’s the sort of medical need Sandra Fluke was testifying about.

Comment by G. Willickers Wednesday, Mar 7, 12 @ 11:09 pm
What’s up, its good paragraph on the topic of media print, we all know media is a great source of information.

Comment by CPM Advertising Monday, Mar 19, 12 @ 1:53 pm