Laurie is not telling the truth, limbaugh complains correctly about other people having to be forced to pay for some dumb bints pill. One assumes she is not a strong and independent woman then, nor that she objects to the government in her uterus as she expects them to pay for medicating it.
Although like most feminists she is ugly, being ugly or made that way by her political views.

How one can be any type of fascist crypto or not when one wishes to decrease the power of government is something only the Penny can answer (does she understand the meaning of the word?)

Come to think of it she could pay for the pill out of her own inheritance.

how retarded are you? this bit half wit; if you want to be part of a modern society then you will just have to accept that some of your tax goes on things you either will never personally benefit from, or, do not personally approve of.

John Cheese - "Forcing Catholic churches to provide contraceptives is the equivalent of making muslims eat barbecue pork sandwiches."

No. It is the equivalent of forcing Muslims to pay taxes to subsidise pig farmers, which we do.

It is also the equivalent of asking atheists to subsidise financial shortfalls in faith schools, which we also do.

So it's perfectly acceptable to ask the Catholic community to stump up and pay up. We ALL pay for shit we don't agree with, it's a consequence of a civil society. As Jon Stewart said; "Reimburse me for the Iraq war and diaphrams are on me"

Oooohhhh I'm cut...oh no I'm not. Yaaaawn.

Jankaas - that lindberg thing just copy and quoted a paragraph of mine from earlier then put the link.

It's a spammer, but is trying to duck the radar by putting something that might be relevant to the actual discussion. New Statesman really needs to moderate and monitor it's site better.

'bile-spitting Conservative radio wingnut'
Small 'c', Laurie. As far as I know, Limbaugh's not a Tory. Also. I'm no defender of his, but 'crypto-fascist'? Really? Calm down, dear. Attacking emotion-based politics with emotional rhetoric is rather self-defeating.

"He apologised a week later."

go on then, just for balance, how did Rush phrase his apology?

and of course, what caused him to apologise?

any idea Roger?

"No. It is the equivalent of forcing Muslims to pay taxes to subsidise pig farmers, which we do."

damn, your porky pig comparison to John beats mine. i must try harder!

and i note that your other target still wishes to deny the inescapable realities of living in a modern secular society. well colour me shocked...

Do I benefit from the Internet. Yes, so that would mean? Your inversion of simple logic is telling regarding your intellect.

No jackass, you have not explained anything between appearing ignorant and throwing insults. Although it is revealing that those true believers who wish to create a society are so intolerant of people who diagree with them, it hardly speaks well of their abilities.

allowing Catholic Institutions to opt out of contraception coverage is like allowing Muslims to have Sharia Law.

"No jackass, you have not explained anything between appearing ignorant and throwing insults. Although it is revealing that those true believers who wish to create a society are so intolerant of people who diagree with them, it hardly speaks well of their abilities."

And yet you:

"You two should hold hands, the first synapse in either of your lives would be created."

"Oh dear our pig farmer with a care for people too Ill to make love has another go."

"Of course one then has to accept that giving jackass the pill for free is like feeding a pig. "

"I ignored your success of showing yourself to be a low class vulgar offensive degenerate"

Are you really that unself-aware? I suppose you must be, that is the only way this sort of hardline libertarianism can persist.

"Do I benefit from the Internet. Yes, so that would mean? Your inversion of simple logic is telling regarding your intellect. "

You benefit from contraception. Overpopulation has potentially terrible consequences and paying for condoms and pills is cheaper than paying for children (I am going to assume you are not a complete sociopath so wouldn't endorse simply allowing said children to starve to death if the parents couldn't afford them).

Does the NHS pay for condoms? No. Are British women the victims of state oppression?

Let no-one understate the true hideousness of Limbaugh's comments but let's also not forget that all that is at stake here is the idea of forcing institutions to pay for something that we, with state-funded healthcare, would only ever imagine paying for ourselves.

What if they don't work because there aren't any jobs available? Or because they are students on low hours? Or have wages which make contraceptives prohibitively expensive? Or are too sick to work?

Is it not better and cheaper for the government to bulk buy then to simply give the contraceptives out?

^

since half the human population is in need of this basic essential, why on earth shouldn't we just share the cost? it's not a male or female issue in that sense, it is a human health issue. there is no argument about cost worth making, it just looks petty.

Excellent piece, astute analysis coupled with zesty prose.

Jankass, it's called choice something I assumed you support.

Indeed. Bait and switch. Scum like Limbaugh (and Delingpole here) are the bait.

@Dean - "Does the NHS pay for condoms? No. Are British women the victims of state oppression?"

Yes they do. Not just condoms, but the pill and other forms of birth control.

Ohhh... and vibrators...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2002/sep/29/health.publicservices

It's a good job Rush doesn't live here. He'd be demanding a lot more in the way of video clips

@Explain please - "Clearly Rush said something awful, but beyond the insulting words, please can someone explain what is the essential issue? Is he saying that the state should not pay for contraceptives? If yes, what is exactly wrong with it?"

It costs far less to pay for contraceptives than pay for the maintenance of children wouldn't you agree?

If people without adequate money can't afford contraceptives the state should pay as it actually saves money. This is a complete non-argument.

This is true - and it's a strategy often used in politics, where something so heinous that no sane person would accept it is trotted out as a possible new law, & then after a vociferous campaign against it by the public, the government appears to back down, tabling instead a bill that had they not preceded it with the insane abomination would have been rejected as bad & wrong, but is now accepted with sighs of relief or resignation by the now exhausted activists.

Why should I share the cost? Why do I not have the option not to?

Oh silly me it's another lefty fascist 'right' that means other people pay.

Silican, I see you're just as confused as Laurie. Were you outside of St Paul's chanting silly slogans and waving placards a few months back?

Why can't men have icky, sticky bodies? That's misandry

Why IS James Delingpole, Nick?

"Of course those people can access healthcare, by simply working and paying for it."

What if they can't? What if they are too sick to work or jobs are simply unavailable? Or what if they do work but can't afford contraceptives?

It is cheaper to pay for contraceptives than to pay for somone who is hard up in the first place to have kids. Even for someone like Rush this is a no-brainer surely?