Why I Apologized to Sandra Fluke

RUSH: Yeah, I knew it was getting bad. I was watching the media on Saturday, and I said, "You know what? I gotta call myself and cancel and suspend the Two If By Tea advertising." So I called myself to cancel the advertising. I got a busy signal so I couldn't cancel my own company's advertising. So Two If By Tea remains a sponsor of the Rush Limbaugh program and the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.

Great to have you here, folks, looking forward to talking with you today as the program unfolds before your very eyes and ears. Our telephone number, 800-282-2882, the e-mail address ElRushbo@eibnet.com.

While I have your attention, give me 30 minutes here. It's all I ask and then you can do what you want. I want to explain why I apologized to Sandra Fluke in the statement that was released on Saturday. I've read all the theories from all sides, and, frankly, they are all wrong. I don't expect -- and I know you don't, either -- morality or intellectual honesty from the left. They've demonstrated over and over a willingness to say or do anything to advance their agenda. It's what they do. It's what we fight against here every day. But this is the mistake I made. In fighting them on this issue last week, I became like them.

Against my own instincts, against my own knowledge, against everything I know to be right and wrong I descended to their level when I used those two words to describe Sandra Fluke. That was my error. I became like them, and I feel very badly about that. I've always tried to maintain a very high degree of integrity and independence on this program. Nevertheless, those two words were inappropriate. They were uncalled for. They distracted from the point that I was actually trying to make, and I again sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for using those two words to describe her. I do not think she is either of those two words. I did not think last week that she is either of those two words.

The apology to her over the weekend was sincere. It was simply for using inappropriate words in a way I never do, and in so doing, I became like the people we oppose. I ended up descending to their level. It's important not to be like them, ever, particularly in fighting them. The old saw, you never descend to the level of your opponent or they win. That was my error last week. But the apology was heartfelt. The apology was sincere. And as you will hear as I go on here, it was not about anything else. No ulterior motive. No speaking in code. No double entendre or intention. Pure, simple heartfelt. That's why I apologized to Sandra Fluke on Saturday, 'cause all the theories, all the experts are wrong.

What's gone on since and what really is going on here is what we all know to be true. Our president, Barack Obama, has a socialist agenda when it comes to health care, when it comes to birth control, when it comes to virtually every aspect of his agenda. In this case, Barack Obama wants the government, his government making moral decisions about what treatments, prescriptions, pills you pay for through your insurance premiums. He isn't willing to let you or the market make that decision for yourself.

Now, the hearing that started all of this, I want to go back and put the timeline here in context, start at the very beginning. The hearing that started all of this was called by Darrell Issa, a California Republican, he's the head of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Issa is on our side. His point in calling this hearing was to get facts into the record that otherwise would not be aired. But his committee is made up of both Republicans and Democrats, and there are rules and procedures that are followed in calling witnesses. What this was all about was the president of the United States acting extra-constitutionally, mandating that Catholic churches and their schools provide contraceptives, abortifacients. He doesn't have that power constitutionally. He cannot mandate these things.

That was the original purpose of the hearing. He was to get facts into the record that otherwise would not be aired, but his committee is made up of Republicans and Democrats and there are rules and procedures that are followed in calling witnesses. So the Democrats tried to play a game with Darrell Issa and his committee, and he rejected it. What they did was, they requested a witness for his hearing, a man named Barry Lynn to make their points for them. Barry Lynn is a guy that remits the Democrat point of view. They asked for him in advance. Issa's committee checked him out, invited him, and prepared for his testimony. Issa agreed he has a degree of expertise about the subject matter of the hearing, which was not contraception. That's what Obama wants to turn this to.

Obama is sorely hurting with women in preelect polls. He wanted to turn this into an issue much as they used to use abortion. So the Democrats played the game. What happened next is instructive, and it's very important. At literally the last minute the Democrats decided they want Sandra Fluke. What happened next, at the last minute the Democrats decided that Sandra Fluke would be a better witness for them, not because she had any special knowledge or credentials like Barry Lynn has, but because her optics as a woman and a college student, a 30-year-old college student and an activist on Democrat issues, by the way.

They thought all of that would show better than Barry Lynn. Now, this is at 4:30 p.m., 4:30 in the afternoon, the day before the hearing that the Democrats asked Issa to un-invite Barry Lynn, the guy they had asked for originally, and replace him with Sandra Fluke. Darrell Issa said (paraphrased), "Sorry, it's too late. She hasn't been vetted. We don't know who she is. She doesn't have any real qualifications to appear before this committee. We don't have the time to prepare for her and ask her questions. So the answer is: 'No. You cannot have her testify.'" All of this, by the way, is in a very interesting Washington Examiner article from last week, and I've linked to it at RushLimbaugh.com so you can read it yourself.

Now, the Democrats and the leftists sensed opportunity over this controversy that they created themselves. They publicly turned the situation they created to their own advantage. They invite Barry Lynn. They disinvite him at the last moment and they want him replaced with Sandra Fluke. "Who is this? We don't know who she is." The second panel of witnesses. It was Carolyn Maloney. If you don't recall last week, Carolyn Maloney, Democrat from New York, started shouting, "Where are the women? Where are the women?" They start saying Republicans hate women; they started attacking Issa and Republicans on the committee, saying, "They don't want hear from women! They're misogynist, sexist," or what have you.

Issa's committee invited the Democrat choice again, Barry Lynn, and the Democrats on the committee tried to replace him at the very last minute with this sympathetic woman when it was too late for the committee. So again they said no. So the Democrats played their game of lies, and Issa complained. On February 16th, he said, "The Democrats on his committee have appeared," this is a quote, "outright giddy in attempting to distort the testimony offered and purpose of the hearing." You bet they did. They wanted to turn this from a committee hearing on Obama and his unconstitutional mandate to the issue of contraception so as to bring back to life page 1-A of the Democrat playbook: Republicans Hate Women.

They wanted to change the whole subject. So how did they do it? Well, the Democrats have their own little subcommittee called the steering committee. This subsets inside the larger oversight and reform committee that Issa chairs. And they wanted their sympathetic witness on the record, Sandra Fluke. So they called her to testify before them, not Issa's committee. The subcommittee. They staged what was essentially a conference to look like a committee hearing. She gave the testimony that she was going to give to the full committee. It was taped and released and made to look like a committee hearing. And Darrell Issa had been right all along. Her testimony was not that of an expert.

It was just another non-expert person in this case, in Sandra's case: A 30-year-old, longtime birth control activist who went back to law school after a career of years of championing birth-control issues. In fact, she told stories less about birth control as a social tool (which was, of course, the left's true agenda) and more about birth control as a medication for treating other conditions, such as pregnancy. To the left, pregnancy is a disease. If you're listening to me for the first time, you may say, "Well, that's crazy." It's not. They treat pregnancy as a disease for political purposes. All of this, folks, is political.

Sandra Fluke gave vague examples based on unnamed friends who she says couldn't afford birth control to treat medical conditions they had, since Georgetown University wouldn't pay for them. Georgetown paid for all of their other medical treatment, but it wouldn't pay for the birth control pills that these doctors prescribed should they be necessary -- or so she says. We still don't know who any of these friends of hers are, these other women, and we don't know what happened to them. Her testimony was hearsay, and it was unprovable. And Issa was right not to let her give the testimony, particularly when the Democrats foisted her on the committee at the very last minute for the express purpose of pulling this fast one, this trick.

Now, let's get a few facts on the record here. Georgetown is a Jesuit University. It's Jesuits, run by the Jesuits, which are a Catholic order of priests. Their policy on birth control is not exactly a secret. It's not given to you in a sealed envelope after you sign up. It's out there for everybody to see. It's a Catholic university! Everybody that goes to there knows. Miss Fluke stated on occasion she went there specifically to change the policy. If birth control insurance is important to you as an enrolling student, and you find out that Georgetown doesn't offer it, you might want to attend (or work at) a school that isn't run by Catholics. I mean, just a thought.

But if you know the place doesn't offer contraceptives when you sign up, and that is your big political issue, then why are you really there? Actually, they know what they're doing. They intentionally target schools like Georgetown to advance an agenda of ultimately forcing them to abandon their religious beliefs. All of this is to serve Obama's agenda. The agenda he worked all summer on. He abandoned it only when America stood up, united, and this said they would not tolerate tearing down religion to increase government's control over our lives. You did that. You stood up to him. You made him stop. That was a proud moment for all of us.

This is his second attempt at mandating Catholic churches and other organizations (under the cloak of a so-called committee hearing) be forced to provide contraceptives against their moral conscience, dictates, what have you. So Sandra Fluke, a 30-year-old birth control activist gives unverified and inexpert testimony about how Georgetown's long-standing and public policy has hurt her unnamed friends. And let's be clear on something else. I haven't called Georgetown to see if they pay for birth control pills when being used to treat her medical conditions. I have no idea if they do or don't. If somebody at Georgetown wants to weigh in on that, I'd be interested.

But the point here is that this was an issue that represents a tiny, tiny slice of what the Democrats really want here. They use Sandra Fluke to create a controversy. Sandra Fluke used them to advance her agenda, which is to force a religious institution to abandon their principles in order to meet hers. Now, all of this is what I should have told you last week, 'cause this is what happened. I use satire. I use absurdity to illustrate the absurd. The story at the Cybercast News Service characterized a portion of her testimony as sounding like (based on her own financial figures) she was engaging in sexual activity so often she couldn't afford it. I focused on that because it was simple trying to persuade people, change people's minds.

I am huge on personal responsibility and accountability, people providing for themselves when they're totally able to. The government has no business doing any of this, getting in people's bedrooms and mandating that other citizens pay for other citizens' social activities and so forth. That was the wrong one to focus on. I acted too much like the leftists who despise me. I descended to their level, using names and exaggerations to describe Sandra Fluke. It's what we have come to know and expect of them, but it's way beneath me. And it's way beneath you. It was wrong, and that's why I've apologized, 'cause I succumbed. I descended to their level. Don't be mad at them or mad at her. Everybody here was being true to their nature except me. I'm the one who had the falling on this, and for that I genuinely apologized for using those words to describe Ms. Fluke.

Rush is right - we don’t call people names. But it was an mistake - look at the numbers ...

Here’s a breakdown on ‘birth control’ issue and costs:

Birth control pills at Walmart sell for $9 a month - for three years of law school that’s $324.

After three years of birth control pills are paid for - a law student is left with $2,676 to cover costs of condoms....

A box of LifeStyles Ultra Sensitive 40ct (40 count) Condoms at Walmart runs $11.46.

The $2,676 left AFTER buying birth control pills, she ( random law student) can buy 233 boxes of condoms (the 40 count boxes) - for a total of 9320 condoms over a three year stint at law school... or 3,106 condoms per year. Or about 8 1/2 condoms PER DAY.

What word should people use to describe a female law student who uses - on average - 60 condoms a week? Free? Liberated? Or maybe something different?

Not a public figure?

Sleeping with that many people sure seems public to me. LOL

Not only that, but her moving into the spotlight for her cause brought her out as a public figure. She would have stayed private and kept to herself then she could be called a private figure. But testifying on TV and before congress and the world makes her a public figure. And a slut.

Rush is right - we don’t call people names. But it was an easy mistake to make - look at the numbers ... based on the call for taxpayers to pay $3,000 for birth control over the three years it takes to graduate from Law School.

Here’s a breakdown on ‘birth control’ issue and costs:

Birth control pills at Walmart sell for $9 a month - for three years of law school that’s $324.

After the three years of birth control pills are paid for - a law student is left with $2,676 to cover costs of condoms....

A box of LifeStyles Ultra Sensitive 40ct (40 count) Condoms at Walmart runs $11.46.

What word should people use to describe a female law student who uses - on average - 60 condoms a week? Free? Liberated? Or maybe something different?

Ms. Fluke is likely a “limited-purpose public figure,” since she put herself in the middle of a public debate over a mater of public controversy. This might not fully protect Rush (as Ms. Fluke’s lawyers would argue that his comments about her personal sexual behavior went far beyond her testimony, which concerned other womens’ use of contraceptives for medical purposes other than preventing pregnancy), but it would probably be difficult for Fluke to win a defamation case here.

Of course, if she sued, Rush may be forced to settle - the MSM would spin any defense he presented as “defending his right to call a weak, defenseless student a slut,” and it may ultimately be more costly to Rush (as well as his advertisers, etc.) to fight the lawsuit than it would be to just settle quietly.

I listen to Rush on WCRA 1090 AM from Effingham, IL....in the half hour a representative made an announcement about listeners calling to ask that Rush be cancelled from the station. He said for the present time Rush will stay at WCRA.

I am asking you all to email the station & at least stand up for Rush today, I do not want to have to go elsewhere to listen to Rush in the future.

Email: mphillips@cromwellradio.com

This is what I sent her:

I am listening to Rush on WCRA 1090 a.m. and heard the station announcement on people insisting that he be removed from this broadcast station.

I just want to let you know, if he goes, then you have lost me forever! I like Wm Bence.....I used to listen to Liddy....until you saw fit to remove his program (BAH) BOO.....you made a mistake there also.

I am here to tell you, the people insisting Rush be removed, do not listen to him every day as do I....I have patronized your sponsors as well as enjoy hearing the salute to past and present soldiers. I hear many of my old friends and relatives announced & my pride swells for our country and those heroes.

Please use your brain and keep Rush on the air, I can listen to other stations but I have chosen WCRA, for over 22 years I have heard him on A M radio stations.

Thank you for listening to my voice today!

Kaaren
GrannyK

Since Ms. Fluke is not a ‘public figure,’ I'm waiting for the Defamation of Character lawsuit to be filed against Rush on behalf of Ms. Fluke by the ACLU.

Fluke is probably a limited figure under Sullivan. A limited public figure "thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved." Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 345.

Fluke wasn't subpoenaed.

The actual malice standard applicable to a public figure would likely apply.

Thanks for doing the math.

I would never, ever apply the word "slut" to Sandra Fluke nor to any of the women she represents.

It used to be that a reasonably competent slut could get a couple hundred bucks for less than an hour's access to her goods and services. Ms. Fluke apparently speaks for a different category: females who not only can't find a man willing to underwrite their Ortho Tri-Cyclen -- the basic oral contraceptive, available at Wal-Mart at $24 for a 3-month supply--- but can't even get them to put up 35 cents for a rubber.

Such radically devalued young persons do not benefit at all from being called sluts. They fall far short of any reasonable definition of whoredom.

If they are Catholics, they might, however, benefit from excommunication.

That would at least remind them that they are persons created in the imago Dei, and warn them solemnly that their priceless dignity is being eroded by their own choices. It might help them to realize that care of their souls is more important than the price of their Pills.

Don't be mad at them or mad at her. Everybody here was being true to their nature except me.

LOL! Very droll, Rush.

He is using today's heightened attention to his show as an opportunity to expose the democrats's sleazy, manipulative and mendacious tactics along with Fluke's true agenda.

What word should people use to describe a female law student who uses - on average - 60 condoms a week? Free? Liberated? Or maybe something different?

She was not talking about condoms, she was talking about hormonal birth control. The cost of hormonal birth control does not increase with the amount of sex the user is having, so you can't draw a correlation between the stated (and clearly exaggerated) cost of contraception and the amount of sex Ms. Fluke is having. Ms. Fluke was clearly lying about the cost of birth control (or, to be more precise, was probably parrotting a number she saw somewhere else, without regard to whether that number was accurate), but she was not admitting to sleeping around. She said not a single word about her own sexual activities.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.