By Mark Esposito, Guest Blogger
Georgetown University Law Schooler Sandra Fluke may have been able to do something George Soros’ millions, a whole gaggle of Democratic strategists, and Al Franken’s book, Rush Limbaugh Is a Big Fat Idiot, couldn’t do – dethrone the King of Caustic in the court of public opinion. She may have done something else, too. Something truly unexpected in red-blue battlefield where American politics is played. The feisty feminist may have just made political discourse civil again.
On February 29, 2012 (appropriately a leap year for such a pratfall), Limbaugh started the firestorm calling the 30-year-old women’s rights advocate a “slut” and “prostitute” after her testimony before an unofficial congressional committee in support of mandated private health insurance coverage for contraceptives. Fluke’s crime: calling for coverage of birth control drugs to treat her friend’s polycystic ovarian syndrome. Prescriptions for pain from ovarian cysts is just one of many noncontraceptive uses of birth control denied women when their employers refuse to include contraception services in their health care plans because of moral or religious reasons.
Refusing to accept Ms. Fluke’s motivation, Rush doubled down a day later offering what he termed was a “compromise” to contraception coverage: purchasing “all the women at Georgetown University as much aspirin to put between their knees as possible”. He continued that he “[ran] some numbers” on contraception costs and arguing that contraception coverage was “flat-out thievery” that would force taxpayers to pay to “satisfy the sexual habits of female law students at Georgetown”.
The rant was unrelenting: “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,” bellowed the wounded giant. He then added, “Who bought your condoms in junior high? Who bought your condoms in the sixth grade? Or your contraception. Who bought your contraceptive pills in high school?” He described Fluke as “a woman who is happily presenting herself as an immoral, baseless, no-purpose-to-her life woman. She wants all the sex in the world whenever she wants it, all the time, no consequences.” By some counts, he attacked Ms. Fluke 46 more times that day and throughout the broadcast.
By March 2nd, Rush still wasn’t done with Ms. Fluke. Limbaugh said that requiring insurance companies to cover contraception is “no different than if somebody knocked on my door that I don’t know and said, ‘You know what? I’m out of money. I can’t afford birth-control pills, and I’m supposed to have sex with three guys tonight.’ ” He added “she’s having so much sex she can’t pay for it and wants a new welfare program to pay for it,” he’d be “embarrassed” and “disconnect the phone”, “go into hiding”, and “hope the media didn’t find me”. He continued later, “Oh! Does she have more boyfriends? They’re lined up around the block. They would have been in my day.”
Criticizing someone for an out-of-control libido must have caused even hardline — but memory-equipped — “ditto-heads” to blush. In March of 2009, Limbaugh was reportedly detained by US Customs officials for three hours with 29 tablets of the male sexual enhancement drug, Viagra, in his suitcase. Limbaugh’s Gulfstream IV jet (courtesy of Premier Radio Networks) with Rush and 4 male buddies aboard had landed in Palm Beach, Florida, fresh off a stag party vacation in the Dominican Republic. Nothing newsworthy there except that the Viagra prescription was not in the radio celebrity’s name. Instead, it was “labeled as being issued to the physician rather than Mr. Limbaugh for privacy purposes,” according to Roy Black, Limbaugh’s attorney. For his part, Limbaugh was nonplussed and in a bragging mood about his sexual proclivities south of the border. “I had a great time in the Dominican Republic. Wish I could tell you about it,” he beamed.
Such arrogance all but guaranteed a backlash from both Right and Left labeling Limbaugh both a bully and misogynistic. Advertisers began to hear rumblings from social media that boycotts were planned and got antsy, especially in view of the size of the potentially offended demographic involved. Laurie Cantillo, Rush’s old boss at WABC (770 AM) explained that,
It is perceived by many as an attack on young women. … Women 25-54 is the prize demo for most advertisers, and Rush’s remarks strike at the heart of the audience they’re trying to reach….
Reagan speech writer, Peggy Noonan, called Limbaugh’s remarks “crude, rude, even piggish,” and “deeply destructive and unhelpful.” House Speaker John Boehner called the remarks, “Inappropriate.’ Senator John McCain (R-Arizona), the party’s 2008 candidate for president, said Limbaugh’s statements were unacceptable “in every way” and “should be condemned” by people across the political spectrum. Even the bow-tied ambassador from the Country Club Right, George Will, clucked that Boehner’s remarks were more suited to a faux pas of using a salad fork for the entrée and lamented that “… it was depressing because what it indicates is that the Republican leaders are afraid of Rush Limbaugh.” Duh! Now how about some coffee to really wake you up, George.
If the right was disappointed, the left was outraged. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), wrote that “Rush Limbaugh, the voice of the ultra-conservative right, issued one of the most vile tirades against women I’ve ever heard.” House Minority Leader, Nancy Pelosi, called the diatribe, “obnoxious” and “vicious and inappropriate attacks.” Seventy-five Democratic Party lawmakers signed a letter expressing outrage at the remarks labeling them as “sexually charged, patently offensive, obscene”, “indecent” and “an abuse of public airwaves.” NOW described Limbaugh as a “bigoted bully” and a speaker of “hate-filled speech” for trying to “shame a young woman for coming forward, speaking her mind and standing up for women’s rights.”
An apology was inevitable if not for ethical reasons then for financial ones. On March 1st, Rush issued the first of what critics would call his non-apologies. Grasping the golden EIB microphone on March 3rd, the Right’s most quoted standard-bearer bit the bullet saying:
For over 20 years, I have illustrated the absurd with absurdity, three hours a day, five days a week. In this instance, I chose the wrong words in my analogy of the situation. I did not mean a personal attack on Ms. Fluke. I think it is absolutely absurd that during these very serious political times, we are discussing personal sexual recreational activities before members of Congress. I personally do not agree that American citizens should pay for these social activities. What happened to personal responsibility and accountability? Where do we draw the line? If this is accepted as the norm, what will follow? Will we be debating if taxpayers should pay for new sneakers for all students that are interested in running to keep fit? In my monologue, I posited that it is not our business whatsoever to know what is going on in anyone’s bedroom nor do I think it is a topic that should reach a Presidential level. My choice of words was not the best, and in the attempt to be humorous, I created a national stir. I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for the insulting word choices.
Too little, too late. And besides, Fluke was not in an accepting mood. Talking with Barbara Walters on ABC’s The View, Fluke said,
I don’t think that a statement like this, saying that his choice of words was not the best, changes anything, and especially when that statement is issued when he’s under significant pressure from his sponsors who have begun to pull their support from the show. I think any woman who has ever been called these types of names is [shocked] at first. But then I tried to see this for what it is, and I believe that what it is, is an attempt to silence me, to silence the millions of women and the men who support them who have been speaking out about this issue and conveying that contraception is an important healthcare need that they need to have met in an affordable, accessible way.
Advertisers were not in a forgiving mood either. ThinkProgress.com confirmed that 141 — not 8 as once reported — sponsors have been identified in an internal Premier Radio Networks memorandum as declaring that their ad spots are to be run on controversy-free radio programming. Put another way, on Rush-free programming. The feminist trio of Gloria Steinem, Jane Fonda, and Robin Morgan called for the FCC to ban Rush, and defender of all things woman, Gloria Allred, wanted the rotund pundit prosecuted.
Oh, there were some Rush defenders like actress/activist, Patricia Heaton, and the usual chorus of wacky Michelle Malkin, educationally-challenged Sean Hannity, and Fox’ s trotted-out lawyer of the Right turned pundit, Megyn Kelly, but they were quickly caught up in the deluge and slinked away with lukewarm Twitter apologies (Heaton) or a quick change of topic (all the rest).
While extreme positions are easily dismissed as preposterous, they have the effect of focusing the debate on the reasonable propositions and then drawing a consensus as to the right course of action. It ‘s the case of two equally matched but exhausted palookas in a bar fight who are simply tired of the tussle that leads to no result and makes both look weak. The fight may have gone out of both sides. Also the Law of Unintended Consequences may be at work, too. Speaking on msnbc’s Morning Joe, McCain’s 2008 campaign chief, Steven Schmidt, was asked to comment on McCain’s combative running mate Sarah Palin, the subject of HBO’s new production, Game Change. He made an interesting comment about the Hockey-Mom-Turned-Rogue, and in doing so, about the system the got her there in the first place. ” She has become a person who I think is filled with grievance, filled with anger who has a divisive message for the national stage when we need leaders in both parties to have a unifying message. . . .” Schmidt seemed to be echoing Barbara Bush’s comments made a few days earlier at SMU about the 2012 campaign, “I hate that people think compromise is a dirty word. It’s not a dirty word,” the former First Lady emphasized.
The same sentiment was expressed by outgoing Republican Senator, Olympia Snow:
The great challenge is to create a system that gives our elected officials reasons to look past their differences and find common ground …. In a politically diverse nation, only by finding that common ground can we achieve results for the common good. That is not happening today and, frankly, I do not see it happening in the near future.
For change to occur, our leaders must understand that there is not only strength in compromise, courage in conciliation and honor in consensus-building — but also a political reward for following these tenets. That reward will be real only if the people demonstrate their desire for politicians to come together after the planks in their respective party platforms do not prevail.
Snow, long regarded as one of the moderate Republicans in the Senate who was willing to work with the opposition in promoting the public good, left the institution in disgust at what she called the “corrosive trend of winner-take-all politics.” When the beneficiaries of the Lee Atwater school of politics think things have gone too far, things have really gone too far.
Other signs also point to an increase of civility in the wake of the across-the-board outrage at Limbaugh.
Following the lambasting of Ms. Fluke by Limbaugh, Georgetown President Jack DeGioia stepped up to defend his student’s right to speak and called for civility. The leader of the Jesuit school — that officially opposes the mandatory contraception services — eloquently laid out the case for letting the opposiong view be aired. In a letter to the school, DeGioia wrote, “[Ms. Fluke] provided a model of civil discourse. This expression of conscience was in the tradition of the deepest values we share as a people. One need not agree with her substantive position to support her right to respectful free expression.” He branded the reaction of Limbaugh and some other commentators as “misogynistic, vitriolic and a misrepresentation of the position of our student.”
And here’s what Carbonite CEO David Friend said about this company’s decision to pull its ads from the Limbaugh show.
No one with daughters the age of Sandra Fluke, and I have two, could possibly abide the insult and abuse heaped upon this courageous and well-intentioned young lady. Mr. Limbaugh, with his highly personal attacks on Miss Fluke, overstepped any reasonable bounds of decency. Even though Mr. Limbaugh has now issued an apology, we have nonetheless decided to withdraw our advertising from his show. We hope that our action, along with the other advertisers who have already withdrawn their ads, will ultimately contribute to a more civilized public discourse.
Friend made the statement in the face of a threat by investors to leave the Inc. 500 company if he abandoned the ad campaign on the Limabugh show. Sensa Weight Loss, another show sponsor, tweeted: “Rush Limbaugh’s comments are not in line with SENSA values so we are pulling our ads indefinitely which should be down in the next couple days.’ That tweet was mimicked by VitaCost, another longtime sponsor. GEICO Insurance issued a strongly worded statement that it was not a Rush Limbaugh sponsor and never would be one, “We do not place ads on Rush’s program. We do not sponsor the show. We have repeatedly alerted our partners that our ads are never to run during his program. If this does not change rest assured that we will remove all advertising from this radio network.” Tell us what you really think there, Caveman! JC Penney immediately followed suit on Twitter.
This incident bears striking resemblance to the 2007 scandal when long-time shock-jock Don Imus called the Rutger’s Women’s basketball team “a bunch of nappy headed hoes.” Though known for his off-the-wall commentary, Imus was not insulated when sponsors and fellow performers at CBS demanded that his show be cancelled. Eight days after uttering the fateful words, it was. CBS later settled with the radio host but the public sentiment was clear.
The point to be made is that when Wall Street, Congressional Republicans, Congressional Democrats, and the media all agree that civility should improve, civility will improve. It seems now that they have.
Ironically, perhaps the first step in fostering toleration is in politely refusing to tolerate the intolerant. Sandra Fluke taught us that important lesson by simply standing up for what she believed was right when it mattered. Real persuasion starts in speaking your truth humbly, compassionately, knowledgeably, and honestly. That may be the true antidote to the politics of haughtiness and hate. Sandra Fluke reminded us of that, too, with every word.
Sources: Linked Throughout; Wikipedia, Daily Beast; NY Daily News; Smoking GUn; Huffington Post
~Mark Esposito, Guest Blogger
MESPO nothing wrong with that but as they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Obamacare’s Gross Costs Double to $1.76 Trillion, CBO Projects
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Obamacare-costs-double-CBO/2012/03/14/id/432506
classic modern conservatism = the truth is actually just someones interpretation or “take”
bdman:
There’s “take” and there’s truth. Her testimony speaks for itself and while she highlights more examples of the plight of her friends caused by the Right’s reflexive disdain (and fear) of anything sexual or feminine, the basic point is that she is a good person trying to help others. In kindergarten we all learned what kind of person attacks a good person trying to help others for their own selfish (and occasionally psychological) reasons. That simple “truth” still stands today.
That is your take MESPO her testimony was about alot of things not just her friend. But for all intents and proposes it is backfiring because of bad optics.
The liberal media started using this term optics to describe things which I never really heard of the term being used before. The closest term associated for me would be a visual, like looking at the visual. Anyways this new craze using the term optics makes me look at things a bit more differently. For example
The director of Kony 12 save the children, wow great idea. Fastest viral video ever. But now the optics are no good after he got arrested yesterday for being naked and masturbating on a public street. It just don’t look good. Grown man trying to save kids gets caught naked masturbating on a public street.
XL pipeline, gas prices are going through the roof, Obama says we are doing all we can, makes jokes that we are drilling everywhere but behind the scenes does everything he can to cancel the pipeline. The optics don’t look good. Now they want to try and make it look like he’s really trying by getting photo ops at drilling facilities and the optics won’t be good either from an environmentalist or global warmist stand point.
As they say Mespo, It is what it is and what it is is ugly.
Bdman:
Actually her focus was a plea for a friend who suffered from polycystic ovarian syndrome, but why let a fact stand in the way of a guttural tirade against sex itself.
Here’s the words,if they matter:
“Without her taking the birth control, a massive cyst the size of a tennis ball had grown on her ovary. She had to have surgery to remove her entire ovary as a result.
“On the morning I was originally scheduled to give this testimony, she was sitting in a doctor’s office, trying to cope with the consequences of this medical catastrophe.
“Since last year’s surgery, she’s been experiencing night sweats and weight gain and other symptoms of early menopause as a result of the removal of her ovary. She’s 32-years-old.
“As she put it, ‘If my body indeed does enter early menopause, no fertility specialist in the world will be able to help me have my own children. I will have no choice at giving my mother her desperately desired grandbabies simply because the insurance policy that I paid for, totally unsubsidized by my school, wouldn’t cover my prescription for birth control when I needed it.’
“Now, in addition to potentially facing the health complications that come with having menopause at such an early age – increased risk of cancer, heart disease, osteoporosis – she may never be able to conceive a child.
If you want to cull away the BS here’s the entire transcipt:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/boxofficebuz/transcript-of-testimony-by-sandra-fluke-48z2
Because it was all based on what she could or could not afford and now the optics are bad because she cried poor mouth and every corner you turn she appears to be rich. Vacationing recently in Spain and Italy posting drunken pictures on Facebook. Thats why.
bdman:
I fail to see how her earning potential bears in the slightest on the controversy. If earnings generated fom controversy is a bad thing, serial gadfly, Rush Limbaugh,is the locus of evil with a nine figure salary for simply tossing red meat to his rabid and habitually bitter minions.
William C. Mutterperl
Bill is a partner in Reed Smith’s Financial Industry Group. He specializes in providing high level counseling to CEO’s, General Counsel, Boards of Directors and members of senior management of major financial institutions.
As the former Vice Chairman of The PNC Financial Services Group, he held management responsibilities for certain PNC staff functions, including legal, compliance, legislative affairs and media relations, and he was responsible for implementing best practices for corporate governance. He served on several senior management committees, including Mergers and Acquisitions, Corporate Re-Engineering and Consumer affairs, and also served as management liaison to a special ad hoc committee of the Board of Directors dealing with regulatory affairs and corporate governance. He also served as a PNC representative on the Board of Directors of BlackRock Investment Management, one of the largest investment management firms in the world.
Bill also had a distinguished 25-year career at FleetBoston Financial Corp. where he served as its Executive Vice President and General Counsel world-wide, responsible for all legal affairs of the company.
In addition, Bill served as Executive Director of the Independent Oversight Board for Arthur Andersen, headed by former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker. The other members of the Independent Oversight Board included current and former CEO’s of major U.S. companies. Bill advised the Board on proposed best corporate governance practices to be adopted by Andresen in the wake of governmental investigations and criticisms of that firm.
In private practice, Bill was a partner in the business law division of Brown Rudnick Berlack Israels in Boston, specializing in corporate governance issues. He began his legal career at the law firm of Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP.
In his roles at PNC and Fleet Boston, Bill developed expertise in myriad legal disciplines and related business activities, including:
http://www.reedsmith.com/william_mutterperl/
Elaine M:
Thanks for the great contribution. It’s hard for some conservatives to read when blinded by an ideology of hate.
Swathmore Mom trust me she will be making big bucks. Do you know who her boyfriends daddy is.
Not anymore she’s gonna run for office 🙂
As far as advertisers
.Michael Harrison told The Daily Caller that Limbaugh’s numbers likely are going nowhere but up — despite the anti-Limbaugh push. Harrison is founder and publisher of Talkers magazine, the industry’s leading trade journal. According to Harrison, even if all the publicity is negative, it is a “good bet that Rush is enjoying pretty high ratings” last week and going into this week.
While some have been boasting that Limbaugh has lost 140 advertisers, the accuracy of that claim has been debated. Some radio advertisers have requested to be on a “no-buy” list for Limbaugh’s program, which is an advertising strategy and not a boycott of any specific program according to Michael Harrison, the founder and publisher of the radio talk industries trade journal Talkers magazine.
Harrison told The Daily Caller’s Caroline May why those claims were not true.
“It has nothing to do with fleeing, boycotting [or] censoring,” he said. “It’s just that certain advertisers have certain shows on a list that they don’t want to be on because they don’t want to be on controversial programming, and this has gone on for years.”
Limbaugh told listeners this week he will be running four new commercials starting Friday
http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/14/talkers-magazine-publisher-limbaugh-likely-has-the-biggest-audience-hes-had-in-years/
Bdaman, That salary you mention is for those that work in big corporate law. I don’t think Ms. Fluke was headed in that direction. Ms. Fluke is clearly headed to public interest law where the salaries are maybe around $40 to $60k.
Did Anyone In Conservative Media Actually Read Or Listen To Sandra Fluke’s Testimony?
No because we knew it was a set up or at least inclinations it was a setup. She went from this poor 23 year old, third year college law student to a 30 year old activist who through her boyfriends father most likely made all the connections needed to get where she is today. Not to mention the fact that she claims she can’t afford to pay for birth control now but when she graduates the average starting first year salary for someone like Ms. Fluke from Georgetown is estimated between $140k and $160K. Far from poor.
After having sired two children, I had a vasectomy — for which I paid cash since I had no insurance to cover the procedure. All men who feel themselves disposed to discourse upon the subject of unwanted pregnancies and abortions for women should do the same, just to set a good example. Actually, men should just shut up about women’s health issues. Period.
Did Anyone In Conservative Media Actually Read Or Listen To Sandra Fluke’s Testimony?
March 14, 2012
by Oliver Willis
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201203140016
Struggling Clear Channel And Rush Limbaugh’s $400 Million Payday
March 16, 2012
by Eric Boehlert
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201203160002
Excerpt:
There was something very telling, and even morose, about the commercial break Rush Limbaugh took deep into his third hour of broadcasting on Tuesday’s show. Still at the center of an advertising firestorm that rages around his program as corporate America turns its back on the AM talker in the wake of his ugly, invasive, three-day smear campaign against Sandra Fluke, Limbaugh boasted he had thwarted the left-wing attack and they were the ones “shell shocked” at the turn of events.
But the truth was that for days on his flagship station, WABC in New York, Limbaugh’s show had been stripped of key advertisers. Instead, the once robust revenue-generating program had turned into a feel-good forum where during commercial breaks WABC ran nonpaid public service announcements on behalf of the United Negro College Fund and New York Office of Emergency Management. That’s because WABC didn’t feel comfortable putting lots of advertisers on Limbaugh’s show, which up and down Madison Avenue had become poisonous in this wake of his misogynistic Fluke debacle.
So towards the end of his show on Tuesday, the nine-figure salary talk show host went to commercial break and a paid advertiser did pop up. And it was a new advertiser, a sponsor who apparently had signed on amidst the controversy. The sponsor’s name? The Holy Name Cemetery in New Jersey, which was advertising a “pre-planning open house weekend.”
How fitting.
Whether Limbaugh’s show is in the midst of the death throes, only time will tell. But one thing is clear, the radio industry has never seen anything like the sponsorship controversy surrounding Limbaugh’s once-untouchable program. And it’s certainly never seen anything like the wholesale decision by his syndicator, Premier Radio Networks, to suspend barter ads for two weeks in an apparent effort to ride out the controversy. That was soon followed by news that advertisers are requesting Limbaugh’s affiliated stations provide “Rush-free programming grids” so sponsors can verify that their brands aren’t appearing on his show.
“It’s unprecedented,” Holland Cooke, a talk radio consultant, tells Media Matters. He says Premiere’s startling advertising move “suggests things are worse than we know.”
The question is: How long will stations be able to sustain the ad losses on Limbaugh’s show, and how does the host justify his $400 million pay in the face of the advertiser revolt?
The boycott comes at a bad time for Premier’s parent company, Clear Channel. A conservative-friendly media behemoth with a soft spot for right-wing radio, Clear Channel continues to struggle not only with a depleted radio audience as more and more consumers migrate away from the AM/FM dial, but it’s also sagging under the weight of massive debt.
http://gawker.com/5893611/tea-party-spaz-ties-sandra-fluke-to-vast-jewish+socialist-conspiracy It is ongoing…………..
It’s all Saturday Night Lives fault
Sandra Fluke: Slurs won’t silence women
By Sandra Fluke, Special to CNN
Wed March 14, 2012
http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/13/opinion/fluke-contraception/index.html
Excerpt:
(CNN) — Last month, students from several Catholic universities gathered to send a message to the nation that contraception is basic health care. I was among them, and I was proud to share the stories of my friends at Georgetown Law who have suffered dire medical consequences because our student insurance does not cover contraception for the purpose of preventing pregnancy.
I joined these students in speaking at a media event because I believe that stories of how real women are affected are the most powerful argument for access to affordable, quality reproductive health care services.
I also joined these students because now is a critical time to raise this issue in our public consciousness.
Thanks to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, preventive care services, including contraception, will be covered by private insurance plans without co-pays or deductibles. If appropriately implemented, this important law will finally guarantee women access to contraception, regardless of the religious affiliation of their workplace or school.
By now, many have heard the stories I wanted to share thanks to the congressional leaders and members of the media who have supported me and millions of women in speaking out.
Because we spoke so loudly, opponents of reproductive health access demonized and smeared me and others on the public airwaves. These smears are obvious attempts to distract from meaningful policy discussions and to silence women’s voices regarding their own health care.
These attempts to silence women and the men who support them have clearly failed. I know this because I have received so many messages of support from across the country — women and men speaking out because they agree that contraception needs to be treated as a basic health care service.
Who are these supporters?
They are women with polycystic ovarian syndrome, who need contraception to prevent cysts from growing on their ovaries, which if unaddressed can lead to infertility and deadly ovarian cancer. They are sexual assault victims, who need contraception to prevent unwanted pregnancy.
They are Catholic women, who see no conflict between their social justice-based faith and family planning. They are new moms, whose doctors fear that another pregnancy too soon could jeopardize the mother’s health and the potential child’s health too. They are mothers and grandmothers who remember all too well what it was like to be called names decades ago, when they were fighting for a job, for health care benefits, for equality.
They are husbands, partners, boyfriends and male friends who know that without access to contraception, the women they care about can face unfair obstacles to participating in public life. And yes, they are young women of all income levels, races, classes and ethnicities who need access to contraception to control their reproduction, pursue their education and career goals and prevent unintended pregnancy. And they will not be silenced.
These women know how expensive birth control pills can be, with or without insurance coverage. For a single mother with kids, a woman making minimum wage, or a student living on loans, a high monthly co-pay could be the difference between buying contraception or one week of groceries.
And imagine the financial burden of unplanned pregnancy and raising a child. For women without insurance coverage or with insurance that doesn’t cover contraception, the costs create a significant financial burden.
Many women cannot medically use the least expensive types of contraception. As a result, many women, especially those 18 to 34 who have the most trouble affording contraception, simply go without. They face any number of medical risks as well as unintended pregnancy — all of which damage their productivity and the health of their families.
Most recently, certain political commentators have started spreading misinformation about the underlying government regulation we are discussing. To be clear, through programs such as Medicaid, the government already does and should fund contraception coverage for the poorest women in our country.