Limbaugh: "The last place you want to be is between a liberal who gets herself pregnant and a morning-after pill"
Commenting on a Massachusetts lawsuit filed against Wal-Mart over its refusal to stock emergency contraception pills, Rush Limbaugh said that "the most dangerous place you can be is between a liberal woman and her morning-after pill."
Commenting on a Massachusetts lawsuit filed against Wal-Mart over its refusal to stock emergency contraception pills, nationally syndicated radio host Rush Limbaugh told listeners on February 2 that "the most dangerous place you can be is between a liberal woman and her morning-after pill," later repeating that "[t]he last place you want to be is between a liberal who gets herself pregnant and a morning-after pill." After reading portions of a February 2 Associated Press article detailing the lawsuit, Limbaugh said, "I think these babes ought to first prove that they've had sex with a man," explaining, "I mean, that's in Boston." He added: "For crying out loud, let's make them prove that they've first had sex with a man, and then we'll talk about stocking the morning-after pill at Wal-Mart."
From the February 2 broadcast of The Rush Limbaugh Show:
LIMBAUGH: Wal-Mart has been sued for not selling something this time. For not selling something. You know, the most dangerous place you can be is between a liberal woman and her morning-after pill. I mean, you don't -- that's a more dangerous place to be than between [Sen.] Chuck Schumer [D-NY] and a television camera. You don't want, you -- when a liberal woman gets pregnant, you do not want to be anywhere near her morning-after pill.
[...]
LIMBAUGH: Three Massachusetts women -- ha-ha-ha. Gotta be quick here, folks. Three Massachusetts women backed by pro-abortion groups sued Wal-Mart yesterday, saying that the retail giant violated a state regulation by failing to stock emergency contraception pills in its pharmacies. The suit, filed in Suffolk Superior Court -- this is in Boston -- seeks a court order compelling the company to stock the so-called "morning-after pill" in its 44 Wal-Marts and four Sam's Club stores in -- would you people make up your minds? You either want to put these stores out of business and get rid of them, or you want them to sell what you want. I'm telling -- Snerdley, you probably know this. The last place you want to be is between a liberal who gets herself pregnant and a morning-after pill. You wouldn't know about that from experience? Well, I'm just -- I think these babes ought to first prove that they've had sex with a man. You know, that -- I mean, that's in Boston. For crying out loud, let's make them prove that they've first had sex with a man, and then we'll talk about stocking the morning-after pill at Wal-Mart. But I'm telling -- absolutely insane. They want to put this outfit out of business, and now they want to storm the place for their morning-after pills. Folks, don't get between a liberal and her morning-after pill. Just do not do it.
The other right-wing media mogul you should worry about
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
So based upon this case against Wal Mart, Limbaugh can assert that every woman who seeks out the morning-after pill is a promiscuous liberal who doesn't practice safe sex. There's no possibility that it could be victim of rape or incest.
On a different note, I actually do agree with him on this line:
"would you people make up your minds? You either want to put these stores out of business and get rid of them, or you want them to sell what you want."
Since when is the product selection at Wal Mart so important to a liberal that they're willng to go to court over it? I thought we liberals weren't supposed to be shopping there.
Every time you buy a sweater at Wal-Mart you are supporting a Philipino child for a month.
BTW, Rush is hypocritical too. He supposedly believes in the free market. Why not let the market decide whether people want the product or not?
It has nothing to do with liberals though, it has to do with anyone who is denied the drug. Everyone should have access to it, regardless of political affiliation, right?
This is being reviewed and if Wal Mart must comply with a state law/policy, they said they will.
You are right though, this has nothing to do with political affiliation.......Wal Mart has the perfect right to carry or not to carry any product or services they see fit, as long as they abide by the law.
Abortion rights activists can scream all day long, it's not their call.
I think because maybe in some small towns, Walmart is the only place to get prescription drugs.
running their competitors out of business.
Rush said "you people." Any evidence that the plaintiffs in this case are people who want Wal-Mart to go out of business?
But Rush did say they were Massachusetts women. Right-wingers consider Mass to be a hotbed of liberal counterculture. Liberal counterculture is traditionally against the big corporate machine and all its injustices.
You're right, Pete. Rush was doing what he usually does - stereotyping, and making sweeping generalizations about the way all of "us people" think. I guess Rush's mind would explode if I told him that I'm a liberal and yet don't want to destroy Wal-Mart. It would clash with his preconceived notions and thus wouldn't compute.
What would be the point of that? Facts would just get in the way of a good lie.
In more and more rural areas, there is NO OTHER place to go.
--isn't it the "red states" that have the highest rate of "unplanned" pregnancys?
The red states have the highest everything.......
called "emergency contraception pills." Clearly Limbaugh, by his words, "when a liberal woman gets pregnant" he thinks that they are abortion pills. He an many other conservatives have absolutely no idea that these pills do not work if a woman is already pregnant.
Women are only fertile for 8 hours or so after ovulation. Sperm can live for 3-4 days. Plan B works by delaying ovulation until the sperm die off. It's really no different than using birth control pills.
I certainly wouldn't want to be between a right-wing radio host and any doctor willing to prescribe oxycontin.
I also wouldn't want to be between a holier-than-thou right winger and their wealthy parents during war time...or them and a divorce lawyer when they need their yearly divorce...or them and a tissue box whenever someone doesn't blindly step into their marching line.
All those places seem way moren dangerous and less aggressive than a pregnant liberal.
The only safe place to be is between a Repbulican and the truth. Because the two seem to be getting further and further apart lately.
I wouldn't want to be between Limbaugh and anything that is less than a hundred miles from Limbaugh.
I wouldn't want to get between Limbaugh and a ham sandwich!
This kind of talk makes me really sad for a lot of reasons. I think about the way it used to be before birth control and yes even abortion. A woman even had to have the permission of her husband to have a tubal ligation (referred to as tubes tied in those days).
I knew a woman that needed a hysterectomy, already having had five children, and her husband said no. She needed the hysterectomy for medical reasons and she was getting on in years but her husbands wishes came first. She eventually got one by forging his name.
Men like rush want women to go back to those times, I think. I have even recently heard contraceptives referred to as baby pesticides.
Think about it; what is the Troglodyte's battle cry? "Life begins at conception!" You don't think they'll stop with abortion, do you? Any contraceptive that prevents a fertilized egg (life, by their definition) from implanting in the uterus will be in their crosshairs. Randall Terry admitted as much years ago. This is not about "life", it's about rewinding women's liberation and the sexual revolution so we can all go back to the "pious" lifestyle of the mythical 1950s.
I was riding along with a supervisor from work when we tuned in to his program just as he said that. I groaned. My boss, sensible guy that he is, said something to the effect of "yeah well, at least he has a right to say that." And that's true. As Voltaire once said "I don't agree with what you say. But I would defend to the death your right to say it." And I'm also thankful that I have the right to change the channel.
Voltaire--the apostle of modern liberalism--didn't actually say or write these words; rather, they were a paraphrase written about him, summing up his attitude.
It is a good credo, even if its origins are often mistaken.
Oddly (revoltingly) enough, I've heard some say that the quote originates from Rev. Falwell. We have to be ready to stamp out that claim wherever it occurs!
...is worth a pound of cure, it is said.
It never ceases to amaze me that none of these "pro-life" conservative folks seem able to realize that one of the most effective ways of reducing the need for abortions and the "morning-after" pill would be to make certain that people (of both sexes) are taught the facts about how to prevent pregnancy -- such as "safer sex" -- and to make certain that contraception is readily available. I realize that a number of these people are resistant to doing this on the grounds of their religious beliefs about premarital sex -- but the cold, hard fact is that a certain percentage of teenagers are going to have premarital sex no matter what anyone else says, especially if they don't share those beliefs.
There's certainly nothing wrong with holding religious ideals, although they become problematic when people attempt to enforce them on other people regardless of whether those other people want it or not. However, ideals that are wonderful in theory don't always work well in practice -- sometimes compromises need to be made between ideals and reason. The conservative principle of "my way or the highway" simply isn't effective -- if reducing the number of abortions is truly of utmost importance to them, the most reasonable course of action would be to encourage the use of contraception. However, the fact that they don't do this -- and are, in many cases, opposed to the availability of condoms and sex education classes in school -- suggests that what they're really opposed to is the freedom of sexual expression. How in the world do these people expect to learn how to enjoy their sex lives when they get married -- by osmosis?!?!
And anyway, what in the world was with that line about women having to prove that they've had sex with a man? If she was having sex with a woman, what need would she have of the morning-after pill?!? Has Rush forgotten everything he ever learned about biology? While much of what Rush says is irrational, that line was just flat-out insane...
To talk about lesbians. I think this was a reference to prochoice women=feminists=lesbians. Lame, but about par for Rush.
He's trying to be cute with his requiring proof of that Mass. women slept with a man, but it doesn't make sense. If they slept with a woman, they won't need the morning after pill.
get herself pregnant? hmm... I've never heard of auto-insemination... many people having trouble conceiving should look into this... or are these immaculate conceptions he's referring to?
Rush's comments would make one think contraception is exclusive to liberals... not true... and we certainly don't to want to discourage consternatives from preventing more of their kind coming into the world...