Classy, Bill...but don't worry, your money's still good, even if you aren't.
Confirming the Ethics Train Wreck status of the church-run institutions/health care/ religious freedom/contraceptives coverage/Rush Limbaugh-Sandra Fluke mess, the Weekly Standard and other conservative pundits are playing the hypocrisy card and arguing that if Limbaugh is so reprehensible, then the Obama super-pac should apply the same standards to serial misogynist Bill Maher and return his recent $1 million contribution.
Idiots. As long as campaign contributions aren’t the fruits of a crime, the whole concept of rejecting “dirty money” is silly beyond belief. Do Republicans really want to stand for the proposition that only contributions from the pure of heart and word can be accepted by those running for office? Jerks like Bill Maher have rights too; he should have the same opportunity to support political candidates of his choice no matter what offensive and crude things he says to his cheering lap dog audiences on HBO. Politicians are not accountable for the character, words, beliefs and misdeeds of his supporters, nor should they be. This is not a standard that Republicans, of all people, want to establish. Nor should any of us.
Absolutely: Democrats and feminists who are furious at Limbaugh’s despicable misogyny show themselves as hypocrites by appearing on Maher’s show. But his money is as good as anybody’s, and he has not forfeited his right to support candidates of his choosing. Nobody should be trying to take that away from him.
Ethics Alarms 
“… Limbaugh’s despicable misogyny”? Letting the word “slut” slip out may have violated his own standards- correctly descriptive though it was- but it was small potatoes compared to Maher and the rest of his ilk. Personally, after listening to that amazing monologue by Sandra Fluke, that was one of the first words that popped into my head. Even if she herself was not one of the prodigious sleep-around girls she described, her demand that it be promoted with taxpayers’ money lowers her right in the dirt with her “sisters”.
it’s not about paying for birth control with tax payer money it’s about insurance companies, that students and employees pay into, being required to cover birth control through the private insurance they are paying toward monthly. If men gave birth and wanted to control their fertility then the general public would have to pay for it but it’s women so we have to fight for our right to control our fertility even through the private insurance plans we pay into.
Oh, fiddle-dee-dee. I’ve never heard a man claim that insurance has to pay for his own condoms. You tell me…where does it stop? Baby shoes? Baby food? Baby sitters? At one point is an irresponsible women asking too much? Three abortions? Ten?
It’s about forcing entities that don’t agree with birth control to provide insurance that includes contraceptives. If a person applies to a Catholic University such as Georgetown whose insurance does not cover contraceptives, very simple answer to the dilemma – go to a university that DOES provide them. I paid for my own and if these girls want to be sexually active then go to Wal-mart and buy your own!
[Preface: If you can’t separate truth from fiction in this, what a pity.]
News flash: Wessonia-Uzi Smith-Glock, also a third-year law school student at Georgetown University like Sandra Fluke of recent accolade, testified before a congressional panel about the necessity for additional government mandated coverage in health care insurance.
“Public safety is a cornerstone of public health,” Smith-Glock stated. Accordingly, she went on, economic burdens on students such as herself, which preclude access to handguns, other firearms, ammunition for same, and training in the use of same, must not be tolerated.
“To deny my right of self-defense against clear and present dangers, whether they be on or near the campus of my choice or in the larger community, is an archaic, misogynist and undue burden,” Smith-Glock declared. Such denial is no less than part of a war on women, she said.
“Pregnancies and hormonal imbalances are threats to health that contraceptives prevent,” Smith-Glock said. “We have fought hard and won the good fight for insurance coverage to include the preventive benefits of contraceptives. It is an imperative of the utmost urgency to prevent further violence against women, with coverage that provides effective self-defense.”
When asked to elaborate on the violence, Smith-Glock said: “It is a well-known fact that attacks on women, on college campuses and elsewhere, are far more frequent than reported, and likely are even more frequent than unplanned pregnancies. There are types out there…like Rush Limbaugh types…who are on the prowl, just waiting for opportunity to get away with violent personal attacks on women like myself. They have no motive other than to objectify me, and women like me, to reduce us by force to non-personhood – mere degraded sex organs.
“Means of force for my safety, self-defense, and prevention of that violence are my right – but those means cost hundreds of dollars per year.”
Such obstacles as “weapons-free zones” and zero-tolerance policies toward firearms (concealed or not) on campuses, she said, only serve to create and aggravate risk to women’s health.
White House sources indicate the President intends to seize quickly upon Smith-Glock’s testimony to mandate inclusion of coverage in all health care insurance plans for the additional protection that has long been lacking in most plans. Insurers and schools will not be permitted exemptions or exclusions in coverage in the plans they offer for any religious, ideological, political or other motive-of-conscience basis or reasons. Citing threats to public safety, bans on carrying of handguns and ammunition by anyone on or near all public and private educational facilities are expected to be prohibited furthermore and as soon as possible, the sources say.
Whether the President placed a personal phone call to Smith-Glock to express his support could not be immediately confirmed.