Las Vegas Sun

January 27, 2015

Currently: 51° — Complete forecast | Log in | Create an account

Letter to the editor:

Rush’s bullying will bite him back

Over the past 30 years, I have rarely heard of a polarizing media propagandist who issued an apology. However, it happened last Saturday.

Rush Limbaugh “sincerely” apologized to Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke for branding her as a “slut” and a “prostitute.” His twisted tirade on his Wednesday radio show included: “If we are going to pay for your contraceptives ... we want something for it. We want you to post the videos online so we can all watch.” On Thursday he defiantly blustered, “This is hilarious. ... The left has been thrown into an outright conniption fit!”

Who prompted Limbaugh to eventually back down? People his survival depends on. Republicans, independents and women in general rebuffed him. Eight sponsors left him.

Limbaugh had better watch his labeling, considering that the general meaning of “prostitute” is “one who sells one’s abilities for an unworthy purpose.”

Limbaugh’s recent rant has resulted in an increase of people who believe that badmouth bullying and polarizing stereotyping constitute an “unworthy purpose” they will not support. Spinners beware.

Join the Discussion:

Check this out for a full explanation of our conversion to the LiveFyre commenting system and instructions on how to sign up for an account.

Full comments policy

Previous Discussion: 47 comments so far…

Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy. Additionally, we now display comments from trusted commenters by default. Those wishing to become a trusted commenter need to verify their identity or sign in with Facebook Connect to tie their Facebook account to their Las Vegas Sun account. For more on this change, read our story about how it works and why we did it.

Only trusted comments are displayed on this page. Untrusted comments have expired from this story.

  1. Rush Limbaugh, Ed Schultz and many others make valid points on their talk shows, once in a while ... along with 'much' that is 'over the top', and that gets in the way of 'decent discourse'.

    To try to say one is worse than another is really a useless exercise. When these people step over the line... to get ratings... as both Schultz and Limbaugh did, they should be called on it... and they were.

    I didn't listen very carefully when many on the left defended Schultz and I won't listen carefully as many on the right defend Limbaugh. When either one makes the comments they made, an apology means little and people defending either one should simply remove their blinders, stop talking and go home.


  2. Just more evidence that we can't debate issues anymore, only trade personal attacks. Our differences are emotional and not subject to alteration by persuasive facts and reasoning. We really have lost our friggin' minds.

  3. Re PISCES41. Well said, and very accurate. I needn't say more.

    Re Future. Bill Maher is on a cable/satellite network, HBO, and doesn't have to answer to sponsors about his comments. If you don't like it, tune out, just as I've "tuned out" Limbaugh. Never tuned him in actually.

  4. Enjoyed the letter, Ms. Price.

    Whatever is happening with Mr. Rush Limbaugh, suffice it to say that it is happening fast.

    Since this letter was written, the number of big money sponsors who left Mr. Limbaugh's radio show increased from eight to about sixteen. Plus, two radio stations decided to part ways with him. There is no predictable end to the backlash.

    Which all goes to show that Mr. Limbaugh, and his attacks on women (not only this time, but other times before), have reached the boiling point. The women of this country are mad at him. Madder than Godzilla on PCP. Mainly, because he turned it personal. And not about the issue of women health issues.

    One thing about Mr. Limbaugh's radio show that not too many people see is the fact that he touts he has just about twenty million listeners.

    But that number originates from his Chief of Staff. And other people who work for him or put the money out to put that show on the air. Not from any independent source.

    And it overlooks the already proven fact that thirty-three percent (approximately) of his listening audience has dropped off.

    So, I really think his numbers...numbers that his own people proclaim as fact, but not verified by anyone else...are simply bogus. Not one entity anywhere has been able to prove his audience number claims.

    Plus, the fact that there CANNOT be twenty million listeners that are indeed that idiotic and stupid to listen to his insane ranting and lunatic raving all the time.

    I know if I were a right wingnut (thankfully, I'm not), I would quickly get sick and tired of the one sided discussions of him alone and secluded in a room spewing all over the radio airwaves hate filled neo-conservative diatribes based more on rhetoric than fact.

  5. The internet has been instrumental in Rush's loss of sponsorships. Even folks who never listen to the Rush Limbaugh show can now find out what latest piece of spew issues from his disengaged brain via his loud mouth. If he goes off the air on radio, I'm sure the bigot, homophobic Roger Ailes will have a nice cushy job for him at Fox.

  6. Reading the responses from the right tells me you people are clueless. You have no idea what Ms. Fluke was attempting to communicate to those male meatheads in congress.

    Comparing Shultz to Limbaugh is also whacked. Granted Shultz said something totally uncalled for but Limbaugh has been pushing that envelope for 20 years. He ranted for four days telling lies about Ms. Fluke's appearance in Washington and insulted her parents to boot.

    A number of years ago a young man appears out of obscurity broadcasting on a local radio station. His straight forward political chatter appeals to many of his listeners who tune in daily. As this young man's success grows and becomes more of a national icon, his ego expands as well. As the years pass his rants become vile, hateful and offense, attacking anyone he politically or socially disagrees with. His allies never confront him directly in fear of becoming a target of his harsh language. Paraphrasing him, he said, "Rednecks, crackers, hillbillies, hausfraus, shut-ins, pea-pickers - everybody that's got to jump when somebody else blows the whistle. They don't know it yet, they're mine! I own 'em! They think like I do. Only they're even more stupid than I am, so I gotta think for 'em. I'm gonna be the power behind the president - and you'll be the power behind me!" The movie was made in 1957, entitled A Face in the Crowd. The main character was Lonesome Rhodes acted by Andy Griffith. Does any of this sound familiar?

  7. I don't think Rush should have apologized. I think it just shows what a hypocrite his. He has become a flip floppin' liberal. Too bad he flunked out of school or he could work at CNN or MSNBC. He's a 4-F in many ways.

  8. Comment removed by moderator. Name Calling

  9. It doesn't get any better than this for the democrats. A 60 plus year old entertainment mogul calling a college woman a slut. It takes one to know one.
    Rush is on his fourth marriage. One to an aerobics instructor.
    Marrying a woman before you have sex with her and toss her to the curb doesn't make you a candidate for sainthood.
    It makes you King Slut.

  10. Vernos,

    Both Schultz and Limbaugh were way off base with their comments, so why don't we just criticise both and be done? Why waste time trying to decide who is worse? Who cares?

    Do you think it is the place of the Federal Government to tell insurance companies that provide insurance to businesses that they must include coverage for contraception?

    I have read that Ms Fluke also is in favor of mandating that insurance cover gender changes. I don't know if that is true, but if it is, do you agree with that?

    None of this excuses what stupid Limbaugh said but I wonder if there is a place where you would draw the line.


  11. This will be a distraction for a few days however, most will realize heated rhetoric occurs on both sides when it comes to government controlling the decisions of churches to offer contraceptives coverage that goes against the teachings of the church. What's next for government to control, banning circumcision? Oh wait....San Francisco tried that last year already. Hmm.......

  12. dukeofdeath - "Too bad he flunked out of school or he could work at CNN or MSNBC."

    More like Fox. Everyone on MSNBC has degrees in their fields. Olbermann wrote a best seller at 14 years old and entered college at 16. Rachel Maddow is a Rhodes Scholar. Shultz graduated and played pro football briefly. He was a Republican and switched parties when he saw Vietnam Vets were treated like garbage. Joe Scarborough has an attorney's degree and Mika Brzezinski received her degree in journalism from Williams College.

    Hannity, Limbaugh and Beck never finished school but sure can make a great deal of noise.

  13. wtplv - "I have read that Ms Fluke also is in favor of mandating that insurance cover gender changes. I don't know if that is true, but if it is, do you agree with that?"

    Let me take a guess, I'll bet that gender change came from some obscure blogger manufacturing BS. Thats what Breitbart did in his blogs.

    I'm for a mandate (excluding sex changes) if we can get it to work for the betterment of the country. Remember, the mandate was a Republican idea that's at least 20 years old. It's only become a problem when Obama was elected and the GOP did a 180 degree flip on it caving to the far right Tea Party crazies. The simplest solution in fixing health care, single payer.

  14. Ms. Fluke's opinion on gender reassignment surgery is not the issue here, and the attempt to change the topic to such indicates the Republican party sees this as a huge vulnerability.

    Ms. Fluke was attacked for speaking out about contraception coverage, not her views on gender reassignment surgery, her views on the best pizza joint near Georgetown, nor even her choice of favorite color. When or if Congress takes up mandating coverage for that, her views will be up for discussion.

    Until then, it is an attempt to steer the discussion away from Rush Limbaugh and his attacks, and is not germane to this letter.

    As for this being "Much ado about nothing?" Tell that to the 32 sponsors (and counting) who have demanded their ads be pulled from airing during Mr. Limbaugh's shows.

  15. "Until then, it is an attempt to steer the discussion away from Rush Limbaugh and his attacks, and is not germane to this letter."

    And the goal of the letter writer is to steer attention away from the fact that government is mandating a church to include contraceptive coverage which is against the teachings of the religion. This is what started the whole thing. Nice going Obama.

  16. Mr. Garner, to the contrary: this issue is precisely about making contraception available to all, regardless of their political, social or religious standing. I simply said that Ms. Fluke's views on ancillary topics are irrelevant to the discussion of Mr. Limbaugh and mandated contraception coverage.

    President Obama did not force Mr. Limbaugh to call Ms. Fluke a slut, a prostitute, nor call for Ms. Fluke to present Mr. Limbaugh with a sex tape. It was Mr. Limbaugh's poor judgment and lack of shame that led to his three day jihad against Ms. Fluke.

    As to your second assertion, that Obama "started the whole thing," that, too, is incorrect. The decision to mandate that companies with 15 or more employees, which provide prescription drug coverage, also provide contraception coverage stems from an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission decision in December of 2000. This was due to the wording of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

    This decision was in-effect throughout the Bush administration, and many of the country's largest Catholic organizations, including DePaul University, decided to offer contraception coverage in order to stay in compliance with the EEOC ruling and Title VII. This happened years before President Obama took office.

    President Obama's decision to extend the mandate to companies and organizations with fewer than 15 employees just meant that a few more churches would fall under the mandate.

    It did not begin the mandate. That happened shortly before George W. Bush took office, and was something George W. Bush and his supporters (that would be you, Mr. Garner) had no qualms with! Fancy that!

    Remember the mass protests against Bush enforcing a contraception mandate on churches? No? That's right, because the Republican party manufactured this to try to mobilize their religious base, who are disillusioned with a sell-out like Romney who won't go to bat for their conservative social issues.

    And you've fallen for it; hook, line and sinker.

  17. Future - "Really Obama wants free sex changes and it is not an issue!!!"

    Do you actually believe in that idiocy?

  18. Looks like the automated right wing commentators order for the day is to try to change the subject away from the there leader Rush limbo exposing the true conservative agenda. The conservative leadership knows they cannot win any election if they are honest about there intentions, Hence they need to pump tremendous sums of money into marketing plans to hide there intentions.

  19. Vernos,

    I understand that you favor single payer (read government) health care. I don't favor that but I am certainly not someone who thinks we have a great system as it is.

    However, we are not even close to single payer and won't be, even if the health care legislation stands. If we don't get there, just how many items do you think that the government should be able to mandate that health insurance must cover? Is there any limit for you?

    I understand and agree that if more contraception means fewer unwanted births and fewer single parent families, that is a good thing, but there are multiple ways for women to obtain contraception. Why must we mandate that insurance companies cover contraception?


  20. LastThroes,

    Sponsors fleeing from Rush is called the free market at work.

  21. nobody says it isn't true, most just say the choice of words was wrong.

  22. It is a sad commentary on our political system when the Republicans in government are not denouncing Limbaugh as the slanderous disgusting person he is instead of laying low to avoid his wrath.

    Who put him in charge??? Talk about being sheepish?

    "Bomb Iraq, Bomb Afghanistan, Bomb Syria, Bomb Iran -- war war war" is the Republican mantra, but they cannot say anything to denounce this obnoxious self-appointed god of their party???

    The sponsors will continue to kill Limbaugh's "show," (little shop of horrors) unless he funds it himself.

  23. Another thing, all this talk about "my" tax dollars paying for healthcare -- did anyone make a fuss when "my" tax dollars paid for a COSTLY, INHUMANE WAR, because Bush, Cheney, Reid, Rove, and Rumsfeld wanted to make a profit???

    Did anyone care that "my" tax dollars were being spent to KILL innocent people, including our own servicemen and women??

    You people make me sick.

  24. As usual, when some issue comes up that brings women's health and welfare into it, the majority of comments are made by men.

    It is well established that the two genders function and think in different ways.

    So let me share, as a woman, how I saw and responded to the issue of Rush Limbaugh's remarks.

    I found him totally insulting to women, and it made me sick to my stomach.

    After thinking about the responses of many, I am still sick to my stomach.

    It is a terrible condemnation of our society that personal slurs, liable and slander are so freely spoken about anyone, no matter who does it, and regardless of politics.

    That this is considered as "entertainment" is even worse a condemnation of our society. It is sick and twisted.

    As a woman, I respond to such things by boycotts. I will not support such behavior with my money for sponsors products. It is about all I can do and that is my right.

    By the way, in case you think I only do that for things like this, you are wrong. I also keep from buying products with stupid commercials, and products that do harm.

    Of course, if a politician were to do the same, or give an inappropriate response, I would boycott and withhold my vote for them.

    There is no need to get into partisan or "wing" fights, or gender wars, slinging more insults at one another, because it has nothing to do with that for many women.

    It is about an enormous lack of respect for the dignity of more than half of the nation's population, no matter who does it.

    It is about publicly assaulting a woman with lies, and the incomplete and insincere apology. It is that simple! I wish I could bold that statement. Since I cannot, let me repeat it...

    It is about publicly assaulting a woman with lies, and the incomplete and insincere apology. It is that simple!

    Thank you for speaking up, Pam.

  25. Peacelily,

    This man (me) wants you to please tell me how insurance companies being forced by our Federal Government to pay for someone to use a contraceptive is a health issue. Please. I am not defending Limbaugh, but you and I both know the point he was making. Seems a little like shooting the (crude) messenger. Thanks in advance.


  26. "Mr. Garner, to the contrary: this issue is precisely about making contraception available to all, regardless of their political, social or religious standing."

    Lon- Contraceptives are already available to women. The issue is forcing catholic churches to pay for contraceptives it morally opposes based on the teachings of the catholic faith.

    It's big government overreach.

  27. Partisans s..k

    Yep I agree. I am so glad that you and The President ALSO took Maher to task and demanded he apologized for calling Ms. Ingraham a C..t.

    Oh, you didn't?

    Hmm, never mind, can't fault the elite in society.

  28. SgtRock - "Flukes wants to force churches like the Catholic Church and others to give her stuff free so that she can have sex."

    How can you people expect to win Congress or the White House believing in that sort of idiocy?

  29. wtplv - "I understand and agree that if more contraception means fewer unwanted births and fewer single parent families, that is a good thing, but there are multiple ways for women to obtain contraception. Why must we mandate that insurance companies cover contraception?"


    The problem is far more complex than most people understand. For example, as you note, birth control does eliminate abortions to a great extent, but single mom's isn't related at all. The divorce rate is over 50% in this country and many more people no longer marry, they cohabitate. That explains the large number of single mom's.

    I believe if we had a system similar to Israel where able bodied persons served the country and continued their higher education afterwards, they should also receive single payer health care. Our VA system works fairly well and is getting better.

  30. LastThroes - "Wow. Limpbaugh's advertisers are dropping like flies. Up to 35 now."

    "Since Rash is looking for new companies to fill all those vacant commercial spots I suggest he contact the sleazy gold coin peddlers who used to be Glenn Beck's only advertisers."

    It's very possible Limbaugh could suffer the same fate as Beck, the Lonesome Rhodes syndrome.

  31. "It's big government overreach."

    Your outrage is borne of convenience; why weren't you and your fellow Republicans protesting when the Bush administration coerced Catholic institutions into covering contraception? Did you protest outside DePaul University when they were forced to cover contraception under the Bush regime?

    I guess big government overreach is OK when Republicans do it.

    Mr. Garner, please educate yourself. Don't be another ignorant partisan slave to Rush Limbaugh/Fox News talking points.

  32. @Purgatory,

    Contraceptive pills are not used only for contraception practices. They are also used to treat medical conditions that are not uncommon in women. Endometriosis, ovarian cysts, and menstrual disorders to name a few.

    If it is left to the insurance companies, they can leave contraceptives off their drug formulary, making it necessary for women to pay full price for the medication. For women who cannot afford even the cheap generics, it is condemning them to extreme pain in some cases and effects their ability to work.

    It becomes a Catch-22 for them, because many insurance companies requires they use the medication rather than have surgery that definitively corrects the problem.

    Most people are covered by insurance that the employers offer, so they don't have a choice of finding a company that might cover what they need.

    Thus, the government enters the picture to establish a guideline of appropriate care, based on physician associations and panels recommendations of what is appropriate medical care, and which cover all women, no matter which insurance company is involved.

    When we get into saying that insurance companies and businesses can cherry pick benefits, regardless of appropriate and safe medical care, we undermine the healthcare system and the appropriate care of patients. Rather than the government, we have business dictating what medical care people can receive. Why is that better?
    Why can't the medical professionals in there specialties be the determiners of what is appropriate medical care?

    Using contraceptives is a personal choice. Offering it doesn't mean a woman has to use it. But it also doesn't prohibit women who want to use it, but are unable for financial reasons.

    There are many families who have nothing extra. It means choices between necessities, and adding children to the family from lack of contraception is out of the question.

    Abstinence is the answer from some, but why must we penalize people on the basis of income level and gender?

    There are many issues related to this fight, and all should be considered. It isn't just limited to religious freedom for Catholic institutions who employ non Catholics who also pay premiums for their benefits. Nor is it an issue of giving more women the freedom to have lots of sex. Men are involved as well. It isn't about only single women, since married women also need control over their bodies and healthcare needs just as men do, and married people determine together how many children they can afford to support and educate.

    Including a drug that has multiple purposes in a formulary is not a threat to religious freedom. The individual makes their own choice to use it or not, and under what circumstances.

  33. I have a question for the Catholic Church hierarchy. If it is a sin to use the contraceoptive pill, contrary to Catholic teaching, why hasn't the Catholic Church excommunicated all the Catholic women who use it? Shouldn't they require drug tests to weed out the users so they can determine who to excommunicate?

    It isn't a matter of going to Confession to ask forgiveness because the women have to amend their ways and not use it, which they won't do.

    I think this issue is a big hypocritical sewer. It is easy to blame the old evil government, but ignore the duty of the clergy in living up to their own responsibility to their duties in the church, even if it does cost them revenues. Very clever.

  34. RefNV, as a one time Catholic, and even more, a nun and sister, I studied many different types of theology and Church history. I think that I qualify for knowing the Catholic Churches teachings.

    I left for very good reasons, one of which that I could no longer accept the authority of the Pope, which is required to be in union with the Church. Knowing the teachings of the Catholic Church very well, I could not be a hypocrite and fake it. I was not in union with the Church, so I left.

    That is unlike the millions who stay in the Church, out of union with its teachings in many areas.

    It is also unlike those doing the teaching who say one thing and do another.

    None of that is any of your business anyway, nor any "liberal" indoctrination, but I wanted to show how far out of line and wrong you are.

    I am an intelligent woman who has the mental capacity to study and learn without someone else telling me how to think, and I am proud of that. In fact, many women have that ability, which seems to scare the heck out of some men, so they revert to attacks and efforts to control women.

    There is no threat to the Catholic Church's teachings. Catholics don't have to take contraceptive if they choose not to do so. Non Catholics who work in institutions, especially large ones are not prevented from having the same benefits available to them as any other non Catholic in any non Catholic institution. It is that simple.

    If the Catholic Church wishes to maintain a strict separation, let them hire only Catholic employees for their institution...poor women.

    The Catholic Church is not going to hell because it allows women and doctors to have control of their healthcare. That is theologically correct. Nor is it a threat to freedom of religion since nobody is prevented from practicing their religion or worshiping in their churches.

    Don't forget that the employees now pay the bulk of their own premiums in many workplaces. In the future all of it will be paid by employees according to the efforts of business to get out of the picture entirely.

    That is a reason for healthcare reform. Employees will eventually pay all of the premiums themselves and should be able to have a choice in the coverage they pay for from all private insurance companies, without any threat to the Catholic Church or any other religious group. Instead of employers picking what they will make available to their employees, the people will have a role in deciding the companies to choose from. A very democratic process, even if I think it is not the best choice of reform.

    The compromise removes the obstacle, so it is a moot point anyway.

  35. @wtplv (Michael Casler),

    "Why must we mandate that insurance companies cover contraception?"

    I will address mandates in general.

    Insurance companies don't pay for examinations that are for screening. Through mandates, mammograms, prostate screening, and other screenings have be mandated because they prevent conditions in people, and they are recommended by the medical establishment.

    There is always a well considered reason behind them, and a financial reason why insurance companies don't. In balancing live against profits, life wins out in my book. And mandates require the insurance companies to offer what they refused to offer before a mandate. The mandates are necessary to address the screening needs of the insureds putting life before profit.

    Leaving aside the medical treatment of medical conditions of women using the same pills that are used for contraception, I would say that reducing the need for abortions, reducing pregnancies that can result in children living in poverty, on welfare, and sometimes in abusive homes, children without fathers who fled responsibility for their role in creating the children, seems to me something that should qualify for a mandate since insurance companies will not cover the pills on their own.

    The focus seems to be entirely on the women, but I think it should be on the results of not paying for contraception...the children.

    Consider the results of many unwanted children living in poverty...drugs, prison, crime. Women think of things like this, so they are willing to assume responsibility for risks of potential life threatening complications from the use of the pill, to prevent bad outcomes for the children they might bear.

    Look at all the potential outcomes that result from the thinking that this is only related to a woman's choice to to have sex and not get pregnant. Look at all the whys.

    Here is another perspective. If people are so hot on not providing women with insurance coverage, how about any man having sex with a woman paying for half the cost of the pills, maybe prorated if necessary.

    Why should it be only the woman who is responsible for contraception when it takes a man and a woman to result in a pregnancy?

    If women stopped having sex because of the potential for a pregnancy, would men stop trying to lure them to have sex regardless of the result? Would the men then joyfully accept the outcome of their actions when a pregnancy occurred and fully participate in the responsibilities fatherhood?

    There is a serious disconnect from reality on many levels in the reasoning for not providing insurance coverage for contraceptives.

  36. Carmine, the issue hinges on the word "reform". The women won't reform, therefore the responsibility of the church is to excommunicate.

    It has nothing to do with satanism. It is about canon law in the Catholic Church.

  37. rusty57, dinner is a grain of sand compared to the cost of raising a child alone. It would be far less expensive providing contraceptives through insurance and spread the cost across the board.

    After all, the cost of public education and prison are spread across the property owners board with the taxpayers paying as certain amount of the per person cost.

    If you want to put it on a financial basis alone, then there would be a tax savings in reducing the number of children, prisoners and welfare recipients.

    Of course, if you are thinking in terms of paying for dinner as your only responsibility, then you may not be a home owner and are off the hook for that responsibility as well.

    That question doesn't reflect well on you, rusty.

  38. SgtRock, you make me laugh. You appear to have little respect for the intelligence of Hispanics. They are very capable of discerning truth from fiction.

    You insult Hispanics with your "My hispanics Catholic friends" rhetoric.

  39. Since the Catholic Church is no longer required to provide contraceptives under the compromise, why is a non-democratic religious institution intervening in a democratic secular government?

    What about protection from the encroachment of religion on our secular government? It seems to me it should work both ways.

  40. Thank you Joe. Dennis we all have our own style. ;)

    Now it is time for some sleep.

  41. Comparing what Ed Shultz did with what Rush Limbaugh did is only pseudo-fair.

    In the Shultz-Ingraham incident, the target of the slur is very much a public figure, who is extremely opinionated and who constantly and publicly voices those opinions using extreme language intended to induce reactions.

    In the Limbaugh-Fluke incident, the target of the slur is a law school student who was publicly testifying to Congress so as to express her opinion on a particular issue of the day.

    Also, as I'm sure you're aware, Ed Shultz WAS taken off the air and suspended for a week. Only a week, but a week nevertheless.

  42. What's wrong with the right wing authoritative types like Rush limbo, Ted haggert, Ken mehlman and Jim Reid? Why do they need to direct hateful comments towards females? These individuals seem to have a great deal of pent up frustrations towards females. HMMM..............

  43. Carmine,

    Full communion means the a person can receive all the Sacraments of the Church. In order to do that they must reform.

    The Sacraments are the center of Catholic practice and worship, and it is a penalty not to be able to partake of them.

    Reform means that a woman would have to stop taking contraceptive pills in order to be in full communion.

    If a woman refuses, on the basis of her conscience, intelligence and love, to stop taking the pills, she is not in full communion with the Church, and therefore cannot partake of any of the Sacraments. She is outside the community, the Body, the Church, according to Church teaching.

    Anyone who has ever experienced being excluded from a group they wanted to be a part of understands what that means.

    For any Catholic with understanding, to be unable to receive the Sacraments is a MAJOR loss, as is knowing one is outside the Body, based on Law.

    The Catholic Church functions under a "don't ask, don't tell" policy. It is up to the conscience, intelligence and love of the individual. Love adds a different dynamic to Law, one that God understands.

    You can say that the woman is in sin, and sin is turning your back on God. However, if God is Light, that light is not only from one direction. God's Light is everywhere, without limit. It shines on all. God's Light is unconditional Love.

    One does not have to be a member of a church, receive Sacraments, or a be a believer to receive God's Light and Love. One simply is in that Light and Love at all times. It is powerful, it is Grace flowing on all of creation. Knowing that is the most powerful thing that people can do to fully realize the benefit. The Light and Love of God will work its benefits in the lives of people, even the most hard hearted people.

    The Redemption also plays a significant role in all of this, but I will not go into that here.

    Suffice to say, that regardless of the Law, women who choose to take contraceptives in good conscience guided by love, can do so without fear of the loss of God's Light, Love or Spirit in their lives. All we need to do is trust God to know the way to work in a person's life.

    God's Grace may or may not lead a woman to change her choice, we cannot know the actions or will of God in an individuals life, but that Grace will always be filled with Love and the woman will know that.

    I am sure that what I have written will not square with Catholic teaching, but my conscience, intelligence and love, under the Grace of God have taught me things that the Catholic Church laid some foundations for.

    God continues to be the Light and Love in my life, and Grace fills me, regardless of institutions, laws or teachings. It liberates me. I am sure their are others who have evolved in their growth and understanding as well.

  44. "Under the new plan announced by Obama Friday, religiously affiliated universities and hospitals will not be forced to offer contraception coverage to their employees.

    Insurers will be required, however, to offer complete coverage free of charge to any women who work at such institutions.

    Women who work at churches, though, will have no guarantee of such contraception coverage -- a continuation of current law."

    The difference between those working in churches, as opposed to those women working in universities and hospitals is the fact that non-Catholics work in the latter two institution. Most churches hire only Catholic women.

    So, the choice is up to the woman, and Catholic Churches are not required to offer coverage of contraceptions.

    Result, no infringement on the First Amendment and the following Bishops statement is a great stretch in reasoning, IMO.

    "Today's proposal continues to involve needless government intrusion in the internal governance of religious institutions, and to threaten government coercion of religious people and groups to violate their most deploy held convictions," (Bishop's statement)

  45. THIS sums it all up in about 2 minutes!

  46. "Sin" is a matter of a particular belief which many do not share.

  47. Rolling up almost all the comments above I see partisans engaged in puerile and sterile debate while the country goes broke and their parties don't deal with the actual issues.