March 5, 2012 / Opportunity, Safety

On “Sluts” and the Speakability of Sexism in U.S. Political Culture


 The opinions expressed herein are those of the author, and not necessarily those of The New Agenda.

Last week, a media firestorm was ignited by Rush Limbaugh’s characterization of Sandra Fluke as a “slut” and a “prostitute” after she testified before Congress on the question of whether or not religiously-affiliated institutions should be required by federal law to include contraception coverage in their health insurance plans. The policy issue at hand is a complex one about which people of good conscience may come to different conclusions, but none of those conclusions should include the assumption that a woman who chooses to take the birth control pill makes that choice because she is a “slut.” On this, it seems, nearly everyone (including a reluctant Limbaugh) agrees. In his apology to Fluke (triggered, no doubt, by the mass exodus of advertisers from his program), Limbaugh stated, “My choice of words was not the best . . . .” Interestingly, when asked about Limbaugh’s comments last week, Mitt Romney reacted similarly, saying, “it’s not the language I would have used.” Ron Paul, too, zeroed in on word choice, criticizing Limbaugh for using “very crude language,” as did the spokesperson for House Speaker John Boehner, who stated, “The Speaker obviously believes the use of those words was inappropriate . . . .” A pattern began to emerge where men critiqued Limbaugh’s words without repudiating the sentiments for which those words stand. Yes, the language Limbaugh used is problematic, but not as problematic as the larger story the language represents. It’s a story that has been told and re-told about women in U.S. political culture, by partisans on all sides of the political spectrum.

The Daily Beast’s Kirsten Powers recounts a litany of sexist insults which have emanated from pundits on the political left (most notably Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, and Bill Maher), and catalogues a pattern of right-wing media misogyny here and here (scroll down to see the examples of sexism). Even ostensibly non-partisan journalistic outlets peddle predictably sexist framing of female politicians in their coverage (see, for example, these tidbits from Time and Newsweek—just two examples among many). If anyone doubted the ubiquity of sexism in U.S. political culture, the 2008 campaign season illustrated a vociferous backlash against female presidentiality from both the right and the left—both Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin famously referenced the glass ceiling that blocks women’s entrance to the Oval Office, but that metaphor is less apt than it seemed at the time. A glass ceiling is a largely invisible barrier, but the barrier that constrains women in politics is bolstered by its visibility. The barrier is the sustained “speakability” of sexism and misogyny in U.S. political culture—whether printed in bold type in the blogosphere, broadcast by pundits on radio and television programs, or passed off as political satire.

How speakable is sexism? In addition to the aforementioned examples, consider a recent tweet by Jennifer Kerns, who, according to her Twitter account is “the new Spokeswoman & Communications Director for the California Republican Party.” Kerns (who goes by the Twitter handle “CAPartyGirl”) weighed in on the Limbaugh scandal by criticizing the commentary of MSNBC contributor and former Congressional candidate Krystal Ball with this tweet:

Not that it matters, but Ball’s first name was, indeed, given to her by her parents and was inspired by her physicist father’s research on crystals. Yet that name, and the fact that Ball spoke out on a liberal network against Limbaugh’s sexism, was enough to prompt the female spokesperson for the California Republican Party to lambast her has a “stripper” and a “slut.” (It is ironic that those charges came from someone who chose the double entendre “CAPartyGirl” as her Twitter handle.)

The lingering question is, why? Why does sexism and misogyny continue to be so “speakable” that it’s a go-to critique and reliable punch line deployed by both men and women in politics? Part of the answer lies in what Communication scholar Walter Fisher calls the “narrative paradigm” for understanding human communication. Fisher explains that because humans are storytelling animals, our decision-making is based on a narrative, rather than a strictly rational or logical, paradigm. He says that we judge the truth or value of statements according to their “narrative fidelity,” which is whether or not information “rings true” with the stories we already know. The sexism and misogyny that pollutes U.S. political culture, unfortunately, “rings true” to the story told about women in culture more broadly—in fashion, film, advertising, and popular culture. It’s the story that’s the problem—not individual words or even the individual people who utter those words. As long as we continue to respond to these incidents in isolation—launching narrowly-targeted boycotts or responding with selective outrage to the misogyny of only our political opponents—the broader story will retain its speakability.




Join Our Email List

Be the first to know the latest initiatives from The New Agenda to improve the lives of women and girls.

Thank you for joining our list! Check your inbox to confirm your subscription.

  • yttik

    I guess I’m too cynical, but Rush doesn’t give a crap about women, he’s only apologizing because he’s losing sponsors. But by the same token, Dems don’t care about women either, they’re only faking outrage because it’s Rush. If Maher or Olbermann had said something similar about somebody like Palin, all we’d hear is crickets.

    I think that theory of narrative fidelity makes a lot of sense. Some people just ooze misogyny and their clutch isn’t even engaged. They do it because they think it is acceptable and people will pat them on the back for it, rather then having any real understanding of what they are promoting.

  • Marille

    Interesting approach Karrin. Yes and Limbaugh’s apology does not ring real. THe speak ability of sexism is a term I might be using in the future. But nevertheless, I do think the walk out of advertisers from Limbaugh’s show is a true feminist success story. These advertisers have become alert you cannot attract flower buyers and talk about pro contraceptive women as sluts and prostitutes. And that is something I would have loved to see happen in 2008. This might signal some true progress. I think that there is historical evidence that a certain level of oppression, ridicule will ignite opposition forces to form. And I could not be happier to see that this speakability, labeling sexism when we see it is taking roots in wider society. I applaud the flower sellers, vacuum cleaner sellers etc for taking a stand and realizing where the economic powers are.

  • Amy Siskind

    Bill Maher should be fired, fired, fired!!!

  • BevWKY

    Hmm, is it a success if it’s not applied equally to everyone who does it or is that simply a weapon in the game of politics?

    Star wars.

  • Bes

    You are right Speakability and Narrative Fidelity are very important issues in the misogyny problem and while I could feel that I was not articulate enough to name them until I read your article.

    Boycott of Rush’s sponsors (and reward of those who left) is a feminist show of power, because women and girls do have power in this culture…consumer power. Feminists have stuck to the “women as victims” narrative but we live in a consumer culture and we are 52% of the population and make 80% of the purchasing decisions. Feminists have also stuck to the losing concept that if they just talk long enough others will see the unfairness of misogyny and change their behavior. Instead feminists seem like a bunch of nags and they waste their time on people who don’t care about anything but money and have no concept of the “common good”. Clearly the men who run Corporate Media don’t process language and lack the awareness of other peoples humanity. But they do process money. The only way to communicate with them effectively is using money and that is what the boycott of Rush’s sponsors did. Feminists need to abandon their naive illusions and start communicating with misogynist men in terms they can process if they are committed to bettering the world. Money. It’s like training a dog, take the reward away if they are bad, provide reward if they are good.

  • Bes

    The other thing that irritates me about this whole subject is the choice of women’s health to make a conservative point. It is a reasonable political point that Government has no business in peoples health care. I am an Independent and I could be sold the idea that I don’t need another institutional bureaucracy between me and my health provider. I already have to put up with the hospital bureaucracy and the insurance bureaucracy I don’t see how adding the government bureaucracy can improve things for me.

    So let’s take the religious freedom view of this problem. Do any of these fine religious men who are so concerned belong to religions that allow unmarried men to have sex or married men to have sex other than to procreate with their wife? No they don’t so why don’t we turn this whole conservative narrative off of women’s health as frivolous and off of women as sluts and we can debate the whole religious freedom thing on men as manwhores. So… I want to know, why should I be taxed to provide a bunch of unmarried manwhores and cheating husbands with Erectile Dysfunction drugs when it is against my religion? I’ve had enough of the conservatives misogynist narrative. I want to hear the issue of religious freedom framed around ED drugs and manwhores and unfaithful husbands for a change.

  • Allison

    Women need to also cancel HBO, because they are funding Bill Maher’s gross misogyny. He thinks he can call women candidates (Palin and Clinton) the c-word and get away with it because he’s on pay cable. Well, subscribers are HBO’s sponsors, so women can boycott sexism by getting rid of HBO.

  • Karrin Vasby Anderson

    The boycotts/exit of advertisers is a positive development for sure–they would be more powerful if they were equally applied to all offenders. Also, we need to evaluate the long-term consequences of these strategies. Limbaugh, Maher, and their ilk remain on the air. Even when someone does lose a show (like Imus), they typically find an audience on another network after the controversy fades from public memory. That’s why the mission of an organizaton like TNA is so critical–it shines a sustained spotlight on these issues and keeps reminding folks of the track records of individuals and organizations who claim to speak for women but do so selectively within a broader, partisan agenda.

  • BevWKY

    This was just on America Live on Fox News:

    Liberal columnist says ‘double standard’ in attacks on Rush

    Plus there’s this:

    I have to run or I’d comment more other than with links. Just remember, though, that protests and boycotts only get us so far if in the end we end up being used by either political machine as pawns.

  • Edee Lemonier

    Amen, Karrin, to your article and your comment! People see these things as isolated, when they’re not. These kinds of comments are appalling and come from all over. But I think in Maher’s case, his hubris is just as over the top as Limbaugh’s, but because he’s a “comedian” what he says is supposed to be seen as “funny”, and we’re all supposed to lighten up. The same people who defend Bill Maher want Limbaugh’s head on a silver platter.

    The problem with boycotting is that, while the threat of it was clearly effective (ish) with Limbaugh, Maher is (partially) correct, in that he doesn’t have sponsors ready to pull ads from his show. HBO has subscribers who may feel as though opting not to watch Maher’s show is a sufficient boycott, but they’re still paying their monthly HBO bill, part of which goes into Maher’s pocket. He needs to be fired. Plain and simple. And he, Limbaugh, and those like him, need to be stigmatized as bad for the bottom line, since it seems that, rather than respect for women, seems to be what gets the most attention. Otherwise, it’s like you said, Karrin, they just bounce around the airwaves, taking listeners with them.

    Speaking of Imus… I just read an article on HuffPost quoting Imus as calling Limbaugh “an insincere pig”. You have to love it when someone proves your point for you.

  • Kimble

    The success of boycott of Limbaugh’s advertisers points to the power of social media. It is easier than ever to have your voice be heard. The CEOs of these companies are monitoring their Twitter feeds and Facebook pages; they can see, very quickly, that their association with RL will hurt their bottom line.

    In the era of social media, the power shifts away from the “them” and more to the “we”, which is a pretty exciting development when you are trying to bring change. When you’re feeling outraged about something, Facebook it, tweet it, email it. If it resonates with others, it will spread and have effect.

  • Kimble

    One of the main points of Ms. Fluke’s testimony is that the Blunt amendments would make no exception for hormonal birth control that is used for medical purposes besides contraception.

    This fact was obviously ignored by Limbaugh and Patricia Heaton and others who callously attacked Fluke, and all the commenters on various blogs who are using phrases like “fluzzy fluke” and other nasty comments based on her last name.

    It’s an outrage that in 2012 we are having to explain and defend the coverage of medicines that treat such common reproductive disorders as endometriosis and PCOS.

  • Bes

    Kimble: True. And it is also an outrage that a bunch of ignorant bigoted misogynist pigs in Congress and Media should be dictating women’s health issues. You are right that these morons have completely missed Fluke’s point that 20% of women who take “birth control pills” actually take them for medical reasons (not birth control) such as ovarian cysts or endometriosis.

    I am sick of the misogynist religious freedom narrative of Republicans and religious men. Instead I want to discuss if I am going to be taxed to provide Erectile Dysfunction drugs for unmarried manwhores, priests seeking prostitutes and married men who are cheating? Because that violates my religious freedom and is against Christian and Jewish values.

  • Irene

    I contacted HBO to express my disgust about Bill Maher, and asked for an end to his employment. If you’d like the contact form location . . .

  • Juliette

    According to ABC’s new season line up we are all bitches now. Two new T.V. programs that replace the word woman with Bitches include GCB-or Good Christian Bitches whioch airs on Sunday (isn’t that special) and The Bitch in room 2–. So is ABC going to lose all their sponsors and will we hear out rage from those who claim to be offended by Rush Limbaughs misogyny? I doubt it becaus ethe only thing about shock joke RUsh that offens these leftists is Linbaughs political position not the language he used against this woman. Rush was wrong and vulgare but this is nothing to the misogyny the left peddles evey day.

  • Janis+

    I’m not quite ready to throw Maher out with the bathwater. I do not like him. I think he’s sleazy. But his show is a different matter. Rush’s show is all about his blowhard antics and snark (isn’t it?). Maher’s show is interesting (when he’s not dominating the discussion)and manages to display periodic bipartisanship in a partisan arena. I’d like to see Maher’s show without Maher, but that won’t happen, so I’ll suffer him to be able to watch others opine. At least after he finishes his monologue. Maybe I’m not so politically correct, but I don’t think the two *shows* are equivalent, even if the hosts sometimes are.
    And sorry to diappoint you, Juliette, but I abhor most current series television’s depiction of women, espcially the “real housewives” genre. But Rush has a larger audience and creates a lot of political influence; that’s the issue with him.

  • Allison

    There is misogyny on both the Left and Right. Maher and Limbaugh have a long history of demeaning women on their shows. And that is how they have made all their money. If they were as bad to African-Americans or gay people, they would have both been fired now. But they still have their jobs because you can still get away with sexism.

    I have made a point to boycott those “b*tch” shows on ABC just I as don’t subscribe to HBO. I don’t have to fund misogyny with either my time or money.

  • Kimble

    Informative article about social media and feminism:

  • Bes

    The Forbes article is very interesting. Although I must comment that the only people who were ever having a “post-feminist” period were the old men who ran Corporate Media and kept authentic female voices shutup for the last 20 years.

    I am very glad to see the young generation of pro woman folks standing up and taking over. The old Feminist leaders were ineffective, they did not understand business they were afraid of claiming their own power and they still can’t issue any criticism of Liberals or issue a statement that focuses of women’s issues without dragging in gay rights and racial issues (I’ve never seen organizers for those causes include worry over women’s rights in their statements) Old Feminists are a completely owned subsidiary of the Democrat party. They have sold out. It is time for the young pro woman forces to push them aside, give them a place online where they can write poetry about their exquisite pain at the hands of the patriarchy, Check in on them every now and then. But start speaking for yourselves and for pro women issues, make both political parties grovel for women’s votes. Take down old media for their stereotyped portrayal of women and relentlessly offensive advertising. Take over Congress. I’ve raised young women and I believe the old farts who are the Powers That Be aint seen nothing yet. Also, since the new online pro woman forces have no apparent head, your movement is more likely to stay focused and pure because there is no one to sell you out like the old feminist leaders did.

  • ryan

    “or can’t issue statements that focus of women’s issues without dragging in gay rights and racial issues (I’ve never seen organizers for those causes include worry over women’s rights in their statements)”

    I was trying to find evidence of this. I have heard this claim before that feminist have put race and gender preference issues before sexism. Do you have any organizational policy statements, feminist leadership comments or any other evidence that can be referenced during the last 40 or so years that proves that women’s organizations did place race issues before gender issues? I am researching this topic a bit and i cant find any written evidence of this.

    When I investigate Jesse Jacksons early statements on discrimination, he almost always refers to “women and minorities” in the late 70s, 80s and 90s. Though I don’t know how much he actually helped with women’s causes. I’m looking for a similar record among feminist leaders. I don’t claim to know the facts on this topic but I do have an interest in the racial divide among women and its inter-relationship with the advancement of women as a group. Any references links would be appreciated. Thanks.

  • Janis+

    BES, I think it’s both rude and wrong to call feminists a “sell-out.” What litmus test of purity would you apply? First, sometimes compromise is called for. Second, iot’s hard for poeple raised in this society to get baptized in a stream of purity that runs from it, third, I on’t like pople telling me what or how to think, but I certainly throw the hammer at my ideals to see if they ring true. The blanket statement by some here that liberals ignore liberal sexism is not true (many raged at the “liberal” media for the sexist remarks directed at HRC in 2008, but there is often a flse equivalency drawn between differently motivated sources of sexism.

  • samsmom

    I have watched the PSA on the USA network several times to make sure that I’m not missing anything. It’s the PSA about “not standing” for things like racism, bigotry, and bullying. But nowhere do the people who are sitting down say anything about “not standing” for misogyny or even sexism. Until they include it in their list, I’m not sitting down with them. In our culture you can hate on women with impunity. Rush will get new sponsors and the show will go on. Imus was off the air for 5 minutes. Letterman’s show had nary a hiccup. And Maher donates a million bucks to Obama.

  • samsmom


    Check out Kimberle Crenshaw’s theory on intersectionality from the late 80’s early 90’s. It’s her “feminist” theory that feminism cannot be separated from oppression based on race, class, and gender identity. I don’t have links for you, but researching her should get you the information you’re looking for.

  • ryan

    thank you samsmom that was very helpful!

  • Kimble

    In case anyone needs a refresher on the 53 times (over 3 days) Limbaugh smeared Sandra Fluke:!

    And here is a wonderful example of a non-activist, regular woman (well, she’s exceptional because she’s a war veteran, but not famous) who harnessed the power of social media to speak out against Rush Limbaugh’s attacks:

  • Bes

    Janis+: My purity test would be a legitimate women’s group would need to call out both Republican and Democrats for sexism and would have to issue statements about ONLY women’s issues not consistently conflate sexism with racism and gay rights. I would also expect all women running for political office to receive respectful coverage from a legitimate women’s group.

    Ryan: I expect women’s groups to work on issues that affect all women. So Equal and relevant health care for women (we don’t want equal access to prostate exams). Parity in political representation. Media images of women and girls. Women’s consumer issues. Equal pay for equal work. Equal opportunity for women in schooling and career. etc. When women of color and gay women ask what women’s groups are doing for them a legitimate women’s group would respond “We are working on equal pay for equal work, equal opportunity in school and work, media images of women, equal and relevant healthcare, political parity, etc, for you”.

    In the last press statement form Terry O’Niell of Now which I remember seeing (it was around January) She made a statement where she complained of the unfairness of a situation relative to sexual orientation and race before mentioning the unfairness to women. There is no reason for pro woman issues to be conflated with gay and racial issues and I find it offensive when they are. We are deserving of our own separate organization and representatives.

    Janis+: The Feminists of NOW have sold out and have been pretending to represent women for 20 years when in fact they are nothing but Democrat mouthpieces that are given permission to speak when there is an attack on Republicans to be made. Otherwise they are silent. I first noticed the problem when the music industry became misogynist and NOW failed to call out the situation because they won’t criticize a black misogynist. If my observations offend you I will have to find a way to live with that.

  • ryan

    I understand your point of view about protesters on the ground I assume that that is what PSA stands for. But I was looking for leadership positions within feminist and civil rights organizations and their positions that include the oppression of other groups. I don’t see any evidence of either of these groups putting other oppressed groups before it.

  • Bes

    Here is another way I feel Feminist leaders have failed Regarding women’s health care. They should be leading discussions about what modern women want to see in their health care policies. Put up a bunch of questions without discussion to start with. Do not include Democrats or Republicans or Religious representatives. Don’t wait for approval from the government. Don’t waste time trying to decide which misogynist political party is most misogynist or chastising men who don’t process language or understand the concept of “common good”. Talk to medical experts and legal experts. Lead a discussion among women consumers and propose what these women want to see and want to pay for. Do not let misogynist morons from either party or any religion hijack the discussion.

    Years ago Feminists should have provided a focus for online protest however I do think that the current protest system which is loosely organized and not controlled by either party and has no clear leaders to buy off is likely to be the most effective system for women.

  • ryan


    “There is no reason for pro woman issues to be conflated with gay and racial issues and I find it offensive when they are. We are deserving of our own separate organization and representatives.”

    These words may be true but your approach; your way of saying it I believe helps to marginalize gay women and women of color. When you throw in your opinion of “feminist” most of whom I assume are women also, you break up a majority population into little angry pieces and the only winner is the male sexists and their supporters.

    I believe there is room to place women’s issues first with due consideration mentioned to the unique difficulties minority and gay women face. If you cant achieve this balance, then you may have a biological majority but you will not have a political majority and that is truly what counts in the world of politics.

  • Juliette

    Bes March 6 4:42pm.

    Well said. And I would add that for all the times I hear democrats refer to abortion as a womens health issue, I have never once heard them refer to vasectomy as a mens health issue. Planned Parenthood started preforming vasectomies a few yaers ago but when the issue of were funding for P.P comes up democrats seem to advocate abortion or birth control for women rather than vasectomy for men. Let them just once refer to a vasectomy as a mens health issue and perhaps leftist will realize just how ridiculous refering to abortion as womans health issue is.
    And while we are at it how about a dead beat dad tax of bracket at about 100% of net income. That would be change I could believe in.

  • Juliette

    Bes MArch 5 11:16am.

    Obama and the dems got into bed with health insurance companies and big Pharma to create Obama care so don’t expect to see insurance coverage for Viagra and Cialus to go away. If Obama care stays law soon all of US will be paying for insurance policies that cover everything from abortion to birth control pills to ED drugs and even gender re-assignment surgery. Expect the cost of your health insurance to sky rocket when people are forsed to purchase the Big Pharma -Big Insurance policies they don’t want or need. Government involvment in anything is sure to make it more expensive. Just look what it did to the housing market and the cost of a university degree.

  • Susan

    Ryan, I have no links but I dated a black man in the mid-seventies who told me that I could either advocate for civil rights (and I’m white) or for women’s rights but there was no way that I could support both. I chose women’s rights.

    Not too long afterward, I left NOW altogether. The people in charge had moved away from issues of equal pay, access to traditionally male jobs, decent treatment for victims of rape and incest to support gay/lesbian rights. I remember reading my MS magazine and seeing a third to a half of articles, projects, and protests planned for gay rights. I support gay rights but only about 10% of women are lesbians. 100% of us are female and I wanted to spend our talents and energy and money on projects that benefitted ALL women.

    I have to say that I don’t remember being hit over the head, so-to-speak, with civil rights issues at that time.

  • Susan

    I do feel that I have do defend the early feminist leaders. They started us on the road to change and I worked at job for twenty-five years that was not open to women when I graduated from college. Several feminists had gotten together a few years earlier and sued for the right to be hired. It took several years but, I was one of the first women hired. It was a very hard job and I loved it and hated it but I made decent money, had great health insurance, was able to save some money and I have (so far) a good pension. That opportunity was given to me by as small group of feminist leaders.

    Admittedly,the famous feminists have failed me since 2007, and, I was shocked to see Gloria Steinem on Maher’s show. If liberals would refuse to appear with him until he apologizes for the language he uses about women, it would be a much more pleasant to watch his show.

  • ryan

    I hear you Susan and understand your experience. I just think it is crazy and quite sad for two groups so brutally oppressed for so many centuries to have such distance between them. Some of the discourse between women and minorities on some of the blogs is loud and sometimes mean spirited. I think success for women is success for minorities. Success for minorities is success for women. At least I sure hope that’s true for the sake of equality and justice.

  • samsmom


    Success for minorities has not meant success for women. Just look how many years after African American men got the vote before women did. And the AA men who used women to help them get the civil rights acts passed in the 60’s sat down when it came time to work to pass the ERA. Sometimes the truth hurts.

  • Bes

    Ryan: Rest assured that I care as much about gay and racial issues as gay and racial movement people care about my rights as a woman and dignity as a human. I don’t see how working for equal pay for equal work, parity in political representation, equal and relevant health care, equal access to education and jobs, and media images of women and girls for women of color and gay women, as a part of all women, marginalizes them. Sure they feel marginalized in American culture, all women who think do.

  • Bes

    Juliette: Good point about vasectomy surgery. The liberal attitude that abortion or more broadly reproductive rights is the sum total of women’s health care issues or even the sum total of women’s political issues would be like calling access to vasectomy the sum total of men’s health care issues or even the sum total of men’s political issues.

    And very true that Obama care is a sell out to big pharma and insurance companies. You’re going to get billable procedures under it alright, but it will likely have nothing to do with your medical needs. No way can adding a government bureaucracy to the already existing bureaucracies that control health care improve the situation for patients.

  • RevAmyinSC

    Since this keeps coming up in a number of posts here, including this one, just a clarification of some facts abt this whole birth control issue. WaPo has this Factcheck article of Schumer’s comments abt the Blunt Amendment which may help to clear some things up on the whole birth control issue, like that Republicans are trying to take away women’s ability to obtain birth control (they aren’t), and points out that it would be paid for much the same way women pay for it now:

  • Susan

    RevAmy, Factcheck is wrong. Schumer’s numbers might have been off but Republicans are in full war mode against women. De-funding Planned Parenthood is a defacto part of the Republican plank. PP provides birth control information and affordable medications and devices to millions of women. It’s the largest provider of birth control in the country and closing their clinics will deny countless women access to birth control.

    Personhood laws offered up in numerous states by Republican lawmakers would likely outlaw some popular kinds of birth control depending on whether the state determined that life begins at conception or at implantation of the embryo.

    Treating birth control as something separate and apart from any other kind of health care is wrong and Obama should never have given in to the Roman Catholic Church on the issue.

    A state out west (Oklahoma?) has just passed a law that says that doctors may lie to their pregnant patients about the patient’s health or the fetus’ health if they think that the information may lead to the woman’s decision to have a therapeutic abortion.

    True, the last one doesn’t have anything to do with contraception but I still can’t believe that any level of government in the this country is giving cover to doctors who lie to their patients.

    The Blunt Amendment would have given employers a legal right to refuse to provide women with birth control. That’s why it was proposed. To assert anything different is intellectually dishonest.

  • RevAmyinSC

    Here’s the link to the actual amendment. Make of it what you will: