<p>The point is that Oprah doesn’t do that. There’s really nobody on that side of the aisle with Rush’s prominence who behaves as he does–Bill Maher is often mentioned, but comparing his impact to Rush is like comparing Luxembourg to France.</p>
<p>I have no idea who this mysterious person with a questionable number of children is. :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>A truer word was never spoken.</p>
<p>Just call the bcp a uterine and endometrial cancer prevention pill. That’s what it is. One could make a compelling public health case that the majority of women should be on the pill (regardless of specific needs for contraception); the benefits far outweigh the risks at the overall population level. The fact that it happens to work contraceptively is just a side effect.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But she did rouse the beef industry to the point of lawsuit.</p>
<p>Industries aren’t private citizens.</p>
<p>^^^^And she didn’t slander them. After hearing some gross stories about meat processing, she just exclaimed that she personally didn’t think she’d ever eat beef again. At least I think that’s how it went.</p>
<p>Communication would be easier if people weren’t always redefining words to suit their own agendas :).</p>
<p>“Oprah’s shows aren’t exclusively about politics and current events, though.”</p>
<p>They’re almost never about politics and current events. Her Obama endorsement in 2008 was a huge departure from her previous 25 years in media, and she has not followed it up with any continuing endorsements, commentary, etc. There’s no evidence that her endorsement actually made a difference, either. </p>
<p>I think it’s fair to say that she is to the American publishing industry what Rush is to Republican politics. Authors and editors would do anything to please Oprah. She’s just chosen to stay out of politics almost completely. Love him or hate him, Rush has no peers.</p>
<p>
. yup.</p>
<p>Also, if it weren’t for Rush, several talk show hosts on ‘the other side’ would have difficulty filling their airtime. Just for yuks sake…listen to the 6 or so (yes, there are that many) ‘other view’ hosts and you will find they spend the a large amount of time talking about what R did or didn’t say, how vile R is, how utterly disgusted they are with R., how they can’t even bring themselves to quote R…well, maybe just one small sound bite. In fact, you can get a very good recap of the R show by just listening to the ‘others’. Then, if you can stand it, listen to R and see how much time is spent on the subject of what other commentators said - practically none. It’s almost like they slip him a little bit on the side just to be obnoxious so ‘they’ can have an easy time filling up their time slots.</p>
<p>Never mind the advertisers, I’m still waiting for some leading Republicans to disavow Limbaugh’s horrible statements.</p>
<p>[Opinion:</a> Contraception denigrates me as a woman – In America - CNN.com Blogs](<a href=“http://inamerica.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/15/contraception-denigrates-me-as-a-woman/]Opinion:”>http://inamerica.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/15/contraception-denigrates-me-as-a-woman/)</p>
<p>I can respect a woman’s right to not use contraception. The author of this article is Catholic, and she is entitled to her beliefs. What I do not understand is the notion that birth control pills inevitably drive promiscuity, or that women who take bcp’s are incapable of “self control” or are undignified.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s not just men who are driving the movement to deprive women of their reproductive choices.</p>
<p>Ugh… People like that bug me. Abstinence only education doesn’t work. If you want to practice abstinence and not use chemical birth control, then by all means, do it. I don’t care, that’s your choice. </p>
<p>However, don’t put down the millions of women that DO use birth control while you’re doing it. Don’t make it seem like we’re all just pawns in the contraception industry. It’s a lot cheaper for pills than it is to have a kid so I’d rather be paying the pharmaceutical industry than Pampers. I also do not take birth control for my boyfriend’s benefit (trust me, he’s MUCH more OK with us having a kid than I am and I am a much more sexual person than he is).</p>
<p>And fwiw, I really don’t want to monitor my cervical fluid and what not to figure out when I can and can’t have sex. If that works for you, great, but again don’t make it seem like those of us who don’t have the time or desire to do that are just brainwashed or sexual slaves to our SOs. I LIKE being able to have sex whenever I want it and not just when I’m “infertile”. It is natural to be sexual. Evolution made us that way. If you don’t believe that, it’s fine, but I don’t consider it a sin to be sexual and therefore I don’t see anything wrong with having sex when I want. To someone like me who is not religious, it’s not about not having self control, it’s about not seeing it as wrong and therefore needing to be “controlled”. I don’t appreciate being told by someone else that I have no self control because I don’t share her beliefs.</p>
<p>Sorry, that just really struck a chord with me. Again, you’re welcome to your opinion but DON’T “diss” millions of women when discussing your opinion. Talk about why it works for YOU and not why everyone else is wrong.</p>
<p>ETA: While you don’t want your tax dollars going towards birth control coverage, I don’t want my tax dollars going to war, abstinence-only education, or subsidizing religions. But that’s a society. You have to give and take. It can’t just be all about what you want. And if we’re on the same insurance then YOUR pregnancy is going to cost a heck of a lot more than my birth control pills and yet I still have to pay every time NFP fails- and it does a lot more often than BCPs do. Again, give and take.</p>
<p>Right?</p>
<p>It’s so annoying when they talk about “taxpayer” dollars, as if I’m not a tax payer, as if this is “somebody else’s money” when it’s something I’m interested in covering. I mean, in this country we have a socialized police force, a socialized fire dept system, a socialized, tax-payer funded, FBI, CIA, socialized education, socialized infrastructure system, including roads, sewage, limited monopolistic socialized electricity and utilities, not to mention our socialized military and national guard and border patrol, and Birth Control Pills are the issue? Really? Seriously? </p>
<p>Plus, if insurance is a part of my compensation package? My employer isn’t doing me some “favor” or offering me some extra “largesse.” I earn that compensation. It isn’t a gift I am given by somebody else. Sheesh!</p>
<p>This is just one weak argument, this employer freedom argument, as far as this taxpayer is concerned.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There seems to be a misconception out there that federal dollars would pay for the birth control pills. I had the radio on today, and I heard caller after caller upset that the government was paying for Sandra Fluke’s bcp.</p>
<p>That is not the case. What the government did was describe the things that private health insurance had to cover. Aside from the bcp issue itself, this is no different from you state saying, as all states do, what workers compensation insurers have to cover, or what has to go into a homeowner’s policy. Your state doesn’t pay for the home insurance, it just says what insurance companies have to sell and what names they can call it.</p>
<p>This was really the whole point of the issue. The people pay out thousands of dollars to buy private health insurance including prescription drugs, then on top of it, they have to buy certain prescriptions out of their own pockets because it goes against someone else’s religion.</p>
<p>One of the many things that bothers me about this whole kerfluffle is that the focus on birth control pills obscures the fact that they don’t prevent disease. I don’t care who has sex with whom, when, how often, or in what position, but it scares me to death that the message about condoms is being muddied right now. Pills are fine and dandy, but it should never be forgotten that properly used condoms are very effective in preventing disease. I was reading about a study in The Lancet which indicated that women who use only birth control pills are twice as likely to contract AIDS. Be happy, be sexual, but above all, please be safe.</p>
<p>I always wonder what those who argue about the sex aspect of birth control would say to someone like me who is asexual. How do they argue against me when depo provera (I’ve been paying about $400/year copay before this year started… now my copay is none unless they’ve forgotten to bill me all year) is the only medication my doctor was able to find to stop the pain I was in every month (pain to the point of losing consciousness)? How do they make it all come down to sex for me when I don’t have any and won’t have any?</p>
<p>It’s just all so frustrating :(</p>
<p>@hayden- Tax dollars do subsidize BCPs even if it’s not related to the federal mandate. They do through PP and other things. However, you’re right that this isn’t new issue isn’t related to tax dollars. My apologies.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Agree 1000% zoose.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think you mean to say “sexually transmitted diseases,” right? I don’t want to put words in your mouth, though. </p>
<p>BCP’s are believed to decrease the incidence of certain cancers, so it could well be that they prevent disease in certain users.</p>
<p>
Heaven forbid. In context, it is clear what I meant.</p>
<p>
And the use of condoms doesn’t decrease the efficacy of birth control pills for any of their uses. Cool how that works, isn’t it?</p>
<p>Birth control bills are NOT a substitute for condoms.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Excellent point!</p>
<p>So many of us are married on here, I think we forget there are kids reading this board. Safer sex is a must.</p>