Fact Check
Print

"Over-Sexed Co-Ed": Anti-Gay Groups Target Sandra Fluke

March 09, 2012 4:54 pm ET

Rush Limbaugh has been the target of widespread condemnation in the wake of his misogynistic attacks on Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke, but he’s receiving support from a coalition of anti-LGBT groups. Spokespersons from groups like the American Family Association, Family Research Council, Liberty Counsel and the National Organization for Marriage have come to Rush’s defense while continuing to demonize Fluke as an immoral and promiscuous “sexual anarchist.”

American Family Association

AFA’s Bryan Fischer: Fluke “Sleeping With So Many Guys That She Can’t Keep Track.” During the March 7 edition of his Focal Point radio show, American Family Association (AFA) spokesman Bryan Fischer said:

FISCHER: To think that you would have a leftist like the President of the United States saying that the parents of a woman who goes on national TV, admits that she’s sleeping with so many guys that she can’t keep track, doing it three time a day, running out of money, driving me to the poor house, and to think that parents, he’s saying that parents ought to be proud of that. You know, I just wonder if he would be proud if his daughters were doing the same thing. Would he be proud of his daughters going on national TV to say the same thing? [AFA’s Focal Point, 3/7/12]

Fischer: Limbaugh Was “Lexically Accurate” By Calling Fluke A “Slut.” In a March 5 entry on AFA’s Rightly Concerned blog, Fischer wrote:

The dictionary definition of “slu*,” by the way, is “a slovenly or promiscuous woman.” The Georgetown law student whom Rush called by this word testified last week before a sham committee hearing hosted by Nancy Pelosi that she and her classmates are having so much random sex that they are going broke buying contraceptives. Therefore, they want Georgetown to be forced at gunpoint to buy protection for her and her randy colleagues so they don’t wind up in the poorhouse. 

So if the definition of “slu*” is “a promiscuous woman,” then as ugly as the word is, it is lexically accurate in this case, by this woman’s own admission. Rush didn’t out her; she outed herself. The word is an ugly word because it describes describes ugly behavior. 

The real scandal here is that a woman could without any trace of shame whatsoever give open testimony before the entire United States of America about how much promiscuous sex she and her classmates are having. What would have been a humiliating admission a generation ago has now, in today’s twisted world become a badge of honor. She has been lionized by the left and apologized to by the most powerful man in media. In other words, this whole sorry affair reveals much more about America than it does about either this law student or Rush Limbaugh. [AFA’s Rightly Concerned, 3/5/12, emphasis added]

Liberty Counsel

Liberty Counsel’s Matt Barber: Fluke Has A “Sexually Immoral Lifestyle,” Thinks “Sex Is Cheap And Causal.” In a March 8 column in Canada Free Press, Liberty Counsel Director of Cultural Affairs Matt Barber wrote:

Ms. Fluke recently went on Schultz’s program to criticize Limbaugh for indirectly suggesting that, in light of her admitted sexually immoral lifestyle, she was a “sl-t” (an offensive and inappropriate slang for which he has apologized).

[...]

David Burge (@iowahawkblog) of the Iowa Hawk blog summed it up nicely in a tweet: “How can you monsters talk about a $15 trillion debt at a time like this, when a brave coed has hurt lady-feelings?”

Yes, how can we focus on trillions in Obama debt, $6.00 gasoline and Islamo-fascists with nukes while a Georgetown “coed” is being denied free medication from Christians for her “Saturday night fever”?

[...]

Only a dying culture lionizes a woman who publicly impugns – with pride – her own honor and virtue. Yet, to the left, she’s a hero.

It’s genuinely sad that, as a society, we are no longer appalled that a young, single woman – though very nice, I’m sure – would go on national television nonetheless, to proudly and publicly boast that, to her, while sex is cheap and casual, dealing with the potential consequences is so expensive that those of who disagree must subsidize her bad behavior.

Can someone please explain to me how and why a woman’s “right” to be promiscuous is my financial responsibility? If you refuse to buy your own “preventative medicine,” why not hit up the fellas? Last I heard it takes two to do the fornication Fandango. [Canada Free Press, 3/8/12, emphasis added]

Barber: Fluke Is An “Over-Sexed Co-Ed,” “Feminist Radical.” In a March 2 tweet, Barber mocked Fluke by calling her an “over-sexed co-ed”:

[Twitter.com/jmattbarber, 3/2/12]

Barber: Fluke Lacks “Moral Virtue,” Is A Fake Martyr. In a March 2 tweet, Barber wrote:

 

[Twitter.com/jmattbarber, 3/2/12]

National Organization For Marriage

NOM’s Jennifer Morse: Fluke Is An Advocate Of “Sexual Anarchy.” During the March 6 edition of Lutheran Public Radio’s Issues, Etc., the National Organization for Marriage’s (NOM) Jennifer Morse said:

MORSE: She’s trying to say that nine dollars for prescription for contraceptive drugs is an untenable burden for a law student and in the absence of hormonal contraceptives, they are not intelligent enough to find condoms, which are considerably cheaper than even that. And that in the absence of finding either condoms or hormonal contraception that they’re somehow going to be stricken with pregnancy that is going to stop them from becoming academic successes. That’s the chain of logic that’s behind that appeal to the emotions and I think it’s obvious that the advocates of sexual anarchy, such as Sandra Fluke, have to stay in the realm of the emotional because the minute they get into the realm of the logical, they completely lose. They are completely illogical. [Lutheran Public Radio, Issues, Etc., 3/6/12, emphasis added]

Morse: Fluke “Should Keep Her Private Sexual Business To Herself.” From the March 6 edition of Lutheran Public Radio’s Issues, Etc.:

HOST: You do a lot of debates. If you were to debate Sandra Fluke, what would you like to tell her? Thirty seconds here.

MORSE: What would I tell Sandra Fluke? I would tell her that if she’s really concerned about the rights of privacy, she should keep her private sexual business to herself and pay for it herself. That it’s not my responsibility, it’s not Georgetown University’s responsibility, it’s not the taxpayers of the United States of America’s responsibility. She should have responsibility for her own sexual choices. That’s what I would tell her. That’d be the first thing I would tell her. [Lutheran Public Radio, Issues, Etc., 3/6/12]

Morse: Fluke Wants A World That Is “Illogical,” “Cannot Stand.” From the March 6 edition of Lutheran Public Radio’s Issues, Etc.:

MORSE: The only way you can create this world of sex without consequences is to do a whole lot of social engineering to remove the connection between cause and effect. So what she’s demanding, what Ms. Fluke – which is kind of an unfortunate name if you think about it – what Miss Fluke is asking for is the right to indulge in the cause without ever experiencing any effects. And this is to want a world that is illogical. It’s to want a world which cannot be. Which is why they have to stay in the realm of emotions. [Lutheran Public Radio, Issues, Etc., 3/6/12, emphasis added]

Family Research Council

FRC’s Cathy Ruse: “I Understand [Limbaugh’s] Larger Point” About Fluke. In a March 6 op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, Family Research Council (FRC) Senior Fellow Cathy Ruse wrote:

What about Rush Limbaugh? I won't defend his use of epithets (for which he's apologized), but I understand his larger point. At issue isn't inhalers for asthmatics or insulin for diabetics. Contraception isn't like other kinds of "health care." Yes, birth-control pills can be prescribed to address medical problems, though that's relatively rare and the Catholic Church has no quarrel with their use in this circumstance. And the university's insurance covers prescriptions in these cases.

Still, Ms. Fluke is not mollified. Why? Because at the end of the day this is not about coverage of a medical condition.

Ms. Fluke's crusade for reproductive justice is simply a demand that a Catholic institution pay for drugs that make it possible for her to have sex without getting pregnant. It's nothing grander or nobler than that. Georgetown's refusal to do so does not mean she has to have less sex, only that she has to take financial responsibility for it herself.

Should Ms. Fluke give up a cup or two of coffee at Starbucks each month to pay for her birth control, or should Georgetown give up its religion? Even a first-year law student should know where the Constitution comes down on that. [Wall Street Journal, 3/6/12, emphasis added]




Most Popular Tags

Feed IconRSS Feeds

Connect & Share

Facebook Twitter Digg YouTube Reddit