No. Words.

[mst3k4evr]

Rush Limbaugh: Sandra Fluke, Woman Denied Right To Speak At Contraception Hearing, A 'Slut'

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/29/rush-limbaugh-sandra-fluke-slut_n_1311640.html

Rush Limbaugh called the woman who was denied the

Comments

[bakimono]

If you cannot afford for *any* form of birth control, even as cheap (for a single use... in the long run, they are more expensive, if you need them often) as condoms, then yes, you cannot afford the children that may come as a result of the risk, either. Both from the health concerns and the cost of raising one. So no, responsibly, do not have sex, better for all involved.

[commanderd]

Ahh thank you for explaining to us poor stupid women how we should live our lives. We're all enriched by your wisdom.

[bakimono]

So you think that it's fine for people (women and men, thanks) who do not have the means nor the mentality to be responsible with their own bodies to take such risks not only with said bodies but the lives and futures of the children that may be created in the process, simply for a short moments pleasurable company?
Nice.

[commanderd]

I think it's fine for people who don't have much money to be able to have risk-free sex, yes.

[auntiesiannan]

I'm married. Should my husband and I not have sex?

[crimsong]

But you said earlier above men still need to get their viagra for valid medical reasons, ie. Sex. Yet women who *also* have valid medical reasons (like the woman who lost an ovary) aren't important enough. And if THEY want sex, they have to pony up for it themself. See the hypocrisy here??

[corridor7f]

Uh, if I can interject - condoms are only about 98% effective. They can break or be used incorrectly.

So even if you can afford condoms, there's a risk of pregnancy. There's a 99.7% or so effectiveness for my own birth control that my insurance pays a majority of... but that's not 100%, is it?

So - I should just close up shop and never have sex again because I can't afford to have kids (admittedly)?

Please.