Fischer: Limbaugh Victim of ‘Secular Sharia’

Bryan Fischer continues his brave battle with rationality by defending Rush Limbaugh’s vile attacks on Sandra Fluke, and by declaring that Limbaugh is the real victim here, a victim of “secular Sharia.” You knew that Rush’s nomination for martyrdom was inevitable, right?

As Fischer sees it, Limbaugh probably should not have called Georgetown student Sandra Fluke a “slut,” but only because the word is vulgar. Fischer explained that Fluke does in fact meet the textbook definition of “slut,” so much so that she has no shame about telling the US Congress and the entire nation “about how much promiscuous sex she and her classmates are having.”

Furthermore, the fact that Limbaugh has been forced to apologize for accurately calling Fluke a slut is proof that “secular fundamentalists” are just like “Islamic fundamentalists” because “leftists are pursuing their own caliphate in America with secular fundamentalism enshrined as their version of sharia law” for the purpose of destroying Christian morality.

httpv://youtu.be/MTU0BCzO8tA

Funny, but Fluke’s testimony didn’t say a single word about how much sex she was having, or with whom. Even if she was having sex only occasionally and only with her husband, her point would remain exactly the same. And of course, those who advocate the kind of strict Sharia law would be on Fischer’s side on this. Just like Fischer, they condemn women’s rights, religious freedom and sexual freedom and seek to punish any woman who doesn’t do as ordered. If anyone is like the advocates of Sharia, it is Fischer.

"In Russian, "vagina" is pronounced "va-GHEE-na". So he' be grabbing Butina vagheena."

House Republicans Would Not Allow Butina ..."
"> Sounds like mental masturbation and an unwillingness to admit he really knows nothing and ..."

Trump Again Names Press the ‘Real ..."
"A Nazi walks into a bar – and instantly lowers it."

White Supremacists Love Putin Too
"> The god of Abraham did not give his people stone tablets engraved with the ..."

Trump Again Names Press the ‘Real ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Ellie

    When his mouth is moving, he’s lying. He wouldn’t know the truth if it came up and bit him in the butt and if he did recognize it, he’d kick it away so it wouldn’t bother him again.

  • The Lorax

    Her point would remain valid even if she was having no sex whatsoever. In fact, I think that was her point.

  • busterggi

    Apparently human decency is a secular value that religion doesn’t have.

  • bahrfeldt

    “Fluke does in fact meet the textbook definition of “slut,” so much so that she has no shame about telling the US Congress and the entire nation “about how much promiscuous sex she and her classmates are having”

    So if she is ashamed about “telling” she’s not a slut, it’s the telling that counts. Sure. But then again, Fischer is one who publicizes selected other’s sinful sexual activities (did he mention Newt?), and without shame, so he’s declaring that he is the king(?) of all sluts.

  • peterh

    This is similar to the critic’s comment about “Dallas” that it didn’t matter who shot J.R. so long as somebody did. It doesn’t matter who or what gets Limbaugh so long as it happens.

  • AndrewD

    I have heard Darren Reddick on Planet Rock just say that Peter Gabriel and Rush have issued cease and desist orders to Limbaugh, (who has been playing their music) as they do not want their music tainted by Limbaugh’s slime. I do not know how true this is but it wouldn’t surprise me

  • Reginald Selkirk

    … for the purpose of destroying Christian morality.

    He’s got a point there. Already slavery has been outlawed, even though it is permitted in the Bible. Wife-beating is also frowned upon in many places, even though it too is OK with Yahweh.

  • dingojack

    I believe her testimony was about someone she knew who had to use birth control pills to control a congenital disease of the ovaries.

    No sex mentioned at all.

    Of course, I’m sure Rush-the-Holy-Matyr can correct me on that.

    Dingo

  • eric

    Limbaugh has been married four times, was caught smuggling viagra into the country from the Dominican Republic,* yet has no kids. So, obviously, the perfect spokesperson for puritanism.

    *Rush had to smuggle it in from overseas because he already had a criminal record of prescription drug abuse and illegal doctor shopping, evidently making it difficult for him to find a doctor in this country willing to prescribe it for him.

  • noastronomer

    “Rush’s nomination for martyrdom…”

    Is, sadly, a little premature.

    As I commented on PZ’s blog I really appreciate Bryan Fischer. He never pretends that he is anything other than a complete asshole.

  • unbound

    Misogyny is as misogyny does.

    On to reality, I’m fixed but my wife is still on a pretty powerful birth control. Why? Her periods were so heavy that she was actually becoming anemic. She was losing too much iron in the blood loss with her periods and iron supplements were not sufficient. I had a good friend long ago whose girlfriend was on birth control for similar reasons (regulation of her menstrual period that was causing problems for her)…not because of sex.

  • Lycanthrope

    “Secular sharia”? People, words have meanings. You can’t just hold a gun to their head and force them to mean what you want them to mean.

  • lofgren

    The use of birth control pills to control other medical issues is a tiny minority compared to the number who use them to control their own reproduction. At least Rush seems to understand what the fight is about – sex – even if he is fighting in the most foul way for the wrong side. The fact that a minuscule group of women want access to birth control for reasons other than controlling their own reproduction is a red herring. We don’t want health insurance to cover birth control for a the paltry few who need it for secondary benefits. We want it covered so that women can have sex without becoming pregnant before they are ready.

    All this talk about a small number of women who use birth control for secondary purposes due to rare conditions (compared to unintended pregnancy) is so far off the mark it’s almost duplicitous. Worse, it suggests that there is some kind of common ground that can be negotiated where women who need the birth control for medical issues unrelated to pregnancy are covered, but women who just want to be able to have sex without getting pregnant are not.

    Rush is a slimeball, but in this case when right-wingers try to make the conversation all about sex we do ourselves a disservice to say, “Nah-ah. There is also a statistically irrelevant minority of women who use the pills for reasons totally unrelated to sex.” It’s like arguing that slavery is wrong because some of the slaves probably have cancer.

    It’s about sex. Say so. And then shame those fuckers for acting like schoolchildren tittering about peepees and hoohas while the grownups are trying to protect the health of the American people.

  • dingojack

    With all due respect – It’s Rush who seems to think it’s all about sex*

    – it isn’t.

    If only one woman needs birth control pills to control a disease that she has through no fault of her own it’s worth it. Unless a human life is not worth saving, of course.

    Is that a ‘pro-life’ stance do you think?

    Dingo

    —–

    * his tirade makes that perfectly clear

  • The Lorax

    @13,

    From what I’ve seen, the percentage of women who use it for medicinal purposes seems to be small, but you make it sound as if it’s inconsequential, and therefore the whole argument is about sex.

    Can anyone find some hard data on this? Perhaps the percentage of women who use it for purely medicinal purposes, or the percentage of prescriptions for it that are filled out for medicinal purposes? Google only wants to tell me about birth control, not the statistics of usage.

  • lofgren

    From what I’ve seen, the percentage of women who use it for medicinal purposes seems to be small, but you make it sound as if it’s inconsequential, and therefore the whole argument is about sex.

    It’s a tiny number compared to the number of women who use it to avoid becoming pregnant or become inadvertently pregnant through lack of use. I.E. almost every sexually active woman in America.

    But even if it weren’t a tiny number, it’s inconsequential because it doesn’t matter. It’s not what we are fighting for. We want adult women to have access to birth control in order to control their reproduction, not so that a subset of them can alleviate other conditions through off-label use.

  • greg1466

    I keep wondering what’s really behind the wingnuts and their insistence that the testimony was all about how much sex she has. Is it that they really want to have sex with here and therefore only hear her talking about sex? Or is it simply that in their minds the only purpose for a woman is sex and therefore if she’s talking, it must be about sex?

  • lofgren

    If only one woman needs birth control pills to control a disease that she has through no fault of her own it’s worth it. Unless a human life is not worth saving, of course.

    No!

    Again, this implies some kind of reasonable compromise whereby women who need birth control to control a disease get access to it, but women who only want to control their reproduction do not. That is not a reasonable compromise, because the argument is not that all insurers should cover birth control because of these other conditions, it is that insurers should cover birth control so that women can control their reproduction. That a small number of women who are not sexually active while also desiring to avoid pregnancy will also benefit is a happy side-benefit. If you make that tiny minority the focus of your argument you selling every other woman down the river.

    This is a conversation about sex. All of these attempts to change the subject are not fooling anybody. Liberals need to engage the actual topic of conversation, not try to pussy foot around talking about other medical conditions that are coincidentally also treated by birth control pills. They’re not endometriosis pills. I am not advocating their availability so that women with endometriosis can control their endometriosis. I am advocating them so that women with wombs can control their birth. I’m happy to help out all those other women at the same time, but they are not the focus of my advocacy.

  • The Lorax

    Lofgren, regardless of how many women use it for strictly medicinal purposes, the fact that it is used for that purpose is an argument in favor of it being covered by insurance. The question is how substantial that argument is. You seem to be implying that it is insubstantial compared to the number of women who use it to prevent unwanted pregnancies, therefore it’s a “red herring”, however you have not delivered any numbers to back that up.

    I’m not trying to debate your point; indeed, I cannot do that because I don’t have the numbers myself (which is why I asked for them). However, since you have not provided them, I think it’s unfair for you to make the claim that the whole argument is about controlling pregnancy and absolutely nothing else. Even if that is the major argument (which I’m sure it is), it does NOT mean that that is the only argument that need be focused on, at the cost of all other arguments.

    Fact is, birth control DOES get prescribed for legitimate medicinal purposes. It’s a valid argument to have birth control covered by insurance. I just want some numbers reflecting how much because I’m curious (and annoyed at my failure to find any).

  • lofgren

    Lorax,

    No, you are mischaracterizing my argument.

    It doesn’t matter how big the number is. It’s irrelevant because we’re talking about sex.

    Would you be OK with health insurers only being required to cover birth control for women who can show that they need it for a secondary medicinal benefit?

    I wouldn’t.

    Hence, it is red herring.

  • The Lorax

    Lofgren, I think you are mischaracterizing the argument in general. The argument is not about sex, the argument is about birth control being supplied by insurance companies. When you enter a debate, you bring all the important points with you; you do not select the most prevalent one and disregard all others, or call them “red herrings”.

    For example, possibly the most important reason to send rovers to Mars is to investigate the possibilities for human habitats. For that, we need to investigate the local resources and determine if there is any existing life. Meeting one or both of those goals would change the course of humanity; either we are not alone in the universe, or we can colonize another planet using in situ resources. However, you will never see NASA delivering a notice to Congress with only those two points. There is a LOT of science to be done, pure discovery. We’re curious about how the planet coalesced from the original dust cloud, the nature of its watery past, the nature of its sandy present, its geology, and so on. To say that Olympus Mons is a red herring when we should be talking about whether or not there is life is a gross mischaracterization.

    Plus, your question is unfair as well; no, I would not be ok with insurance companies only offering birth control for the small percentage of women who only use it for medicinal purposes. I don’t think anyone would. It’s a completely pointless question. Would you want to disregard that small percentage and only offer birth control for women who want to control their pregnancies? Of course not; if it can do both, then you, like me, would want it for both.

    Fact is, we have more than one argument; lowering the number of unexpected pregnancies and other medicinal benefits. You are outright disregarding the second as having any meaning whatsoever. You are even going so far as to call it a distraction. That is unfair.

  • lofgren

    I am calling it a distraction because it is not what the fight is about.

    This is also why Rush and other conservatives are so insistent that Fluke talked about sex. They probably didn’t even listen to her. They didn’t have to. They understand what the we are talking about.

    Obama is not requiring insurers to cover contraception for off-label uses.

    The Catholic church is no opposing that coverage for off-label uses.

    The typical American is not in favor of/opposed to that coverage for off-label uses.

    The average woman is not using contraception for off-label uses.

    Insurers already use the fact that pregnancy is not an illness in order to deny coverage of contraception. By arguing for coverage due to other conditions, you’re giving them ammunition. This is all about protecting a woman’s right to control her reproduction. There is no pushback on the topic of of birth control’s other health benefits.

    Stop fighting a little side skirmish and jump into the melee.

  • lofgren

    As to this question:

    Would you want to disregard that small percentage and only offer birth control for women who want to control their pregnancies?

    Hell yes I would take that bargain.

    If contraception was covered for any woman who wanted to control her reproduction, then any woman old enough to have periods would have access to contraception.

    If contraception was only covered for those who were using for off-label purposes, she would need a note from her doctor proving that she had some other problem.

    Situation 1: total victory for us.

    Situation 2: a victory for slut shaming, denying women control over their own reproductive health, and conceding the republican argument that contraception is immoral. Fuck no.

  • noastronomer

    I agree with lofgren. Because the inevitable response from the right will be to propose exactly what he says: Insurance covers only birth-control pills prescribed for reasons other than reproductive control. Which I would count as a loss.

    Mike.

  • twincats

    Her point would remain valid even if she was having no sex whatsoever. In fact, I think that was her point.

    Her point would remain valid even if she was having EVEN MORE sex than Mr. Limpbrain accused her of (even though that wasn’t what her testimony was even about.)

    We don’t want health insurance to cover birth control for a the paltry few who need it for secondary benefits. We want it covered so that women can have sex without becoming pregnant before they are ready.

    It’s about sex. Say so. And then shame those fuckers for acting like schoolchildren tittering about peepees and hoohas while the grownups are trying to protect the health of the American people.

    Liberals need to engage the actual topic of conversation, not try to pussy foot around talking about other medical conditions that are coincidentally also treated by birth control pills.

    QFFT (albeit selectively) and thank you a thousand times over, lofgren!

    I am getting right pissed off with all of these arguments I’m hearing about how really, it’s not about women who want to have sex and not have babies, really it isn’t. YES IT FUCKING WELL IS!! The fact that the Pill has secondary uses that are also important notwithstanding.

    Limpbrain’s tirade was custom-made to shame the healthy, normal and awesomely good sex drive of women everywhere right back into hiding circa the Victorian era and I will not stand for that. I know I’m not alone in this, but damn, sometimes I feel like I am! Again, thanks, lofgren!

    Geez! Even with some so-called progressives it’s not about Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, but instead only those pursuits that are approved of by and for white, heterosexual males of sufficient means.

  • cptdoom

    Actually lofgren, the entire point of the argument is that contraceptive medicines are, in fact, medicines and their use (not off-label, AFAIK, or the manufacturers would not be able to market their products’ effectiveness in non-contraceptive uses) for various medical conditions makes absolutely no difference to the religious employers that deny them. So the very real friend of Ms. Fluke’s was forced to lose an ovary – ironically reducing her fertility – because of Georgetown’s edict. The Catholic Church leadership, along with Rush and Fischer, are arguing that the only use for these products is contraception and that is why they shouldn’t be forced to cover them.

    Interestingly, insurers had no problem with the compromise created by the Obama administration – that the insurers would supply these medicines directly to plan members without their employers getting involved. That’s because it is far cheaper to pay for a year’s contraception than to pay for even a healthy birth.

    Religious employers refuse to include this narrow group of products in their health plan coverage precisely because they can’t draw the narrow exception that you describe – if you cover a product, you have to cover it for all its appopriate uses, because 1) physicians are legally allowed to prescribe any product for any purpose and 2) the HIPAA privacy regulations prevent employers from knowing the reason behind any prescription. So, these employers deliberately deny the small, but measurable, percentage of women who use these products for legitimate medical reasons in order to prevent their use for contraception. It’s equivalent to denying women chemotherapy because such drugs can induce spontaneous abortions if a female cancer patient happens to get pregnant.

    I happen to agree with you that we shouldn’t ignore the sex issue here as well, but it has to be complementary. I would actually pursue it from the other angle – women need access to birth control because men (well straight men, one of the positives of being gay is no pregnancy scares) want to have sex – and one only has to look at the rape statistics, both the stranger and date- varieties – to see how important it is for women to have access to protection, seeing as society doesn’t seem too concerned about stopping their sexual exploitation.

  • lofgren

    (not off-label, AFAIK, or the manufacturers would not be able to market their products’ effectiveness in non-contraceptive uses)

    The information I got from the internet was that these are called off-label uses. But, y’know, it’s the internet so I can’t stand by its accuracy. Specifically the info I found said that the pill is approved for PMDD, preventing pregnancy, and controlling acne, but that many doctors also provided them for off-label uses (such as endometriosis).

    The Catholic Church leadership, along with Rush and Fischer, are arguing that the only use for these products is contraception and that is why they shouldn’t be forced to cover them.

    Not exactly. They are arguing that these products can be used for contraception, which is why they shouldn’t be forced to cover them. They know that the American people are not complete morons. They can smell a con – and they know that regardless of what other benefits a few women might reap, what they are opposed to is immoral sexual activity, and that is what the pill enables. These other applications just look like dodging the question to them.

    if you cover a product, you have to cover it for all its appopriate uses, because 1) physicians are legally allowed to prescribe any product for any purpose and 2) the HIPAA privacy regulations prevent employers from knowing the reason behind any prescription

    It’s nice to know that the nightmare situation of employers using this to get more information about employees is probably impossible, but the employer doesn’t have to know what the employee is using the birth control pill for in order for their insurance company to refuse to cover it.

    So, these employers deliberately deny the small, but measurable, percentage of women who use these products for legitimate medical reasons in order to prevent their use for contraception. It’s equivalent to denying women chemotherapy because such drugs can induce spontaneous abortions if a female cancer patient happens to get pregnant.

    While true, it’s still side-stepping the issue of actual contention and denying the crux of the issue, which is that women having maximal control of their own reproduction is good for the women, good for health care providers (except those mythical businesses making millions off of abortion of course), good for insurers, good for the country, and good for humanity.

    I would actually pursue it from the other angle – women need access to birth control because men (well straight men, one of the positives of being gay is no pregnancy scares) want to have sex

    Absolutely not. This issue is about giving women agency, not protecting our the precious flower of ladyhood from the destructive behaviors of brutish criminals. Women are going to have sex – pleasurable, consensual, heterosexual, vaginal sex – whether they use contraception or not. Enabling and encouraging greater use of contraception when women who do not want a baby have sex is a major health interest of our society. And that is perfectly OK. As long as we deny that is the main issue, it can be demagogued by the likes of Limbaugh and the Catholic church.

  • D. C. Sessions

    Her point would remain valid even if she was having no sex whatsoever. In fact, I think that was her point.

    You don’t expect a Godly and, ermm, upright man like Fisher to actually listen to a slut like Fluke, do you?