over, even though it’s demonstrably not the case. What makes Limbaugh’s comments (and they were extended to include calling Fluke a prostitute, saying she should make a sex video and let us see it, since we are paying for it, and on and on) a problem, is that they are not only a loser, but miss the point — as Rob Taylor explains in his excellent post, which should be read by anyone who wants to comment on this.

Now. When I first saw Ms Fluke my reaction was: That’s no 23 year old. That woman is thirty if she’s a day.

I’m a woman. We know these things. I also found her manner and affect very asexual. A slut is the last thing I’d call her (if by slut is meant a promiscuous woman).

So let me respond to these rhetorical questions:

1. Why did she talk about her sex life? She didn’t. She talked about other women’s sex lives. I know this because I read her entire prepared testimony (and that’s 20 minutes of my life I won’t have back). Her testimony consists of merely anecdotal evidence — no studies or statistics — just the kind of sob stories Democraps always shovel out when shilling for one of their interest groups — in this case women. Story after story of how this woman and that one suffered because of not having birth control in the health plan.

My favorite is the one where the woman goes to the pharmacy to pick up her birth control and is told — the horror!– that it isn’t covered. She slinks away in shame. Oh the humanity, she’s scarred for life. Then another one gets raped and one gets pregnant and it’s life-threatening and on and on. All because they somehow can’t afford birth control.

What’s missing in these stories is “I”. None of these things happened to Sandra Fluke. We only have her word for it that she spent money on birth control at all. In other words, it’s purely to give her standing to be a witness — because you can’t testify in a matter unless you have standing — that she tells us it’s a financial burden to her. Is it? Again, we don’t know. She’s a woman, she’s attending GT, GT has a policy of not paying for birth control. Beyond that we know nothing. Limbaugh actually helps her by implying that she’s sexually active, which is not in her testimony. Sigh.

(My sense is that she’s not very active sexually, or if she is, it’s of a kind to make contraception superfluous. Or unnecessary. But that’s just me. I’m sure Rush, with his vast knowledge of women, knows better)

2. Well, if she’s not getting laid three times a day and expecting us to pay for it, why did she testify? That’s easy now that we know some things about her. She’s thirty years old, not married, worked for years in New York as an advocate on women’s issues — human trafficking, domestic violence, various kinds of “rights” expansion — such as advocating to obtain court order protection for unmarried women and for LGBTQ partners. In other words, an agitator, a community organizer, an Alinskyite. At some point she moved on to “women’s reproductive justice,” as an issue.

Obviously, she was not testifying on her own behalf as a sexually active, irresponsible young woman. She was testifying on behalf of other woman who actually ARE young, irresponsible and sexually active. She’s an advocate. Because that’s what she does. It’s her job, her career, her profession. Expanding and extending “rights” is what these people do, in order to build their own power.

And that’s the real issue here — the fact that the Democraps tried to sneak in a ringer who is far from the dewy young co-ed trying to win our sympathy. This battleaxe is a veteran of many a manifesto and an action. She’s the head of Law Students for Reproductive Justice. She’s worked for NOW’s legal arm.. Her undergraduate degree? A double major – Policy Analysis and Feminist, Gender and Sexuality Studies.

This has nothing to do with sex and everything to do with power. Figure how long the Democraps have been planning this — have to have been, to have this ringer in place — and it goes much farther back than Stephanopolous letting the cat out of the bag at the debate.

This would have been a golden opportunity to point out the duplicity of Democraps — but now we can’t. The best we can do is try to make the story go away as soon as possible. That won’t happen with people defending Limbaugh — or rather robotically repeating his words, since there is no defense. And yeah, the sponsors are being cowardly, but they’re in business to make money and they think it’s gonna cost them. Bottom line is always the bottom line.