Yes, perhaps it was an insensitive comment. But tg difference is that when Don Imus said "nappy-headed ho's" it was based on appearance and prejudice. In this case, a woman really is demanding that someone else pay for her promiscuous lifestyle - I guess she "has no choice", as she says.Besides, screw the media, and screw the selective outrage of the politicians. Where were the demands that Bill Maher apologize for calling Sarah Palin a c***? this happens all the time, but the collective "oh my I am so offended and demand an apology" comes from one quarter.And the president says Sandra Fluke's parents should be "proud" - of what? Their daughter who just went before Congress to declare that it is *impossible* to not have lots and lots and lots of unmarried sex?
peggy noonan from WSJ started getting into it with donna brazile this morning on stephanopolous' news program. brazile of course pointed out that she's a catholic & noonan gently illustrated that she is, too, and the church should not be forced to pay for something that is clearly not about women's health. whats-his-face from the DNC kept saying 'attack on women' and noonan bravely yet quietly said no, it's not. i think it's the 1st time i've seen this on a relatively respected sunday morning news show where a pro-church news person corrected an opponent and supported the church.
Merc - you're back!DB - I would have liked to see that - good for Peggy.
Please comment with charity and avoid ad hominem attacks. I exercise the right to delete comments I find inappropriate. Be sure and double check if your comment posted after you do the verification deal - sometimes it doesn't print if you made an error.