Bill O'Reilly Still Slut Shaming & Lying About Sandra Fluke

Move over Miley Cyrus, Bill O'Reilly has a new obsession. It's been almost a week since Sandra Fluke spoke at the Democratic Convention and Bill O'Reilly just can't stop slut shaming and lying about her. As News Hounds Ellen pointed out, he couldn't stop talking about her on Monday night's "Factor." Last night he continued his obsessive fixation on how Fluke during his seemingly endless braying about how these "far left" sluttly slut feminists and Planned Parenthood want to open drive through abortion clinicsat the nearest mall. Snark aside, O'Reilly is a fan of the white, Christian, male power structure who long for the "halcyon" days, when women "knew their place" and "accepted that sex was a dirty thing they should go out of their way to avoid, lest the taint of it made them unmarriageable." For O'Reilly and his patriarichal pals, Fluke epitomizes a new kind of woman who isn't willing to conform to fifties fantasies of womanhood. For Bill O'Reilly, she's a bad girl who needs to be punished.

O'Reilly's newest meme is that those who spoke out for reproductive rights, at the Democratic Convention, are a bunch of "far left" zealots who will alienate more moderate Democrats. The reality is that 60% of Democrats are pro-choice. Meanwhile, he hasn't said bupkis about the truly far right GOP platform which calls for a constitutional amendment that will ban all abortions even in cases of rape and incest. Meanwhile O'Reilly, who has never and never will face a pregnancy that would be an economic hardship or a health risk, totally denies that abortion rights and access to abortion are being eroded at a record pace.

Last night, during his interview with George Stephanopoulos, O'Reilly obsessed. He said that although there are moderate Democrats in the party, "speaker after speaker" at the Democratic Convention were "very far left." He asked if that surprised Stephanopoulos. After Stephanopoulos said that it "energizes" Democrats in the same way that immigration issues do, O'Reilly said that there are a many positions on immigration and pivoted back to the obsession: "Unfettered abortion, we're talking partial birth" (it's so-called partial birth, Bill) "we're talking don't tell the parents if the girl is 12" (14 states already have no parental notification) "we're talking basically anything goes. That's what NARAL wants, Planned Parenthood, Sandra Fluke. They all want that."

Stephanopoulos agreed that it could hurt Democrats and asserted that Bill Clinton's position, that abortion be "safe, legal, and rare," is the position of most Americans. (Not O'Reilly who wants it illegal and unsafe!). When he said that support for abortion declines "when common sense restrictions are not allowed, Bill agreed and said "that's what Caroline Kennedy, Fluke and all these people were saying that 'hey listen don't you be limiting me, we want to choose anything." Stephanopoulos' comment that these women were talking more about contraception provided the perfect seque for Bill to commence the lying and slut shaming:

Nah, I think that's a straw man...a ghost issue that got Sandra Fluke a lot of publicity but the majority of Americans simply don't want to pay for it, OK, George. They don't want to pay for Sandra Fluke's lifestyle choices whatever they may be. I'm in that camp and if you're gonna tell me that I gotta pay for Sandra Fluke's birth control, I'm gonna tell you that's an extremist position."

When Stephanopoulos tried to say that Americans don't want Planned Parenthood defunded, Bill yelled about how he wants it de-funded because they do abortions. When Stephanopoulos said that most Americans support Planned Parenthood, Bill said he didn't believe it and if Americans were asked if they want their tax dollars to go to Planned Parenthood they would say no. He did admit that he could be wrong but "he's very rarely wrong."

As do all the right wing misogynists, O'Reilly misrepresents Fluke's advocacy which is for contraception with no co-payment for all women who have health insurance - something that is now available to Fox News employees and which O'Reilly is now paying for. Unless his insurer is the same as Georgetown's, he has no connection to birth control for Georgetown women. Fluke NEVER alluded to her own "lifestyle choices." Unmentioned by O'Reilly and others on Fox is how Fluke spoke of the unfairness of Georgetown employees having their birth control covered while the students, who PAY for their health insurance, don't. But who needs facts when you have a personal attack to launch.

In the war on women, O'Reilly is the commander-in-chief!

Do you like this post?

	Tweet

Showing 18 reactions

Hank Reisner commented 2012-09-14 04:11:45 -0400 · Flag

@Jon – You were pretty fair and present me a real borderline case – you did mention my screen name change, but did not quite make a personal attack. The criteria was inability to respond to argument without going ad hominem – I guess you did not quite pass by the strictest test, but I do appreciate your position. I do wish you would consider the nature of insurance in spreading risk over time, and and people, and consider what is going on when a given service (taken regularly) must be included. Carefully considered, I think you will come to agree with me.

Hank Reisner commented 2012-09-14 03:55:41 -0400 · Flag

@Jon Toomey – So, you concede the principle that Catholic institutions should not have to pay a dime for contraception? That’s progress. I am a purchaser of health insurance – and, happily provide coverage with contraceptives without a manddate – and, it is evident you don’t know how this works. Give you an example, my mother works for a Catholic institution and is nearly 70. She pays less than $200 per month for health insurance – do you think for a millisecond that is the cost of her premium? If your not well acquainted with this, fine, you are forgiven, at least we agree on principles, but ask yourself this: should a Catholic hospital be required to offer abortion services, even provided that the cost of those services will be fully reimbursed? BTW – see how this is narrowing, becoming more focused and detailed. That’s good. We’ve come along way from hyperventilation about the good guys versus the neanderthals, right?

Jon Toomey commented 2012-09-14 02:48:18 -0400 · Flag

And as far as going to another school or hospital,I happen to agree. People should go elsewhere. And when the catholic church goes bankrupt in thier institutions,it will serve them right. That’s if they don’t keep running thier mouths and get thier tax exempt status revoked. The pope won’t be happy when he has to start paying taxes in the US.

Jon Toomey commented 2012-09-14 02:45:21 -0400 · Flag

I agree sir,you are pathological. No one is forcing thier beliefs on your,or the catholic church’s wallets for those students insurance. Nor for any workers at catholic hospitals. They are paying thier own premiums. Not you,and not the church, So frankly,not only can you not settle on a screen name,but you aren’t telling the truth about who is paying for thier insurance or treatments.

We are not talking about kids on welfare here,but young adults in colleges,and professionals in work environments.

No one expects you or anyone else of religious mind to buy those services that you disagree with. But that is the point,you are NOT buying them. And women with medical needs have every right for the insurance they purchase to cover what they need. That’s none of the church’s concern,and certainly none of yours or mine.

I like religion just fine. I happen to be Pentacostal and love my church family dearly. But then the church I go to isn’t lying and distorting the case against these women for silly ideas that Jesus would laugh at.

Hank Reisner commented 2012-09-14 02:18:41 -0400 · Flag

@ Jon – Then, I am pathological. My view is that it is about the belief that sex is for procreation, or at least the right to hold that view, not the desire to see someone suffer from a health problem. I think my point has been well made here, as the opposition has now clarified that the civil rights cause comes down to cyst treatment, and the notion that sincere religious belief is merely 2000 year old dogma. Perhaps it is. So, choose another school or institution to attend and/or work for, and stop forcing your beliefs on other people’s wallets.

Jon Toomey commented 2012-09-14 00:00:41 -0400 · Flag

The only pathology here imo is people trying to make this about sex,and not about medical needs. No where in Fluke’s testimony before Congress was it specified to be about people screwing. Fluke’s friend’s problems weren’t from sex.

The whole religious argument is bogus. The whole ‘sex’ argument is bogus as well. Medical needs for cysts and other women’s health problems should not be reliant on someone’s 2000 year old dogma. Not even my own.

Hank Reisner commented 2012-09-13 18:29:22 -0400 · Flag

@bemused – Its not a principle of equality under the law, that is a constitutional guarantee.

There is no insinuation whatsoever. I agree with your points on the benefits and uses of contraceptives. I am pro-contraceptive, but I am unwilling to force others to pay for mine, and certainly not willing to castigate others as neanderthals for questioning this.

Your points on religion confirm my point. Not one ounce of respect for religious freedom – and, people did more than march in the street to win that for us. Subordinate rights to the “greater good” – how has that philosophy borne out historically? Sure, there are challenges in defining a religion, but no doubt exists on this issue. Are you suggesting that because its difficult, and the lines are debatable, we just abandon the right altogether. In addition, there is a difference between a law which requires everyone to refrain from certain conduct, which sometimes touches religious practices, versus requiring an institution to affirmatively support something it preaches against.

Hank Reisner commented 2012-09-13 17:37:12 -0400 · Flag

@bemused – I imagine we agree on equal treatment. Of course, the equality principle respects that likes are treated as likes, EXCEPT with respect to their differences. Viagra and contraceptives are alike, but only at a superficial level. They both result, hopefully, in the ability of one to enjoy a healthy sex life. However, one treats a health problem, the other does not. Moreover, one (for whatever reason) offends the religious practice of certain institutions. The other, as fas as I know, does not. I’m fine with leaving them both out – OF REQUIRED coverage. And, I say this, as someone who purchases health care coverage for a small business and has seen premiums literally explode over the past two years.

bemused commented 2012-09-13 16:18:43 -0400 · Flag

@Henry Rigler wrote:

“…or viagra, for that matter.” My point exactly. What’s good for the gander should be good for the goose. (I know that’s not quite how the saying goes but a gander is male …).

“… trivialise the civil rights movement and other causes by the comparison.”: The right to be considered equal under law is not a trivial conquest by any standard.

“…plans that do not cover certain âlifestyleâ items …”: the insinuation, here, is that women who practice birth control are promiscuous (=sluts in the language of Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly). That’s simply not true: the vast majority of women using birth control want to keep on loving their husbands physically without compromising their ability as parents to feed, clothe and educate the kids. Catholics throughout the world are ignoring the ban on contraception.

“… long-standing religious institutions and their beliefs be bent to the Will of the State.” So Mormons can go back to polygamy and marriage at puberty? Arranged marriages are OK if they’re common in the old country ? Christian men from countries where beating the wife and kids is accepted can continue to do so when they come to America?

And how long must a religion exist for it to be considered “long-standing”? 4000 years or more (Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism)? 1957 years (Christianity)? 600 years (Islam)? 200 years (LDS)? 60 years (Scientology)?

In a contrast between anything and the greater good (healthy kids, happy parents, a skilled workforce and consumers with money in their pockets), it’s the greater good that should prevail.

PS: You may not know that the administrators of the site can find out if you’re actually Henry Ritter. Using a sockpuppet is frowned upon in polite circles.

Hank Reisner commented 2012-09-13 14:46:22 -0400 · Flag

@Bemused – Let’s test your logic, then. If viagra were not covered, would that be a civil rights issue on par with your fights during the 60’s? I think you trivialize the Civil Rights movement and other causes by the comparison. Is there no sense of a measured position anymore? The days of male birth control are coming and the same logic will certainly apply but I will not demand (then or now) that long-standing religious institutions and their beliefs be bent to the Will of the State. Moreover, in the interest of promoting affordability of insurance coverage, I don’t think its evil to suggest that the market should be allowed offer some plans that do not cover certain “lifestyle” items such as contraceptives, or viagra, for that matter.

bemused commented 2012-09-13 13:24:48 -0400 · Flag

@Ritter: Yours is the silliest, most illogical comment on this thread IMO.

Sandra’s cause is the same one I fought for when I was young(er) during the Sixties. There are elements in the USA and elsewhere that are trying to roll back our rights and we’re having none of it, so there (boo!)

Are you aware that viagra is covered by many health plans? Do you consider that to be silly or illogical. Thought not.

Hank Reisner commented 2012-09-13 11:44:23 -0400 · Flag

The only pathology here is the notion that Ms. Fluke’s gripe – that of a 30 year old law student of an elite, Catholic university – equates with a cause. Certainly, any logical being would subscribe more weight to the religious objection (wrong-headed, but earnest) to contraception, or simply the idea that an individual should bear the cost of their own contraception, than Fluke’s feathery interest. Still, banish logic, and sound the charge, “the Patriarchs are coming, the Patriarchs are coming!!” The Silly Season is truly upon us.

Anne-claire Souza commented 2012-09-13 10:36:32 -0400 · Flag

And would he not just love to be the one to punish her,whips and chains in Bile’s chamber of horrors.Along with a bit of water boarding and mind control.The man is a creep.

bemused commented 2012-09-13 02:28:44 -0400 · Flag

Thx4 Fish: I particularly resent having to pay higher premiums for car insurance because so many accidents are caused by drunk drivers.

Joseph West: Indeed, the submission of women is a fixation of practically all the fundamentalist sects, starting with the Taliban.
In Bill O’Reilly’s pinoli-sized brain, the Taliban are wrong only because he (Bill) doesn’t have a financial interest in the sale of burqa-making cloth. His fixation on Ms. Fluke is so pathological that it cannot fail to disgust most people, especially women.

Sorry, Bill, I didn’t quite get that … could you please repeat it?

Thx4 Fish commented 2012-09-12 23:55:48 -0400 · Flag

If insured people stopped paying for each others’ lifestyle choices we would have no insurance. Apparently Bill O’Reilly is calling for the end of insurance as we know it. Not to worry, tomorrow he’ll find a way to hate on the Dems by loving insurance again, because on Fox News nobody’s paying that much attention.

brock johns commented 2012-09-12 22:51:28 -0400 · Flag

“the taint of it made them unmarriageable”

Are men different today or are they just faking it due to the shortage of low-taint (forget no-taint) women?

Joseph West commented 2012-09-12 20:12:10 -0400 · Flag

Snark aside, O’Reilly is a fan of the white, Christian, male power structure who long for the “halcyon” days, when women “knew their place” and “accepted that sex was a dirty thing they should go out of their way to avoid, lest the taint of it made them unmarriageable.”
*******
The irony, of course, is that the same men wouldn’t think twice about finding a hooker or take a mistress to have all that sex that the wives wouldn’t do because the husbands made them feel ashamed for enjoying sex. (And we mustn’t forget the men who would, in one breath, go persecuting the “queers” in the workplace while seeking them out for sex in parks and public bathrooms before heading home to the wife and kids.)

And these men would then teach their sons it was perfectly acceptable to seek out some “tramp” to sate his teenage lusts but to seek out a “good girl” to marry. (The daughters, of course, were warned about the nasty “perverts” who only wanted one thing from them and that, if they should let themselves be “used,” they’d better be ready to find somewhere else to live if they found themselves in the “family way.”)

(Just as a minor technicality, the power structure that O’Reilly really favors wasn’t limited to “white” or “Christian” when it came to women. That particular power structure applied to all men—except the “queers”—of all colors and faiths.)

Sarah Rames commented 2012-09-12 19:21:17 -0400 · Flag

Wasn’t this the plot of a bad late ’70’s, early ’80’s horror movie? “Slut. Must. Die.” Oh, wait that was “Halloween.” My bad.