Limbaugh recounted the story  No stranger to controversy, conservative talk radio commentator Rush Limbaugh stirred up a wasp’s nest last week when he concluded Georgetown Law student Sandra Fluke had to be a slut and a prostitute.   

More specifically, he said, “What does it say about the college co-ed Susan Fluke [sic] who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex–what does that make her?  It makes her a slut, right?  It makes her a prostitute.” Limbaugh added, ”She’s having so much sex she can’t afford the contraception.  She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex.” 

On Saturday, without retracting the reasons for his rant, Limbaugh apologized to Ms. Fluke on his website for his “insulting word choices.” 

He needn’t have.

The derogatory term “slut” refers to a sexually-promiscuous woman, “prostitute” to  someone who accepts payment for sex acts.  As injudicious and inflammatory as his words were, Limbaugh was correct since, by definition, Sandra Fluke fits the definitions. 

Republican Presidential hopeful Rick Santorum characterized Limbaugh as “absurd,” House Speaker Boehner termed his language ”inappropriate,” and President Barack Hussein Obama called Ms. Fluke with some encouraging words. 

In what was the most outrageous defense, Jesuit Georgetown University President John DeGioa praised her: “She was respectful, sincere, and spoke with conviction.  She provided a model of civil discourse.  This expression of conscience was in the tradition of the deepest values we share as a people.” 

What Jesuitical BS! 

On the other side of the controversy, Bill O’Reilly also criticized Ms. Fluke for wanting taxpayers to pay her for her hyperactive sexual activities, Michelle Malkin called her a radical feminist tool, and Eric Bolling said, “She seems like a plant.”

Rep. Darryl Issa precipitated the Fluke controversy when he refused to allow her to testify at last month’s hearings on religious liberty and the constitutionality of Obama’s mandate that church-related institutions bury their collective consciences by providing free insurance coverage for women seeking sterilization, abortafacient drugs, and contraceptives. 

Obama’s “compromise,” shifting the burden of providing “free”  birth control to those institutions’ insurance companies, simply meant religious institutions would pay indirectly through increased premiums for what they regard as morally-objectionable procedures. 

Issa’s decision that Ms. Fluke was unqualified to testify in a matter involving the Constitution and religious rights was totally valid.

Nevertheless, ignoring constitutional issues, Democrats used Ms. Fluke as a tool to cover Obama’s infringement on religious liberty and promptly provided her with a forum to espouse her point of view. 

The next day she appeared on MSNBC’s “The Ed Show” where she told Ed Schultz that the outpouring of support ”really has meant a lot to me.  And I think to women across America . . . I don’t really see why anyone would not condemn this type of language.”

She said she would testify in the future if asked and, with a blinding sense of altruism, promised, “I think what I’m going to be doing from here on out is just continuing to do what I have been, sharing the stories of the women who contact me and really trying to make sure that their voices are being heard.” (http://huff.to/wHwFSs) 

With all her sex exploits, it’s hard to imagine Fluke has time to campaign for anything.  When she ever gets around to her 3rd year law studies is another question. 

Shortly after the start of this whole brouhaha, it became obvious that Eric Bolling and Michelle Malkin are right on target in their assessments of Sandra Fluke: Not only is she a plant and a tool but she is a liar and a Democrat operative.  

First of all, Fluke’s contention that birth control is costing her upwards of $1,000 annually is extremely exaggerated since condoms are free in any public health clinic and Planned Parenthood estimates the cost of The Pill at $15 to $50 a month. 

Even the most sexually active law student at Georgetown who is paying $60,000 a year in tuition, room and board, books, and fees should be able to afford  pregnancy protection without institutional or governmental assistance.  Rumor has it that Ms. Fluke has a scholarship, which makes her inability to pay at most $12 a week to romp in the hay or her bed more improbable. 

A radical alternative solution for her financial plight would be to curb her insatiable lust and practice sexual abstinence, alternatives she doesn’t seem to have considered.    

However, the fraudulent Ms. Fluke’s deceptions go far beyond mere lust and money.  Not that the mainstream media will report it but it turns out she is not what she seems to be nor what she was presented to be.  

Sandra FlukeThe MSM initially portrayed her as an innocent 23 year old naif when, in fact, she is a fairly ripe and experienced 30 year old with a “professional background in domestic violence and human trafficking” who chose Georgetown for the express purpose of undermining its policy of not granting students an imprimatur for being promiscuous.    

She is also a former president of Law Students for Reproductive Justice and vice president of the Women’s Legal Alliance who received a B.S. degree in Policy Analysis & Management and in Feminist, Gender, & Sexuality Studies from Cornell University in 2003.  (http://bit.ly/x9k1M0)   

If Ms. Fluke was not a plant of the Democrat Party and a tool for its agenda, then she must be just a sex-crazed imbecile who thinks her school should subsidize her appetites. 

Either way, Rush was right in suggesting her parents would be ashamed of her and wrong in apologizing for calling her a ”slut” and a “prostitute.”