# Did Limbaugh slander Sandra Fluke? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 8, 2012, 4:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-limbaugh-slander-sandra-fluke/615117 "2012-03-08T04:58:44Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 19\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2012, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-limbaugh-slander-sandra-fluke/615117/181 "2012-03-15T21:00:20Z")
> [@Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](#): > > No, we don’t have to live with that definition because you see, language evolves. > > It’s defined in modern terms primarily as sexually promiscuous. [Look](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slut) [it](http://www.thefreedictionary.com/slut) [up](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/slut) [a](http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=slut) [few](http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/slut?region=us&q=slut) [times](http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/slut_1?q=slut). > > So why don’t we shed the archaic definition, shall we? Now, we define sexual promiscuity. It’s a bit subjective, no? How many is too many? How casual is too casual? Let me guess. You know when you see it, right? :dubious: Yes. And, frankly, that’s the truth: one person’s “slut” is another’s “healthy young woman.” There is no way to sue for defamation when the term can mean so many things to so many people. You can’t be defamed by opinion. You can be defamed only by an objectively false statement. And ‘slut’ is only objectively false if you adhere to the archaic definition. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2012, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-limbaugh-slander-sandra-fluke/615117/182 "2012-03-15T21:00:22Z")
> [@Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](#): > > Do I see a problem with putting the burden of proof in that case on the defendant? Hell no. No more than I see a problem with being prohibited from yelling, “Fire!” in a crowded theatre. Not all free speech is conducive to societal benefit. So, uh-huh, from now on whenever anyone criticizes another person, say, the president or the head of Goldman Sachs or, hell, Joseph Kony, they’re going to have to be prepared to be dragged into court and prove that they’re not lying. Or is it just sex that’s the problem here? The sexual reputation of women? If that’s case, what you’re doing is re-establishing the outdated norms of sexual propriety and mandating that everyone must protect the sexual reputation of poor, weak women or face the wrath of the judicial system. (Have we completely forgotten the prior issue here, that Limbaugh wasn’t actually making a claim of fact that a reasonable person would believe as true in the first place?) ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2012, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-limbaugh-slander-sandra-fluke/615117/183 "2012-03-15T21:10:49Z")
> [@Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](#): > > And, yet the [Louisiana Supreme Court](http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11800886348444086786&q=Smith+v.+Atkins,&hl=en&as_sdt=2,41&as_vis=1) managed to do so. As did the [Illinois Supreme Court](http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14888414903324054939&q=defamation+slut&hl=en&as_sdt=2,41&as_vis=1). No. Where do you get the idea that the Atkins court engaged in any analysis other than what we have laid out here? In the Illinois case, the plaintiff swore in her complaint that she was chaste. Did you miss that? ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2012, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-limbaugh-slander-sandra-fluke/615117/184 "2012-03-15T21:18:21Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > (Have we completely forgotten the prior issue here, that Limbaugh wasn’t actually making a claim of fact that a reasonable person would believe as true in the first place?) As I said before, his claim that she was having so much sex that she couldn’t afford it seems to me to be a claim of fact, and one that a dittohead might believe as true. The “reasonable person” standard needs to be viewed, I believe, in light of the current electorate :(. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2012, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-limbaugh-slander-sandra-fluke/615117/185 "2012-03-15T21:19:52Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > As I said before, his claim that she was having so much sex that she couldn’t afford it seems to me to be a claim of fact, and one that a dittohead might believe as true. The “reasonable person” standard needs to be viewed, I believe, in light of the current electorate :(. How much sex is that? There is no difference in cost no matter how much sex you have – assuming you have any, that is. True? ---
**Author:** ![Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/brown_eyed_girl/32/3574_2.png) [@Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brown_Eyed_Girl)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2012, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-limbaugh-slander-sandra-fluke/615117/186 "2012-03-15T22:19:46Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > So, uh-huh, from now on whenever anyone criticizes another person, say, the president or the head of Goldman Sachs or, hell, Joseph Kony, they’re going to have to be prepared to be dragged into court and prove that they’re not lying. Criticizing or maligning someone’s reputation? There’s a difference. Do you drag them into court for criticism? No, that’s not defamation. You can call Obama a socialist all you like. But yeah, if you’re going to call someone’s reputation into question (see categories for defamation per se), that’s a bit different. You go out and publicly allude that the daycare operator in your neighborhood is a kiddy diddler. His business fails because parents can’t take the chance that it’s true, so they pull their kids out. That’s wrong. But you want to be able to ask his ten-year-old son in court if daddy ever touched him down there. That’s fucked up. You tell your clients that your boss slept her way into her position. Wrong. But now you want to make her tell you in court all the people she’s slept with to determine if she was promoted as a result of sexual favors. In so doing, you happen to find a bitter ex-employee only too willing to testify that he bent her over the copier one random day they worked together. In the meantime, she’s been let go because well, the firm can’t be stained by the question of impropriety, even it’s untrue. Yeah, that’s justice. > [@](#): > > Or is it just sex that’s the problem here? The sexual reputation of women? You may wish that sexual repression and judgement over a person’s sexual behavior is a thing of the past, but you’ll have to come to terms with the fact that it has not. Is it only women who are judged for their sexuality? Heck no, gay men get it too. Single fathers of teen daughters are also subjected to it, unfortunately. There’s a lot of fucked up people in this country. Still. Shocking, isn’t it? Yet, in the case of defamation, it also happens to business people and employees with regard to their professional reputations. The difference is that the stigma surrounding false accusations and unethical behavior imprints less deeply. Look, people were even prepared to elect a guy who couldn’t manage a freakin’ casino without it going bankrupt! Obviously, even that kind of failure can be recovered from. > [@](#): > > If that’s case, what you’re doing is re-establishing the outdated norms of sexual propriety and mandating that everyone must protect the sexual reputation of poor, weak women or face the wrath of the judicial system. Wrong. All I’m saying is that when someone says something publicly that damages the reputation (or even calls it into question) of a person who takes issue with such a statement, that when called to the carpet, it is the defamer who has to back his statement up with evidence; not that the victim be required to defend himself or herself. Doesn’t matter what the nature of the defamation is or the gender of either of the parties. > [@](#): > > (Have we completely forgotten the prior issue here, that Limbaugh wasn’t actually making a claim of fact that a reasonable person would believe as true in the first place?) Really? So all those pundits who parroted the statement and even expanded upon it recognized the unreasonableness of that claim? All those ordinary Americans who further disparaged the reputation of a woman they don’t even know were also reasonable people? Could have fooled me. Did his listeners or conservative pundits correct him or actually dismiss those statements as rhetorical? Am I to understand that the ones who did are reasonable and the ones who didn’t are unreasonable. And neither makes a bit of difference if the publicity surrounding such remarks have a detrimental impact on Ms. Fluke? ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2012, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-limbaugh-slander-sandra-fluke/615117/187 "2012-03-15T23:51:45Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > How much sex is that? There is no difference in cost no matter how much sex you have – assuming you have any, that is. True? I’m not the one who made the statement, so I don’t see why I should have to quantify it. As I see it, the relevant facts are: 1. Regardless of how much sex she was having, she can establish a prima facie case that she could afford it (i.e., that his claim was false), after which it’s up to Limbaugh to show that she’s not telling the truth (i.e., that he was correct). It’s during his rebuttal that the quantification of “how much sex is that” would need to occur. 2. His claim was so divorced from reality that there’s no way he could show it to be other than reckless. 3. His audience of millions included a large number of people who were likely to take the claim at face value. Unless the “reasonable person” criterion automatically excludes dittoheads, I don’t think he can get away with claiming that the claim was so ludicrous that it shouldn’t be considered defamatory. Do you disagree with any of those points, or do you think there’s something else relevant? ---
**Author:** ![Katie84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/85e7bf/32.png) [@Katie84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Katie84)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2012, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-limbaugh-slander-sandra-fluke/615117/188 "2012-03-16T00:35:41Z")
> [@Chefguy](#): > > It seemed to me that while he alluded to her testimony, he stopped short of actually saying that SHE was a slut or a prostitute. Seems it was more along the lines of “what do you call someone who does that? A slut! A prostitute!” It’s a thin line. Not only did he most certainly call her a slut and a prostitute- he simply assumed that she was promiscuous at all! Birth control must be taken every day regardless of sexual activity, and if you miss a day, you take two. The amount of birth control taken has NOTHING to do with the amount of sex one is having, therefore Limbaugh is simply assuming that because she needs birth control, Fluke is having sex all the time. He called her a whore because he doesnt know how birth control works, not because he actually knows her sexual history. He is an idiot. ---
**Author:** ![Typo\_Knig](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/cdc98d/32.png) [@Typo\_Knig](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Typo_Knig)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2012, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-limbaugh-slander-sandra-fluke/615117/189 "2012-03-16T01:31:07Z")
But is he an idiot who could face a lawsuit? Sure, anyone with a lawyer could sue, but does Sandra Fluke have a case? We’ve debated Limbaugh’s “slut” comment to death and back. What legal barriers are there to Fluke suing Limbaugh for being called a prostitute? Or just for Limbaugh’s utter falsehoods about the content of her testimony. He spent more time calling her names than it would take to read her testimony. ---
**Author:** ![gamerunknown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6bbea6/32.png) [@gamerunknown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gamerunknown)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2012, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-limbaugh-slander-sandra-fluke/615117/190 "2012-03-16T02:19:53Z")
> [@](#): > > How much sex is that? There is no difference in cost no matter how much sex you have – assuming you have any, that is. True? Well, as Katie84 pointed out above, a reasonable Rush Limbaugh listener could make the false assumption that the birth control pills must be consumed with each act of intercourse, or that she was using condoms for those occurences too. > [@](#): > > you shouldn’t be bringing defamation claims like this in the first place. I _almost_ follow this line of reasoning: the enlightened thing to do would be to embrace the definition and use it to shame one’s opponents, reducing their potency of their [insults](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SlutWalk). The issue that this entails for a liberal Catholic (with their intricate political maneuvering) within the system is that it carries serious risk of excommunication and I’m assuming that future Catholic employers may not look favorably on that. Her testimony was actually very well crafted within the outlines of what is acceptable within Catholic theology as far as I’m aware and carried some emotional salience too. While I’m an advocate of libel reform (and I recall watching a video where Christopher Hitchens says that there was an injunction on referring to the BT tower that he received in the UK, so he couldn’t even mention that as anything other than “exhibit G” or something)… It appears that this would be her only recourse, since the perpetuation of the outmoded conception of female worth based on chastity is already fostered by the Church and Limbaugh. It’d also help dispel the _ad hom_ notion that people cannot argue forcefully and dispassionately. > [@](#): > > That’s kind of interesting. I wonder whether there are any cases in which a Catholic priest or monk brought such a lawsuit; those are the only cases I can think of where it’d be a really big honking deal. There’d have to be motive, which I can’t really think of: the times priests and monks commanded political power was probably when they were still permitted to be married or prior to the time where concerns of this nature were not handled internally (which they think is for all eternity). If there was ample evidence then they’d probably be excommunicated and thus without funds to defend themselves, if they revealed it privately it may be covered under confessional privilege. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2012, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-limbaugh-slander-sandra-fluke/615117/191 "2012-03-16T02:27:03Z")
> [@gamerunknown](#): > > There’d have to be motive, which I can’t really think of: the times priests and monks commanded political power was probably when they were still permitted to be married or prior to the time where concerns of this nature were not handled internally (which they think is for all eternity). Motive seems easy: 1. It really happened. 2. It didn’t happen, but an unscrupulous woman is looking for child support payments. 3. It didn’t happen, but a crazy woman imagined it did. 4. It didn’t happen, but someone who hates the priest wants to ruin his life by making him ineligible for the priesthood, or at least by throwing a monkeywrench into his career. 5. It didn’t happen, but the priest testified before congress about birth control, and some asshole called him a slut for it. ---
**Author:** ![gamerunknown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6bbea6/32.png) [@gamerunknown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gamerunknown)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2012, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-limbaugh-slander-sandra-fluke/615117/192 "2012-03-16T02:50:18Z")
I lol’d at number 5… For 4, they can remain deacons (I guess that would fit the definition of throwing a monkeywrench). My family knew a guy in the seminary that apparently had a major issue with clerical celibacy which caused him to wonder from parish to parish. It is strange that the Church hasn’t had to field off any claims of infidelity with consenting adults (well, none that were successfully contended in court). For 2, it seems to be one of the less plausible choices for claiming child support and for 1. I guess any women that knew a priest well enough would have to risk excommunication? Still doesn’t rule out 3, but perhaps a court wouldn’t even take such a case? All I can find is [this](http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=40380), heh. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2012, 7:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-limbaugh-slander-sandra-fluke/615117/193 "2012-03-16T07:33:49Z")
Incidentally, there’s no reason why we should get hung up on “Slut” and “Prostitute”. Limbaugh made 46 personal attacks after all: [http://mediamatters.org/research/201203050022](http://mediamatters.org/research/201203050022) > [@Rush Limbaugh](#): > > The left has been thrown into an outright conniption fit. … The reaction that they are having to what I said yesterday about Susan Fluke – or Sandra Fluke, whatever her name is – the Georgetown student who went before a congressional committee and said she’s having so much sex, she’s going broke buying contraceptives and wants us to buy them." Sandra Fluke made no mention of her sex life. **Question for the legal eagles, tia** I seriously doubt whether Miss Fluke will sue, mostly because I figure a Georgetown law student is probably bright and has access to savvy mentors. It’s not in her self interest and it won’t promote most good causes particularly well, at least in practice. I trust the ACLU would have worries. Setting that aside, here’s a question: as defamation involves harm to reputation, wouldn’t some sort of commissioned public polling survey be in order? Ask a bunch of dittoheads about what they think of Sandra Fluke and I would think that you could establish harm to reputation. I’m not sure what the damages would be though: Ms. Fluke probably suffered some social harm, but I suspect most (not all) future employers and suitors would be grown up about it. ---
**Author:** ![What\_the](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f4b2a3/32.png) [@What\_the](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_the)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2012, 11:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-limbaugh-slander-sandra-fluke/615117/194 "2012-03-16T11:44:23Z")
> [@Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](#): > > So, it is to assume that Limbaugh speaks the truth? That’s despicable. And if he does not, the victim’s only recourse is to involuntarily subject her private life to public scrutiny, which is completely out of the ordinary for any other private individual to be required to do. > > So, essentially, any jackass can publicly make any untoward comment about anyone else and get away with dragging their private life through the mud. Sure, if he’s a liar, he might have to pay legal fees, but now the world gets to peer into the private life of a private individual. Or he gets a judge (or jury) who is sympathetic to him (or his notions) and or adverse to the victim, and suddenly she can’t possibly prove a negative to their satisfaction. Hell, it’s been happening to women for centuries. Why change now? > > Do I see a problem with putting the burden of proof in that case on the defendant? Hell no. No more than I see a problem with being prohibited from yelling, “Fire!” in a crowded theatre. Not all free speech is conducive to societal benefit. Let’s make a dreal … for one day and one day only, you get to make all the rules and I get to apply them. ---
**Author:** ![Jenaroph](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e8c25b/32.png) [@Jenaroph](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jenaroph)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2012, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-limbaugh-slander-sandra-fluke/615117/195 "2012-03-16T13:57:24Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > As I said before, his claim that she was having so much sex that she couldn’t afford it seems to me to be a claim of fact, and one that a dittohead might believe as true. The “reasonable person” standard needs to be viewed, I believe, in light of the current electorate :(. Actually, I thought the bigger problem here is his claim that _she said_ she was having so much sex she couldn’t afford it. Which is a claim of fact that is demonstrably untrue, and is not also subject to discussions of how much sex that might be. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2012, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-limbaugh-slander-sandra-fluke/615117/196 "2012-03-16T14:08:49Z")
> [@Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](#): > > Criticizing or maligning someone’s reputation? There’s a difference. Do you drag them into court for criticism? No, that’s not defamation. You can call Obama a socialist all you like. I don’t see the difference. In fact, it’s arguable that calling Obama a socialist is just as or even more harmful as a way to malign a person’s reputation. > [@](#): > > But yeah, if you’re going to call someone’s reputation into question (see categories for defamation per se), that’s a bit different. You go out and publicly allude that the daycare operator in your neighborhood is a kiddy diddler. His business fails because parents can’t take the chance that it’s true, so they pull their kids out. That’s wrong. But you want to be able to ask his ten-year-old son in court if daddy ever touched him down there. That’s fucked up. First of all, this kind of charge is an accusation of a crime and one that is largely considered extremely reprehensible. It’s on a completely different level than calling someone a “slut” in the context of a political discussion of funding birth control – (1) It’s not a crime to be a slut, (2) It’s not all that bad to be considered a slut, (3) “Slut” doesn’t have any specific meaning, (4) It’s clear from the context that Limbaugh is speaking hyperbolically and with reference to a political disagreement and is not making a specific factual claim about Fluke that is meant to be taken literally. > [@](#): > > All I’m saying is that when someone says something publicly that damages the reputation (or even calls it into question) of a person who takes issue with such a statement, that when called to the carpet, it is the defamer who has to back his statement up with evidence And I’m telling you that this is an infringement of the _alleged_ defamer’s First Amendment rights. There isn’t a similar constitutional right on the other end of the balance. > [@](#): > > And neither makes a bit of difference if the publicity surrounding such remarks have a detrimental impact on Ms. Fluke? You take a certain amount of risk when you enter the public arena. Obama gets called a socialist and worse. Fluke gets called a slut. Both are opinions, and politically motivated ones at that. ---
**Author:** ![sciurophobic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cab0a1/32.png) [@sciurophobic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sciurophobic)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2012, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-limbaugh-slander-sandra-fluke/615117/197 "2012-03-16T16:04:44Z")
> [@Jenaroph](#): > > Actually, I thought the bigger problem here is his claim that _she said_ she was having so much sex she couldn’t afford it. Which is a claim of fact that is demonstrably untrue, and is not also subject to discussions of how much sex that might be. Exactly. Rush’s lie was not “Sandra Fluke is a prostitute and a slut”. The lie was “Sandra Fluke said ‘X’ which proves she is a slut and a prostitute.” She did not say “X” but in fact said “Y” which is completely different. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2012, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-limbaugh-slander-sandra-fluke/615117/198 "2012-03-16T16:10:35Z")
> [@Jenaroph](#): > > Actually, I thought the bigger problem here is his claim that _she said_ she was having so much sex she couldn’t afford it. Which is a claim of fact that is demonstrably untrue, and is not also subject to discussions of how much sex that might be. :smack: Yes–it’s the claim I’ve been making all along, and I can’t even get it right. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2012, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-limbaugh-slander-sandra-fluke/615117/199 "2012-03-16T17:04:24Z")
> [@Jenaroph](#): > > Actually, I thought the bigger problem here is his claim that _she said_ she was having so much sex she couldn’t afford it. Which is a claim of fact that is demonstrably untrue, and is not also subject to discussions of how much sex that might be. I don’t agree. While it is true that she did not say anything about her sex life, it was not a crazy leap: she said that “WE, as students have faced financial, emotional, and medical burdens…” as a result of the contraception policy. It is not a crazy inference to assume she wished to include herself. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-limbaugh-slander-sandra-fluke/615117.md?page=9)