Normal People: But Why Is Rush Limbaugh So Wrong With His Comments? HuffPo: Because, duh.

No explanation needed apparently. He's Rush Limbaugh, that's all you need to know, mouth-breather.

Rush Limbaugh—apparently not content with having caused the Sandra Fluke firestorm—waded into the birth control debate once more on his Wednesday show. This time, the subject was the Supreme Court's recent ruling in the so-called Hobby Lobby case.

The Court said that Hobby Lobby and other "closely held" companies cannot be required to cover birth control for their employees. Limbaugh, who supported the decision, said that the issue should have never been up for debate in the first place.

Ok, he must've said something really, really, REALLY bad.

On Wednesday, the radio host weighed in again. He said one listener called him to point out that the federal government does not require employers to cover eye exams or dental work.

"Which is worse, to go blind from lack of regular eye exams or to get pregnant? And again, pregnancy is something you have to do to cause," Limbaugh said. "It doesn't just happen to you while you're walking down the street except in the case of sexual abuse."

He claimed that women treat pregnancy "like a disease" even though it is the consequence of their actions. "And yet, they wouldn't have the problem if they didn't do a certain thing," he said. "It's that simple."

Um, ok. So really? Where's the controversy? They don't treat pregnancy like a disease? I would expand the term "women" to "Liberal women." Actually, just "liberals" treat pregnancy as a disease. I point to Mr. Fingernail as an example.

 His comments come as no surprise considering the infamous remarks he has made about birth control in the past. In 2012, Limbaugh created a firestorm when he called Fluke — then a law student who had testified at a Democratic hearing about the need for birth control — a "slut" and a "prostitute."

That's not quite what he said. At the very least, there was a point he was trying to make, though you can decide whether or not the point was successfully made. The quotes:

"What does that make her?" he asks. "It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She's having so much sex she can't afford contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex."

And

“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."

Now we can argue the success of the validity of the point. Personally I think he's not that far off but there is more there. Using the state to get what you want and making others pay for it? We can attribute that to welfare as well, doesn't make them sluts. But the HuffPo presents it like Rush just said something like:

"That slut Sandra Fluke is testifying before congress."

The reason why there was such a firestorm is that the point isn't really that far off. If you are making others pay for you to have all the sex you want, well at the very least it should raise an eyebrow on your behavior.

But we don't want to actually argue the points, we just want to shout people down, demonize them, discredit them, and basically dismiss the person without actually addressing any points. They don't really rebuke his point, just flat out state he's wrong like it's just self-evident. It's more typical hack reporting that I've come to expect from the Huffington Post.