Rush Limbaugh says that “Mammograms are the convenant, the sacred covenant of feminazism.” I can’t say that I really know what that is supposed to mean. Digby says that it means Limbaugh wants women to die. I don’t know about that. It seems to me that Limbaugh wants everyone to die who gets sick and can’t afford the treatment. Limbaugh also refers in that clip to the National Association of Gals (the Nags), which is his cute term for the National Association of Women. He thinks they should endorse Meg Whitman over Jerry Brown because Brown once doubted the effectiveness of mammograms. Of course, he also doubted the effectiveness of prostate screening. It appears to have been a strange affectation of his during the 1990’s, and not some hostility to women. Ken Buck, however, seems to be hostile to women. It’s pretty callous to tell a rape victim that a jury is going to consider her claim a case of ‘Buyer’s Remorse’ when the alleged perpetrator is on the record as saying the following (apologies for explicit content):
He states after more questioning that maybe once or twice the victim said no. He stated he thought the victim did say no while he was fingering her. He stated he does recall her rolling away and saying no. He stated he agreed and then a short time later began touching the victim’s back and again inserting his fingers into her vagina… he stated after he had intercourse with the victim and climaxed, that he pulled out. He stated when he did so, the victim was barely conscious and that’s when he realized he had done something wrong. [Redacted] stated he thought the victim did say no shortly after he had climaxed, and while he was still inside of her.
The victim was quite drunk at the time and she did invite him to her home. She had had consensual sex with him in the past. But the man admitted repeatedly that she said no to him and that he didn’t listen. Despite this, Ken Buck, who was then the Weld County prosecutor, said the following:
“[D]ate rape is absolutely a crime and we will absolutely prosecute it,” Buck assured Coloradans. “I don’t want victims to be deterred from the pitiful facts in this case from coming forward.”
He even seemed to threaten the victim when she discussed seeking other legal remedies:
“Be aware of something, if this, if you file this motion, it will be very public, publicly covered event. There are a lot of things that I have a knowledge of, that I would assume [redacted] knows about and that they have to do with, perhaps, your motives for [unintelligible] and that is part of what our calculation has been in this.”
I admit that the case involved a degree of ambiguity, but when both parties agree that the woman said ‘no’ more than once, and the man admits that he knew he had done something wrong, how then does the prosecutor question the victim’s motives? How does he threaten to expose ‘a lot of things’ about her?
And what’s the worst thing about this story? If she had become pregnant “after he had climaxed…while he was still inside of her,” Mr. Buck would be in favor of forcing her to carry the pregnancy to term.
