Firstly, no one condones Mr. Limbaugh's inappropriate language regarding Ms. Fluke. No one would like their mother, wife or daughter addressed like that. He has stated that he realizes what he did was inappropriate and has apologized. I assume positive intent with respect to the sincerity of his apology. Furthermore, all of his advertisers have the right to pull their spots from his show -- that's the way the market should work.
However, misogyny seems to cross political lines, even though the degree of indignation does not. To wit:
More importantly, Mr. Limbaugh's comments have allowed his opponents to obfuscate the underlying issues; principles that deserve serious discussion by the electorate and politicians.
Just to be clear, the metaphor 'wall of separation' does not appear in the Constitution or 1st Amendment, rather it was first used by President Jefferson in his letter to the Danbury Baptists dated January 1, 1802. I think it's useful to quote directly from the letter
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."
The Constitution and Jefferson's letter explicitly require the government to accomodate all religious beliefs because conscience is inalienable; given by God and not granted by men. Unfortunately Jefferson's metaphor fails to distinguish between 'separation' and 'non-establishment'; an ambiguity which has been the source of subsequent confusion and debate. Did the founders and do we really want to isolate religion from public life? Reading the founders, it clear that they did not think this. Moreover, many of the great social movements that have arisen from and been nurtured in the church including abolition and the civil rights movement. Our society would be much poorer without them.
I am not Catholic and admit to a certain sense of schadenfreude in light of the Catholic Church's position regarding Obamacare. However, their concerns regarding the insurance mandate are well-founded. The HHS mandate imposes an ethical point on view (i.e. restricts choice) and requires Catholic institutions to choose between violating their faith or face crushing fines for not providing insurance for their employees; an untenable infringement on their right to conscience. This in no way restricts anyone's ability to purchase contraceptive services. Likewise, employers don't provide their employees with food, transportation and other necessities of life; yet somehow their employees are able to access these services. The HHS mandate serves as a useful metaphor that the leviathan state naturally crowds out the private institutions of society. We can choose between big government and big freedom, including freedom of religion; we can not have both.