Fluke

Sandra Fluke Does Not Speak for Me

I’m a proud Georgetown woman upset about another Georgetown woman who may have no pride at all.  How else do you explain  – Ms. Sandra Fluke, a Georgetown Law student, now famous for testimony she never gave – jumping up to talk about her sex life (with the House Minority Leader and with the liberal media) and ask for the cost of her sex life to be subsidized by other students at a Jesuit School?

Sandra Fluke was declined the privilege (a privilege, not a right) of testifying in front of a Senate Committee on the proposed contraceptive mandate.

Her name was submitted too late to be admitted to testify.  She’s not a lawyer. She’s not a member of the clergy – crucial for a hearing on religious freedom, wouldn’t you say?  That’s what Representative Issa said.  Her one claim to fame in the reproductive health care debate is…drumroll, please…being a student club leader! You go, Sandra! Hang those posters girl. Wear out those Sharpies.

Me?  I love me some extracurricular involvement. The difference between Sandra and me is that I don’t think it qualifies me to speak in front of Congress.  “The Chair calls to the stand  the captains of the intramural ultimate frisbee team!”

Having been told by Congress to more or less shut up and go home, Sandra found a sympathetic ear in Nancy Pelosi.  She is not going to find one on the Georgetown Campus. She is wildly out of step.

Senate Democrats needed a show pony for this circus – and they knew they could find a liberal woman on a college campus who would willingly trot around the ring.   That’s why Nancy & Pals created a photo op with all the props – the microphones, the podium, an air of pretense,  and the all-important liberal media – for Sandra to tell her “story.”  And it is just that – a story, told on a stage.

But Nancy Pelosi and the Liberal Media should know that they can no longer rely on college campuses as an endless source of liberal support. My colleagues and I at TheCollegeConservative are creating a new wave on campuses across the country. Every day we make it a little safer to be conservative – out in public – without fear of bad grades as a result of our views. Sandra should know we have no fear in calling out a classmate for thoughtless liberal ideology.

Sandra Fluke doesn’t speak for me. Or for Georgetown.

She doesn’t speak for those of us who worked hard to be able to choose to come to a great institution with a great tradition of faith and scholarship. She certainly can’t speak for the Jesuits who dedicated their lives to God and Education with a long established set of rules. There are only ten of them, and Ms. Fluke would do well to give them a quick read.

If she wants a more liberal sex life, she can go to Syracuse. (Syracuse, I must apologize – but we are in March and basketball matters – sorry you got caught up in this.)

Sandra doesn’t even speak for all skanks!  She only speaks for the skanks who don’t want to take responsibility for their choices.  That’s a tiny group of people.  Hey Sandra!  How about next Saturday night, you come hang out with me and my gay boyfriends!  Your hair will look fabulous and you’ll get to see great musical theatre!  Oh, and odds of you getting pregnant?  Zero percent.

Even the oh-so-left HuffPo called Sandra out on her media sluttery:  “Fluke got the stage all to herself and was hailed as a hero by the crowd and Democratic lawmakers on the panel, all of whom rushed to appear on camera with her at the end. “Excuse me. I’d love to get a picture with our star,” Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) said as she pushed her way through the packed room to Fluke.” Star of what? Star of the bedroom sex tape? When did Georgetown Law start admitting Kardashians?

Sandra, we might be on the same campus, but we are not on the same planet.

Sandra told some sob stories about how contraception isn’t covered by the Jesuit institution we attend. (Maybe they don’t cover it because, you know, they’re a Jesuit institution. Religious freedom? Anyone? Bueller?)

A student group called Plan A H*yas for Choice staged a demonstration against the university health plan last year, duct taping their mouths and chaining themselves to the statue of Georgetown’s founder on the university’s front lawn. Then, a funny thing happened – nothing. We left them there. Now Sandra has chained herself to the sinking ship of Pelosi Liberalism. She will always be remembered as a Welfare Condom Queen.

Let’s talk priorities here. It costs over $23,000 for a year at Georgetown Law. Sandra, are you telling us that you can afford that but cannot afford your own contraception? Really? Math was never my strong suit, but something about Sandra’s accounting just doesn’t seem right.

No one forced Sandra to come to Georgetown. And now that she has, Sandra does not have to depend on the university health plan. She could walk down the street to CVS and get some contraception herself. Or, go to an off-campus, non-university doctor and pay for it out of pocket. (Or, you know…maybe not have so much sex that it puts her in financial peril?)

Funny how the same side that cries “Get your rosaries off my ovaries” is the same side saying, “on second thought…please pay for me to have all the sex I want!” The people who espouse “pro-choice” “values” are the same people who say religious institutions have no right to choose.

Imagine if someone else had asked the government to cover a different activity. Let’s say I want to go rock climbing. It’s my body and my choice and I want to climb all the cliffs I can! Imagine if I went to the government and asked it to pay for helmets and ropes and band-aids I’ll need to safely climb rocks every day of my life. What would everyone say?

“It’s your choice to do that- no one’s forcing you to scale cliffs. So, either quit it or pay for it yourself!”

This is the reaction we should have had to Sandra Fluke.

Sandra, I hope you take to heart our school’s motto of “Cura Personalis” – care of the whole person. You are so much more than your reproductive organs. Please, have some self-respect and take responsibility for your choices instead of having to beg the government for help. The government should not be able to force a religious institution – like the one we attend – to pay for the things they don’t believe in. That is pretty clear in the first amendment. But since you missed the ten commandments I can’t expect you to read the Bill of Rights either.

I believe in Georgetown. I love this school. And I know that we are so, so much better than what Sandra Fluke would make us out to be.

Hoya Saxa.

Angela Morabito :: Georgetown University :: Washington, DC :: @_AngelaMorabito

Related News

1,195 Responses

Leave a Reply
  1. Greg Herman
    Apr 21, 2013 - 06:29 AM

    I always thought it was funny. Fluke needed an act of Congress to buy a sponge but claimed enough political clout to “endorse” Obama. Typical lefty nonsense: all fluff but no substance.

    Reply
  2. Mercy
    Jul 27, 2012 - 04:37 AM

    I’m a bit disappointed in this article. I come here for thoughtful right wing commentary, and all I got was thoughtless liberal-bashing that I’ve already heard from . . . less intellectual sources. If I wanted to listen to a parrot, I would have gone to a pet store.

    Reply
  3. Disgusted
    Jun 04, 2012 - 07:13 PM

    This article is not a debate on women’s contraceptive coverage and many of the “factual” points in this article are fallacies. Angela Morabito is making a personal attack on a fellow student, disrespecting her and personally attacking in Fluke in every way possible. I cannot believe there are people that find this sort of disrespectful discourse as appropriate or acceptable. Morabito’s opinions are expressed in a vicious and deceitful manner, showing an astonishing lack of manners or class. If these opinions were sent to Fluke directly, this would be deemed as cyber-bullying and harassment. Focus on the real issue of the debate and stop digressing with insults aimed at the individual.

    Reply
  4. Lauren
    May 10, 2012 - 12:30 AM

    from one woman to another, you disgust me. YOU do not represent me or any other woman in this country. Your ignorance on the issue is baffling.

    Reply
  5. Luke
    Apr 28, 2012 - 11:29 PM

    You’re a law student?! I wouldn’t hire you to watch my goldfish for the weekend. You seem to have not even mastered basic grade school concepts of cause and effect. “Excuse me. I’d love to get a picture with our star,” Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) said as she pushed her way through the packed room to Fluke.” Star of what? Star of the bedroom sex tape? When did Georgetown Law start admitting Kardashians?”.

    Ummm just so you know Sandra Fluke has no control over what other people say about her. That’s the cause and effect thing I am talking about, you are angry with someone for praise someone else heaped upon her. It seems you are just pulling a classic mean high school girl tactic, “I am soo much more talented and pretty than that skank, and she is stil getting more attention from our homeroom teacher, so I am going to go on the Internet and trash her…. there are other pretty but overlooked girls who will understand my pain.” You do realize that when you graduate you will also have to look for a job, and this little adolescent sputtering of jealousy will not look particularly flattering. Unless of course you are applying for a job with an equally conservative, juvenile, “mean-girl” mentality law firm, in which case you will be perfect.

    Reply
  6. thatguy
    Apr 13, 2012 - 11:38 PM

    Why do all the hot blondes have to be ignorant conservatives?

    Reply
  7. Skook
    Mar 15, 2012 - 11:02 PM

    Great Article, restores faith in today’s young people and our university system. When you have a chance, you might enjoy this article and its commentary.

    http://floppingaces.net/2012/03/12/cnn-seeks-to-limit-loss-of-credibility-by-rewriting-history/#comment-363995

    Reply
    • Alli
      Mar 21, 2012 - 09:07 PM

      Your argument is one giant (highly offensive and poorly written) fallacy. The thing about religious freedom is that it is personal. Is anyone shoving birth control down your throat? Raping you in the name of the Antichrist? I didn’t think so. As a member I a large insurance plan, I am forced to pay for others poor decisions on a daily basis- namely, obesity. I declare that I am morally opposed to obesity as a basis of my religion. Therefore, all junk food, soda, an sugar should be outlawed de to the chance that I might e forced to pay for he consequences of those decisions! Furthermore, having children is extremely expensive. I propose that every hold after your second should be fully funded to adulthood entirely by you, because it is against my religion to have more than two children. I’ll pay do my own bcp, of course, but you must pay for your children. See the slippery slope? The United States is not a Christian nation. Get over it and grow a brain while you’re at it. Nice try getting a job in this economy once you graduate with those faulty reasoning skills.

      Reply
  8. Fellow Hoya
    Mar 14, 2012 - 03:10 AM

    I am a fellow Georgetown student, and Angela Morabito does not speak for me.

    Reply
    • Georgetown Student and Basketball fan
      Mar 14, 2012 - 01:12 PM

      Agree!

      Reply
  9. Paolo
    Mar 13, 2012 - 12:20 PM

    sometimes the silver lining of an article is just that it’s an example of free speech, and nothing else.

    Reply
  10. ConservativeObserver
    Mar 13, 2012 - 03:14 AM

    After reading many comments from many people stating how expensive their b.c. pills were, I simply googled birth control price list. Here is a list of very affordable pills and how very little each CAN cost.http://www.reproductiveaccess.org/contraception/downloads/lowcost_pills.pdf As little as $4 a month. $48 a YEAR! Wow, and that was for a major very common brand, not just a generic. Also, for as little as $400-500 (with no insurance) you can get Mirena implanted. It’s good for up to 5 years and is as effective as female sterilization. It’s also good for helping with the many symptoms of endometriosis. So, for 1/6 of what Fluke says it would cost for her b.c., I can have Mirena, less likely to get pregnant from screwing up taking the pills or taking it along with antibiotics (which can cancel the b.c. and you get preggo)….it’s pretty much worry free and sooooooooo much cheaper. There are so many options, yet liberal women are trying to use this as a wedge to divide those women who are disappointed in the liberal rhetoric and broken promises, and are therefor turning away from Obama. It seems to be working, but we need to continue to fight the lies and manipulation by the left and the liberal MSM.

    Reply
    • ConservativeObserver
      Mar 13, 2012 - 03:18 AM

      Also, call your local health department. If you need free condoms, they can give them to you by the large brown bag full. Not only are you preventing pregnancies, but being safe and preventing a host of nasty diseases. See, free b.c. already. It’s a done deal, so this is pretty much a moot point.

      Reply
    • Pam
      Mar 13, 2012 - 01:34 PM

      ConservativeObserver:

      Health insurance is a contract between employer & employee that must be honored w/out discrimination against women. The real issue here is the employee’s right to make PRIVATE medical choices w/out intrusion/interference by the employer. With the compromise Obama offered, religious employers don’t have to do a friggin thing except mind their own business.

      There is no defensible reason that employees should have to seek other options to standard preventive treatments that are medical “best practices”. A federal court ruling issued in 2000 by the EEOC found an employer’s failure to cover prescription contraceptive drugs and devices in a health plan that covers other drugs, devices and preventive care to be discrimination against women in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

      According to “Clinical Preventive Services for Women” published by the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies:

      “Numerous health care professional associations recommend the use of family planning services as part of preventive care for women, including American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American Academy of Family Physicians, American Acadamy of Pediatrics, the Society of Adolescent Medicine, the AMA, the American Public Health Association, the Association of Women’s Health, Obstetric and Neonatal Nurses and the March of Dimes. In addition, the CDC recommends family planning services as part of preventive visits for preconception health.

      Contraceptive coverage has become standard practice for most private insurance and federally funded insurance programs. For example, contraceptive services are covered for all federal employees and individuals who obtain their care through federally financed programs.

      Private employers have also expanded their coverage of contraceptives as part of the basic benefits package in most policies. Twenty-eight states now have regulations requiring private insurers to cover contraceptives, and 17 of those states also require that insurance cover the associated outpatient visit costs.”

      Re above: since contraceptive services have been covered for all federal employees and individuals who obtain their care through federally financed programs since 1972, if you are a taxpayer, you already contribute to contraceptive coverage. Do you believe that active duty military and veterans should be denied family planning through VA medical programs because of your religious beliefs?

      Reply
    • JezabelleDisreali
      Apr 02, 2012 - 06:35 PM

      Mirena is often not approved for women who have had a child. This is because it can migrate or imbed itself in the uterine wall, causing infection, scarring, tearing, infertility, excessive bleeding, and if not discovered and properly cared for death. While it may be less expensive on paper, it is often more expensive due to dangerous side affects than the pill.

      Reply
  11. Claire
    Mar 12, 2012 - 10:50 PM

    Angela, your tearing apart Ms. Fluke’s character before actually reading her testimony makes you a prime candidate for an internship on The Rush Limbaugh Show. Well done.

    Seriously though, what you said is very hurtful. As a fellow Georgetown undergrad I respect your right to disagree with the idea that Georgetown’s insurance policy for students should cover birth control, but attacks like this are never okay. And please don’t pretend that your opinion represents even a tiny fraction of Georgetown women. You certainly don’t represent me.

    Reply
  12. Jesuit Student
    Mar 12, 2012 - 11:24 AM

    If there is one thing I have learned from my Jesuit education, it is the art of debate and intellectual persuasion. Ms. Morabito, how a truly catholic woman can calmly call another woman a slut is beyond me. You are clearly intelligent, however, this article does little to validate your points, or to defend your views. It would have been more convincing had you addressed the issue and not the student’s personality. I admit, I do have to take birth control (I have seizures and it counteracts the medications that lower the threshold while not causing adverse mental and physical effects) and therefore cannot feign total objectivity, but this issue needs to be taken out of personal contexts. Ms. Fluke was not speaking for all of Georgetown, she was representing a group of students and teachers as she stated. You have lowered yourself by writing this and, I suspect, you could have done a far better job had you not attacked Sandra personally, nor classified those of your female colleagues who have, or are taking, birth control as sluts. In fact, your words make me far more sympathetic and receptive to those you criticize. I understand that some people do not support contraceptives, yet I respect them and do not criticize them. As I recall from school, Jesus said many times that we must lead by example, and that we must not use our faith as a tool, weapon, or source of false superiority.
    There are women who do not have other options, or at least the resources to find them. We cannot teach every woman and man abstinence, we cannot provide expensive alternative medical treatments to all, and at the end of the day someone will be unhappy. It may be you, feeling that your beliefs are being challenged and morals upended, or it may be a woman who has lost an ovary or has borne a deformed child (albeit these are among the worst scenarios) because she didn’t see any alternatives and because there was none as brave (she had to know she would get torn apart so we cannot deny this) or as articulate as Ms. Fluke, to speak for her–her argument was much more convincing than that of the protesters harassing women outside of Planned Parenthood.
    It is useless to say that there can be compromise, but accusations and petty insults will not achieve anything. I am ashamed to see my generation pursue/prevent social change in such a manner.
    This isn’t about religion, it is about law. This is not about Ms. Fluke’s sex life, nor is it about her choice to advocate for something she believes in–it is about an issue that needs to be addressed. If there are indeed bigger issues at hand, then you have fallen for this ‘leftist’ ploy after all.

    Good luck in your endeavors.

    Reply
  13. A Hoya
    Mar 11, 2012 - 10:11 PM

    Angela, you say that Sandra does not speak for Gtown, well then how can you? In response to you quoting the Jesuit value of “Cura Personalis”, here is a reminder of its definition:
    “This Latin phrase translates as “Care of the Person,” and originally was used to describe the responsibility of the Jesuit Superior to care for each man in the community with his unique gifts, challenges, needs and possibilities.”
    http://missionandministry.georgetown.edu/spiritofgeorgetown.html
    In her statement, Sandra writes writes that women need birth control not only for contraceptive purposes but for medical conditions such as ovarian polycystic syndrome and endometriosis. If you truly believe in our Jesuit values, than you will agree that our medical services must provide birth control for these purposes.
    Also, if you read President DeGioia’s statement made to the student body, his response was unlike yours, in-line with both Jesuit and American values:
    “She[Sandra] provided a model of civil discourse. This expression of conscience was in the tradition of the deepest values we share as a people. One need not agree with her substantive position to support her right to respectful free expression.”
    DeGioia also goes on to quote St. Augustine, “Let us, on both sides, lay aside all arrogance. Let us not, on either side, claim that we have already discovered the truth. Let us seek it together as something which is known to neither of us. For then only may we seek it, lovingly and tranquilly, if there be no bold presumption that it is already discovered and possessed.”
    Ms. Morabito, if you think that you speak on behalf of Georgetown students, you should first brush up on what Jesuit values are.
    Sincerely,
    Hoya

    Reply
  14. A Hoya
    Mar 11, 2012 - 10:10 PM

    Angela, you say that Sandra does not speak for Gtown, well then how can you? In response to you quoting the Jesuit value of “Cura Personalis”, here is a reminder of its definition:
    “This Latin phrase translates as “Care of the Person,” and originally was used to describe the responsibility of the Jesuit Superior to care for each man in the community with his unique gifts, challenges, needs and possibilities.”
    http://missionandministry.georgetown.edu/spiritofgeorgetown.html

    In her statement, Sandra writes writes that women need birth control not only for contraceptive purposes but for medical conditions such as ovarian polycystic syndrome and endometriosis. If you truly believe in our Jesuit values, than you will agree that our medical services must provide birth control for these purposes.

    Also, if you read President DeGioia’s statement made to the student body, his response was unlike yours, in-line with both Jesuit and American values:

    “She[Sandra] provided a model of civil discourse. This expression of conscience was in the tradition of the deepest values we share as a people. One need not agree with her substantive position to support her right to respectful free expression.”

    DeGioia also goes on to quote St. Augustine, “Let us, on both sides, lay aside all arrogance. Let us not, on either side, claim that we have already discovered the truth. Let us seek it together as something which is known to neither of us. For then only may we seek it, lovingly and tranquilly, if there be no bold presumption that it is already discovered and possessed.”

    Ms. Morabito, if you think that you speak on behalf of Georgetown student’s, you should first brush up on what Jesuit values are.

    Sincerely,

    Hoya

    Reply
  15. JezabelleDisreali
    Mar 09, 2012 - 10:21 PM

    I found this article to be quite rude. Madame, we are not skanks as you so eloquently put it. We are women. We are your mother, your sister, your friend. We have taken the pill for medical reasons, as one of those who had to miss school because of cramps, I can tell you that they are no laughing matter. We have taken the pill because we want to be sexually responsible. We have taken the pill so that we can be financially responsible, so that children should we choose to have them they may be joys and not burdens that force us into wellfare or dire straights.

    Churches, direct churches, may have the option of refusing to supply coverage. Their satellites do not. They cannot logically expect all the people to work there to fall into the same belief category. With over 3000 religions in the world, it is simply impossible for all people at Georgetown to be Catholic. Why should we compromise either our education or our health? Why can’t we have both? Why should a woman working at Georgetown, because that is the best job offer, compromise her life or her health? It is quite simply ridiculous.

    Reply
    • Shadi Sidarous
      Mar 12, 2012 - 03:19 PM

      “We have taken the pill for medical reasons”

      Then this article is not about you!

      “We have taken the pill because we want to be sexually responsible. We have taken the pill so that we can be financially responsible”

      Then wait until marriage and pay for it yourself! No one is denying you access to BC. Be “financially responsible” and quit asking everyone else to foot the bill.

      Reply
      • JezabelleDisreali
        Apr 02, 2012 - 06:30 PM

        Sex is one of our birthrights. While you may choose to wait for marriage, why should the rest of us be forced to conform to your desires, morals, and ideals?

        Why should we have to jump through hoops like trained dogs to get something that we need to safely enjoy our birthrights, and yet 60 year old white men can get Viagra to get their rocks off? Why are we, who are trying to be sexually, finacially, and ethically responsible forced to hide what we do because some people think that we should conform to what they want? Are we, and our efforts, so worthless?

        And if you want to play the religion card, there are still temple prosititutes in this country. Are they to be completely denied birth control because their religious ideas do not match up with yours? Are you going to leave them exposed, and in danger because you have no respect for their religion and beliefs?

        It is simply better, for everyone, to let this be covered. Don’t want to have sex, don’t have it or use the pill. But do not take away or impede the rest of us when we want to exercize our rights.

  16. Robin
    Mar 07, 2012 - 07:28 PM

    First off, thank you for a very well written, articulate blog. I’m proud of young women like you who are willing to stand up for what they believe. Here, I believe, is the crux of the problem with Ms. Fluke’s argument. Planned Parenthood, which receives federal funds due to the argument that they provide needed medical health care for women, is available for Ms. Fluke. She (and other women) could get their birth control there without imposing upon the religious freedom of the Catholic Church. Ms. Fluke’s very public stand is nothing more than an attempt to deny religious freedom to those who choose to practice it.

    Reply
  17. Santino
    Mar 07, 2012 - 07:28 PM

    Very Well said. You articulate your argument so accurately, which in liberal terms of engagement, will always fall short – as we know liberal discussions are almost completely based on “emotion” vs fact; – hence the blowback from the mindless drones…..
    What’s even more strange to us thinking folks, is the ever present Pelosi – a Catholic – talking and promoting the “usage” side of the contraception issue in the middle of the circus known as the news media …..
    Just like John Edwards, this buffoon will stumble and fall soon. The problem is, the rest of liberal America will prop her back up again. I can remember when challenging Murphy Brown (ie: Dan Quayle) was taboo….
    I can remember when speaking of liberals was referred to as “that L word” vs proudly proclaiming ones’ liberal political views today. I can remember “Voting for the 87 billion before voting against it” was OK, Smoking and not inhaling, defining what Is “IS”, and not having S**ual* relations with a certain 22 year old was said by then Pres Clinton. “We should leave Clinton’s private live alone” they all said, Now, it’s let’s talk about every aspect of my private life as long as you are paying my way.

    However, if a President said something like “read my lips no new taxes” THAT was vilified the same way criminals should be.
    In my view, oh how the feckless have fallen even further (ie:GOP) – the days of the true Statesmen are long gone in my view.
    Remember Sec’y of State Shultz and his quiet but firm stance for America vs the “retread” we have now ?
    Sec’ys Chu, Penetta, Sebelius, Napolitano, Duncan and especially Holder all are hard left liberals and actually call for the legitimate questioning of whether their positions are actually for the promotion of America at large OR some other political intent (ie: Fast and Furious for example)
    Which brings me to the next hot topic being worked on behind the scenes it seems….guns..
    How can we, the Bible Thumping, Gun loving middle America now sit and just watch our own Government pass out guns to criminals, attempt to track that activity, fail at it, bury one of our own border agents charged with stopping that activity, deny we caused it, and then say no one at the very top knew of this until “just a few weeks ago”.
    There are still areas within out own borders where these weapons are used and lo and behold!, no violent crime.
    see link:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0ApNHzmaKg&feature=related
    But leave the government to manage something like Fast and Furious, and we produce more forgetful government figureheads leading to investigation after investigation of who knew what when.
    Next up, what is marriage – oh that issue has already been on the front burner…
    Soon it will be sympathy for boiling vegetables for dinner…
    America is now slipping closer to the Third World nation that the King of Talk Radio Bob Grant spoke of and warned us of for many years….
    We are slipping and sliding towards “Third World-ism”. Bob did have a saying he closed Every Show with that rings so true, perhaps more that ever before:
    “Your Influence Counts, Use it!” – Brava to you Angela, Brava !!!!

    Reply
  18. Shadi Sidarous
    Mar 07, 2012 - 06:14 PM

    To expose the hypocrisy of the liberal left, let’s change the subject ever so slightly. What if we weren’t talking about contraception, but instead infertility. A condition that requires tens of thousands of dollars for each treatment with no guarantee of results. Currently no part of the treatment is covered by insurance. The conservative stance remains consistent, it’s a personal matter that needs to be handled both morally and financially by the individual. Would the liberal response be consistent? That the condition is unfairly burdensome to towards the poor and should therefore be covered by insurance? I suspect not.

    Reply
    • Julianne
      Mar 07, 2012 - 07:31 PM

      In my 30s, I went through in vitro three times with no success. These procedures cost thousands of dollars, and is typically not covered by insurance. In my mind, infertility is a women’s health issue; fertility, on the other hand is normal, it’s not a disease, it’s not pathological, it doesn’t need “treatment.” The far-left feminists have this issue backward. Being able to bear a child is a gift, a miracle; not something to give you victim status.

      Reply
      • Pam
        Mar 08, 2012 - 10:29 PM

        Perhaps you already know that the Catholic Church opposes all kinds of in vitro fertilization because, as with contraception, the procedure “separates the procreative purpose of the marriage act from its unitive purpose”.

        After all, in vitro fertilization creates for one couple multiple fertilized eggs, most of which are ultimately discarded, unless the legal “owners” can finance storage forever. There are estimated to be about 500,000 such unused embryos in storage in the US now. So even just allowing them to thaw is considered equivalent to abortion by the church.

        So the Catholic Church’s goal is to remove in vitro fertilization as a legal option for you and everyone else, even if you finance the procedure yourself, just as they want to ban abortion again. Dya think they should be able to do both?

      • Pam
        Mar 08, 2012 - 10:51 PM

        According to “Clinical Preventive Services for Women” published by the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies:

        “Numerous health care professional associations recommend the use of family planning services as part of preventive care for women, including American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American Academy of Family Physicians, American Acadamy of Pediatrics, the Society of Adolescent Medicine, the AMA, the American Public Health Association, the Association of Women’s Health, Obstetric and Neonatal Nurses and the March of Dimes. In addition, the CDC recommends family planning services as part of preventive visits for preconception health.

        Contraceptive coverage has become standard practice for most private insurance and federally funded insurance programs. For example, contraceptive services are covered for all federal employees and individuals who obtain their care through federally financed programs.

        Private employers have also expanded their coverage of contraceptives as part of the basic benefits package in most policies. Twenty-eight states now have regulations requiring private insurers to cover contraceptives, and 17 of those states also require that insurance cover the associated outpatient visit costs.

        A federal court ruling issued in 2000 by the EEOC found an employer’s failure to cover prescription contraceptive drugs and devices in a health plan that covers other drugs, devices and preventive care to be discrimination against women in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.”

      • Julianne Eriksen
        Mar 09, 2012 - 02:21 AM

        All the fertilized eggs were used when I had the procedures. Fertility for a woman diminishes quickly. In my 30s, only 5 fertilized eggs were available, so all were implanted. I never got pregnant. It is heartbreaking. Oh, and I’m not Catholic and it wouldn’t matter because insurance doesn’t pay for in vitro anyway.

      • Pam
        Mar 10, 2012 - 04:51 PM

        This site makes chronogical posting really tough.

        Anyway, wonder if you and/or Shadi can explain to me how AHCA’s requirement that insurance companies – not employers – offer the preventive health care option of birth control prevents you from free exercise of your religion?

        And, as I mentioned earlier, contraceptive services are covered for all federal employees and individuals who obtain their care through federally financed programs. So American taxpayers, religious or not, are already paying for contraceptive care.

        In a pluralistic democracy, it’s safe to say that we all make contributions that indirectly violate our consciences. George Bush’s war on Iraq utterly and deeply violated my conscience as an American citizen. And I had the right to selectively withhold my tax support if I was willing to accept the legal consequences, as Thoreau did. And so do you.

        An essential meaning of separation of church and state can be stated this way: “State law and church law do not exist side by side as equally valid systems of governance. No citizen is free to submit to secular law only to the extent that it does not conflict with religious edict.” (Spencer L. Durland, Candidate for Juris Doctor, Notre Dame Law School, 2012, in THE CASE AGAINST INSTITUTIONAL CONSCIENCE)

      • Pam
        Mar 10, 2012 - 04:58 PM

        “The Catholic Church does not have that power over the medical community.” Not quite true, as you can see if you google court cases involving medical “conscience clauses”.

      • Pam
        Mar 10, 2012 - 05:38 PM

        Incidentally, re “insurance doesn’t pay for in vitro anyway.” that’s a bit off the mark, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures:

        “Since the 1980s, 15 states—Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Rhode Island, Texas and West Virginia—have passed laws that require insurers to either cover or offer coverage for infertility diagnosis and treatment. Thirteen states have laws that require insurance companies to cover infertility treatment. Louisiana prohibits the exclusion of coverage for a medical condition otherwise covered solely because the condition results in infertility. Two states—California and Texas—have laws that require insurance companies to offer coverage for infertility treatment. While most states with laws requiring insurance companies to offer or provide coverage for infertility treatment include coverage for in vitro fertilization, California, Louisiana, and New York have laws that specifically exclude coverage for the procedure.”

      • Pam
        Mar 10, 2012 - 05:48 PM

        List of Infertility and Adoption friendly Employers
        http://www.inciid.org/article.php?cat=statemandates&id=243

      • Julianne Eriksen
        Mar 09, 2012 - 02:26 AM

        The Catholic Church does not have that power over the medical community. This is not the Middle Ages. The do, however have the right to disagree, based on doctrine and conscience to refuse to comply with federal government intrusion. This is why the founding fathers insisted on separation of church and state. To keep the state out of the affairs of religious faith and practice.

      • Pam
        Mar 10, 2012 - 04:14 PM

        “To keep the state out of the affairs of religious faith and practice.”

        And to keep religious faith and practice out of affairs of the state. The phrase “constitutional principle of church-state separation” is entirely appropriate to this situation, since that summarizes what the First Amendment’s religion clauses do-they separate church and state.

        Thomas Jefferson (in the “Danbury Letter”) and James Madison both wrote of the necessity for “separation” in the sense that state affairs must remain secular in our pluralistic society.

        Jefferson’s Danbury letter has been cited favorably by the Supreme Court many times. In its 1879 Reynolds v. U.S. decision the high court said Jefferson’s observations “may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [First] Amendment.” In the court’s 1947 Everson v. Board of Education decision, Justice Hugo Black wrote, “In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect ‘a wall of separation between church and state.'” It is only in recent times that separation has come under attack by judges in the federal court system who oppose separation of church and state.”

      • Kim
        Mar 12, 2012 - 05:53 AM

        Really? “the founding fathers insisted on separation of church and state to keep the state out of the affairs of religious faith and practice” REALLY? Think ya got that backwards!

    • Pam
      Mar 10, 2012 - 07:26 PM

      List of Infertility and Adoption friendly Employers and Insurers:
      http://www.inciid.org/article.php?cat=statemandates&id=243

      Breakdown of states that mandate insurance coverage of infertility:
      http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/health/insurance-coverage-for-infertility-laws.aspx

      Reply
    • Pam
      Mar 11, 2012 - 05:31 AM

      List of Infertility and Adoption friendly Employers and Insurers:
      http://www.inciid.org/article.php?cat=statemandates&id=243
      Breakdown of states that mandate insurance coverage of infertility:
      http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/health/insurance-coverage-for-infertility-laws.aspx

      Reply
  19. Catherine
    Mar 07, 2012 - 03:56 PM

    Right on!

    Reply
  20. Julianne Eriksen
    Mar 07, 2012 - 06:57 AM

    There is one thing no one is talking about. The code language that Pelosi and other far left feminists use: that this entire discussion is the Federal government’s “compelling interest in women’s health.” Well, what does that mean? I am a 57-year-old, post-menopausal women, who obviously, is past child-bearing. Does the government have a “compelling interest” in my health? Don’t think so! If that were a legitimate arguement, then I want my hormone treatment paid for, and while you’re at it, pay for my Depends pads! Oh, and if stopping a pregnancy is part of the “compelling interest” of our government, then infertility (women’s health, remember?) should also be covered. That means in vitro fertilization and every other treatment for infertility. Abortion, compared to in vitro is cheap. But maybe that tells the real story. That life is precious. My message to young women: consider carefully the choices you make. Sometimes it takes a lifetime to know what is really important.

    Reply
    • Shadi Sidarous
      Mar 07, 2012 - 04:29 PM

      I agree! I would be very interested in Nancy Pelosi’s, Sandra Fluke’s, and the rest of the liberal left’s take on making infertility treatments a part of the women’s health debate.

      Reply
  21. Bothered & Offended
    Mar 07, 2012 - 06:51 AM

    i just found this whole article offensive, ignorant, & lacking research. you blindly attacked the gay community with your unnecessary, offensive stereotypes, (which, how many “gay boyfriends” go to georgetown? i’m curious. you don’t seem to know too many, based on that completely ignorant comment) people who define themselves as liberal, a very credible college (syracuse – which is not as liberal as you assume), low-income people, and sexually active women. a woman standing up for her beliefs should not make her a slut. your perspective is one of a very privileged, white majority whose been born (luckily!) into a very financially stable environment. anything you needed has been provided for you.

    i know you and your background well, but in order to avoid conflict, i’d rather withhold my name. i am a woman your age. i am sexually active. i take birth control. i think every woman should be able to receive that without a problem. wealthy or poor. i think it’s sick to even consider that only the privileged & wealthy should receive this. i am not a slut/skank – which, by the way, as a woman you should be offended by those words like i am. i’ve had one consistent sexual partner. it’s not anyone’s right to tell me that i can’t do that. “don’t want to get pregnant, don’t have sex” doesn’t need to be the only option with todays amazing & simple (and very good for women in other departments!) oral contraceptives.

    this isn’t me agreeing with fluke, or fighting against georgetown.

    i was just appalled at how such a smart young lady could be so offensive toward others with blind ignorance, and quite frankly – offensive to her own gender.

    Reply
    • Robin
      Mar 07, 2012 - 07:35 PM

      You can receive birth control. Planned Parenthood, which is federally funded, will provide you with birth control. You do not need a Catholic organization to violate their own religious beliefs by doing so.

      Reply
  22. Lisa
    Mar 07, 2012 - 01:13 AM

    Okay, Anita, say insurance companies don’t cover birth control. You win because, as you say, you are no longer paying out of your own pocket for those “sluts”. Alright, so now we have birth control costing far more than it did under insurance (obviously). Do you really think people who could barely afford birth control to begin with are going to stop having sex? Clearly, that’s not the point you care about since you only wanted to stop paying for their means to have sex. Well, these people will be taking more risks, have a higher chance of pregnancy, and eventually be having more unplanned births. These babies are going to need medical care, check ups, vaccinations, education, etc. which is going to be taking a lot more out of your purse than if you just sucked it up and allowed birth control to be covered by insurance.

    Notice how I haven’t even gone into the countless women who use birth control for NON-contraceptive purposes. Ovarian cysts, monumental cramps, acne, hormone regulation, heavy bleeding, I could go on. Contraception is only one facet of birth control. If that’s taken away, these women will have to find other ways to get insured treatment. For example, would you rather someone have cheaper birth control that comes out of your pocket, or a woman undergoing a $10,000 procedure (which is all covered by insurance) to remove an ovarian cyst. Hmmm? Your move, Anita.

    Reply
    • Shadi
      Mar 07, 2012 - 04:30 AM

      Do the words personal responsibility mean anything to you? Are we a civilization or are we mindless animals contolled by desire?

      Reply
      • Bothered & Offended
        Mar 07, 2012 - 06:54 AM

        humans are animals. we are sexual beings. but unlike wild animals, we have these recourses to protect us available. how is that a bad thing to contribute to? there is so much ignorance on this page.

      • Shadi Sidarous
        Mar 07, 2012 - 04:12 PM

        Most of it is from people like you and Lisa. What ARE you talking about? I was pointing out the fact that Lisa said, “you only wanted to stop paying for their means to have sex.” Yes, you ignorant twit, NO ONE SHOULD BE FACILITATING ANYONE HAVING SEX! You don’t want me imposing my moral objections on you, QUIT ASKING ME TO FUND YOUR DEBAUCHERY! Do I really have to spell this out for you?!

  23. Lindsey
    Mar 07, 2012 - 12:05 AM

    Gee, you sound like a mini-RushLimbaugh with the same misinformed commentary regarding “talking about her sex life,” “more liberal sex life,” “so much sex,” “pay me to have all the sex I want.” I am so sorry that you don’t understand how birth control works (yes, keep hanging out with your gay boyfriends, that will be your safest bet). Calling Ms. Fluke a “skank” — again sorry! sorry to see you are so influenced by the right-wing media, but bound to happen in the wake of RL spewing his insulting rhetoric for 3 days. Maybe switch it up by to listening to NPR from time to time. Also, dear, get your facts straight (your essay sounds ‘young’, but I need to check your class level, I will do that)… Ms. Fluke never asked the government to pay for her contraception. Finally, speaking “about the whole person”… YES, that is a great reason to have a physician or healthcare clinic that you know and trust help in all matters of one’s health! Oh, wait — you think women should walk down the street to CVS, pay for a doctor off-campus, etc. Ya know, that just doesn’t ‘cut it’ when it comes to those near and dear to me and their healthcare. And yes, since you don’t know much about birth control, I’ll explain: My daughter was prescribed hormonal therapy (BCPs) for physical difficulties that I will not go into here. She had to try, with the doctor’s guidance, 2 different prescriptions until the 3rd was the charm. No generics for her! And without insurance coverage, $55.00/month. Along with mandatory yearly exams and bloodwork ($300/yr without insurance), that is: $960 per year. Maybe for students from wealthy families, this is affordable… but for anyone on scholarship and/or loans this is a chunk of change! (Sigh) — Angela, you do owe Sandra an apology for calling her names and making insulting sexual remarks. I hope you do the right thing, cuz as you said: you believe you are ‘so much better than you were made out to be’.

    Reply
  24. John Austen
    Mar 06, 2012 - 11:05 PM

    Most of this discussion seems to be treating healthcare benefits as a gift from the employer to its employees. Actually its part of an employees compensation. So when the employer “decides” which benefits to provide it is directly impacting the compensation of the employee.

    The reason we have this absurd system is that health insurance in this country is largely funded through employers. This happens because employer based healthcare benefits are subsidied through the tax system: employers get to deduct the money they shell out for insurance. One of the problem with this system is that the interests of the employers and the employees may differ. For one, employees may want more or less benefits (less because it may cost them less) than the employers are willing to provide (too little and they employee compensation is less than the amrket, too much and the costs are high). In addition, since the benefits receive are deductible, the governmenet is forced to define what constitutes a benefit and which items have to be included to qualify as “insurance.”

    So, in this case there is a conflict between the employers beliefs, the desires of many of their employees, and the governement’s need to define insurance coverage.

    One more point: the issue of religious freedom cuts two ways. If the governement allows religious organizations to avoid purchasing otherwise mandated insurance, is it not also privileging those organizations? How does that square with religious freedom?

    Reply
    • Bruce
      Mar 07, 2012 - 10:33 PM

      Making health insurance ILLEGAL for everyone would fix many of the problems we have with it. Before insurance how did we ever get well???
      Everyone who got sick must have just died.
      Yea right!
      Doctors used to take chickens for payment from their poor customers, or heal them for free.
      What happened to the doctors taking care of the poor of their area?
      GREED emerges from the medical fields.
      Why should employers supply insurance for their employees? I would prefer the extra cash instead.
      How dare you “pre-spend” my income on communistic insurance?
      Insurance is gambling and gambling is against my religion.
      How dare you make me (by law) put aside my religious beliefs against insurance!.

      Reply
  25. Insurance
    Mar 06, 2012 - 10:03 PM

    “Let’s say I want to go rock climbing. It’s my body and my choice and I want to climb all the cliffs I can! Imagine if I went to the government and asked it to pay for helmets and ropes and band-aids I’ll need to safely climb rocks every day of my life. What would everyone say?”

    That your health plan is required to pay for all treatment associated with injuries sustained while rock climbing. That a policy that refused to cover the treatments you would need, that others would not need, is discriminating against you.

    It is your body and your choice, so do as you please and your employer shouldn’t ever be in a position to coerce your behavior through your health coverage.

    Reply
  26. tanstaafl
    Mar 06, 2012 - 09:59 PM

    Here are the relevant questions and the positions of the Catholic church and President Obama:

    1. Should government provide universal health insurance? The Catholic church says yes. (Google it if you don’t believe me.)

    Now, try to follow this please…If government provides universal health insurance, then government MUST mandate what is covered by a basic health insurance plan. (Otherwise, insurers would offer sham plans that are virtually useless and cover virtually nothing.)

    2. If religious institutions provide health insurance, should they get special exemption from covering things that violate their “conscience?” President Obama says YES. Here, from the LA Times: “Religiously affiliated employers — largely Catholic hospitals, schools and universities — would not have to pay for contraceptive coverage, but employees who want the coverage could request it, and the insurance company would provide it without raising the cost of their premiums. The insurance industry has accepted the solution because it’s less expensive to pay for family planning than for pregnancies.
    Some Catholic groups have praised the compromise…”

    So, what’s the problem, exactly? Catholics get their universal health insurance and get a break from the government mandates that they don’t like.

    Now, permit me to go off topic and address the author. 1. Why do you attend a Jesuit school that believes in universal health insurance? 2. Are you proud of your use of vulgarities that demean your classmates and diminish the persuasive power of your arguments? 3. Do you fail to see the irony that your blusterous attack article is a means of “getting attention,” in the same way that Fluke seeks it? You are her doppelganger.

    Reply
    • Will
      Mar 10, 2012 - 12:55 PM

      Some Catholic groups have praised the compromise…”

      Which ones?

      Reply
  27. Mac830203
    Mar 06, 2012 - 09:22 PM

    So many responses. Well, here is mine. I like this article. My net income is reduced each year by those who believe I owe them a portion of my earnings. The difference in my gross and net income widens every time someone in DC or my State think that it’s for the common good of mankind. Liberals and progressives think that the Govt creates happiness all on it’s own. Sorry Charlie, that happens to be my savings they tax, my car, land, food, gas, toilet waste, water, energy and every initiative my company seeks to out perform my competitors. That’s why I am not hiring staff. I would prefer that my cash be used to supply everyone with cheap rubbers, that way it still comes down to those who act responsibly or those who take chances and expect others to foot the bill. By the way, I pay full coverage for all my employees. They earn every penny too.

    Reply
  28. Nem
    Mar 06, 2012 - 09:04 PM

    I have a question. If most women take hormonal suplementation (considering that’s what we’re talking about, not IUD’s and hysterectomies)which includes more than just pills, for reasons other than contraception (against conception, ostensibly), why do they keep calling it contraception. If the goal was to make hormone therapy that treats diseases and illnesses more affordable for all women, why is it being marketed as birth control. Why not change the name? It’s not like inconvenient issues haven’t been rebranded, Global Warming —> Climate Change, Tax Cuts —–> Tax expenditures. Why pick this fight, with the Catholic Church, why not pick it with Islam? (well we know the answer to that one, just saying)

    Reply
  29. jj
    Mar 06, 2012 - 08:58 PM

    I am aghast at the ignorance of this blog post and the comments in support of it. So, since catholics hate sex so much – why aren’t you all out there protesting the coverage of viagara by catholic schools?

    Reply
  30. Jackie
    Mar 06, 2012 - 08:46 PM

    Who are you?

    Reply
  31. Saint Brian
    Mar 06, 2012 - 07:17 PM

    Did this skank just call Fluke a skank?

    Did I misread that? Incredible…

    I hate to admit it, but lately conservatives do seem to, well… suck.

    Reply
  32. Ryan Ritenour
    Mar 06, 2012 - 06:37 PM

    Thank you for your perspective. Strange that you weren’t invited to the Democrat Horse and pony show. Oh wait, only Democrat’s and their operatives were there, and that includes Fluke and the media.

    Reply
  33. CK
    Mar 06, 2012 - 05:55 PM

    Here is Cathleen Cleaver Ruse, former chief counsel of the House Subcommittee on the Constitution, and Georgetown Law grad —

    Last week Sandra Fluke, a student at Georgetown University Law Center, went to Congress looking for a handout. She wants free birth-control pills, and she wants the federal government to make her Catholic school give them to her.

    I’m a graduate of Georgetown Law and former chief counsel of the House Subcommittee on the Constitution. Based on her testimony, I wonder how much Ms. Fluke really knows about the university or the Constitution.

    As a law student 20 years ago, I wasn’t confronted by crucifixes in the classroom or, in truth, by any religious imagery anywhere. In that respect the law school has a different “feel” than the university. The law school chapel was an unadorned, multipurpose room in the basement used for Mass when it wasn’t used for Gilbert and Sullivan Society rehearsals and club meetings. Among the clubs while I was there, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance was particularly vigorous.

    I was not Catholic when I attended Georgetown Law, but I certainly knew the university was. So did Ms. Fluke. She told the Washington Post that she chose Georgetown knowing specifically that the school did not cover drugs that run contrary to Catholic teaching in its student health plans. During her law school years she was a president of “Students for Reproductive Justice” and made it her mission to get the school to give up one of the last remnants of its Catholicism. Ms. Fluke is not the “everywoman” portrayed in the media.

    Georgetown Law School has flung wide its doors to the secular world. It will tolerate and accommodate all manner of clubs and activities that run contrary to fundamental Catholic beliefs. But it is not inclined to pay for or provide them. And it has the right to do so—to say “this far and no further.” . . .

    Contraception isn’t like other kinds of “health care.” Yes, birth-control pills can be prescribed to address medical problems, though that’s relatively rare and the Catholic Church has no quarrel with their use in this circumstance. And the university’s insurance covers prescriptions in these cases.

    Still, Ms. Fluke is not mollified. Why? Because at the end of the day this is not about coverage of a medical condition.

    Ms. Fluke’s crusade for reproductive justice is simply a demand that a Catholic institution pay for drugs that make it possible for her to have sex without getting pregnant. It’s nothing grander or nobler than that. Georgetown’s refusal to do so does not mean she has to have less sex, only that she has to take financial responsibility for it herself.

    Should Ms. Fluke give up a cup or two of coffee at Starbucks each month to pay for her birth control, or should Georgetown give up its religion? Even a first-year law student should know where the Constitution comes down on that.

    Reply
    • Shadi Sidarous
      Mar 06, 2012 - 08:01 PM

      “Georgetown’s refusal to do so does not mean she has to have less sex, only that she has to take financial responsibility for it herself.”

      So well written and airtight an argument, that you will get no rebuttals! So, let me be the first of many who will agree wholeheartedly.

      Reply
  34. Jeff
    Mar 06, 2012 - 05:24 PM

    After reading the article and comments, a few things to consider here:

    1. Good accounting of the logistics. It’s unclear why Sandra Fluke was qualified or “selected” to testify to Congress. I’m sure they could’ve found a more qualified female speaker, which raises the question of why they didn’t, which I won’t get into here.

    2. I don’t know the statistics and won’t pretend to, so let’s just say while most use birth control for contraception, SOME use it for legitimate medical conditions. This makes it a question of whether a small percentage of the ends justify the means. Some food for thought: I’d say a similarly small percentage of gun owners derive clear benefit from owning a firearm, while a much larger percentage are responsible (directly or indirectly) for severe, preventable violence. Not a perfect analogy since there’s no constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right to birth control, so take ethanol or farming subsidies, earmarks for local projects, etc.: directly helps a small percentage of people who really need the help, and adversely affects the rest of the population by diverting their tax dollars. I’m not advocating either way, just trying to outline the cost-benefit realities here.

    3. I’m a moderate that swings to either side depending on the issue, so I see merits to both points of view here. The thing that’s most striking to me about this whole article and conversation is how vindictive the tone is: most of the people on here aren’t going to change their opinions regardless of what anyone says, so while expressing our beliefs, can’t we at least be respectful of the fact that there’s almost always considerable thought, reflection, and value orientation behind someone’s position? Congressional approval is disastrously low because they can’t, which is clear from the actions on both sides in this case, but how do we expect that to improve if we can’t do any better?

    Reply
    • Shadi Sidarous
      Mar 06, 2012 - 08:57 PM

      To your first point. You are correct. Ms. Pelosi was not looking for an expert witness. As clearly seen here, there would have been many women who actually suffer some condition that is treated with birth control, who would have gladly volunteered. I suspect Ms. Fluke had some inside dealings with the Democratic machine that propelled her to the top. Ms. Fluke had no firsthand experience with any such disease, she was merely a willing mouthpiece.

      2. There was a poll conducted recently that concluded that 14% of women polled, used the pill for reasons other than contraception. The problem is that the study was conducted by the Guttmacher Institute, a Planned Parenthood subsidiary. (not exactly the most reliable, unbiased organization when it comes to women’s reproductive health). Second, the study included 1600 girls between the age of 15 and 19 who are on the pill. 95% of those girls claimed they were on the pill for “other” reasons. I suspect the same percentage of boys age 15-19 who read Playboy for it’s great articles.

      3. It comes down to 2 things: freedom and responsibility. Conservatives want to decrease the things that government controls and allow individuals the right to choose and conversely, be responsible for your decisions. Progressives are willing to allow an elite group of experts make decisions based on “informed data” (whose data?, whose interpretation?) In this case, Liberals want you to think that Catholics want to eliminate all access to birth control. They don’t and they couldn’t. If you want birth control, get a prescription, take it to a pharmacy and they will fill it. And you will pay for it. If you have comprehensive insurance that includes reproductive health, you will pay a smaller co-pay. If your insurance doesn’t include reproductive medicine, then you pay full price, but you still get the pill. That’s not enough for liberals, they want all insurance to include reproductive health. That means a loss of choice for the insurance buyer. It would be like forcing all car insurance to be comprehensive. I drive a 2000 beater that wouldn’t be worth covering, liberals would take away my choice to only cover the other guy. That means more money out of my pocket.

      Hope this helps you make an informed decision.

      Reply
      • Jeff
        Mar 07, 2012 - 01:33 AM

        Shadi, I feel like you’re glossing over or ignoring some of my points that don’t fit with your perspective and raising others that are irrelevant to my comment – let me explain some of my meaning here.

        Yes, there’s no reason why Sandra Fluke should have testified based on her background. But my suggestion at the end there was that it’s equally reprehensible that Congress, and Representative Issa (R) who chaired this hearing, didn’t invite a female to speak about a female issue. I don’t care if the woman was of Sandra Fluke’s mindset or on the opposite side (ideally they’d have one of each testify), women needed to be represented. The Republicans pretty much asked for something like this to happen by shutting that demographic out.

        While I understand your argument about skewed statistics, I think it’s also irrelevant to the point I was making – there absolutely is a small group of women who use birth control for their own medical, not contraceptive, purposes, and so at least PART of the question here should be if the higher insurance costs are worth it to protect the health of this minority group of women.

        Look, at the end of the day, I come down squarely on the conservative side on this. I’m just trying to encourage people to think outside their own spheres of reasoning and realize that their opinions are neither objectively correct, nor do they endow them with the obligation or right to aggressively deride someone else’s opinion. If we all took a bit more reasoned approach to these issues, we wouldn’t be having this conversation right now.

      • phyllis
        Mar 07, 2012 - 03:05 AM

        Wrong Jeff….The day before, I believe, two women doctors testified before the full official committee hearing. When Issa canceled the next meeting, that is when the dems started squawking about no women so they brought in, at the last minute, Ms Fluke, even though she had been rejected prior to the official hearing. She lacked the necessary credentials to be relevant to a fair and open debate.

      • Shadi
        Mar 07, 2012 - 04:23 AM

        I disagree with your point about adding women to the conversation. The subject was not about access to contraception. It was not about birth control being used for another purpose. It was about whether the government has the right to force religious institutions to offer services it is morally opposed to. If this was about reclassifying contraception as hormone therapy so that it could be covered, then a woman in such a situation could testify before a panel that could make such a change. That’s not what this was. This was a test run by the liberals to see how much opposition existed. The ultimate goal being the mandate of insurance covered abortion.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. The 2013 Blog Bash Award Nominees Are… – Blog Bash
  2. Michelle Malkin » Sandra Fluke is not a “slut.” She’s a femme-agogue tool; DCCC, Emily’s list fund-raise off of Rush : The Viral Marketing System
  3. Psychopath Sandra Fluke; Her Spoiled Little Brat Syndrome « The Neosecularist
  4. Vox Populi » GUSA Roundup: Baby, it’s hot in here
  5. Fluke’s 15 Minutes continues « The Sensible Scribe
  6. Why Is It Still Okay to Call a Woman a Slut? | anniegirl1138
  7. Satire and Sandra Fluke: Was Rush Limbaugh really wrong? » Health News Live
  8. Sandra Fluke Does Not Speak for Me « Red Alexandria

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © THE COLLEGE CONSERVATIVE. Managed by Epic Life Creative