Sandra Fluke and the Failure of Feminism


Pages: 1 2

By now, you are no doubt familiar with the tearful tale of Sandra Fluke, the Georgetown University Law School student who gained national attention and iconic feminist status last week for publicly protesting the fact that her school’s heath insurance policy does not cover her contraception. Firmly grasping the mantle of victimhood, Fluke lamented that “forty percent” of female students at Georgetown Law “struggl[ed] financially as a result of this policy.”

Fluke’s complaint earned her deserved mockery, most prominently from radio host Rush Limbaugh, who riffed that she was essentially asking to be paid for having sex, behavior that he likened to a “slut” and a “prostitute.” That in turn triggered howls of exaggerated outrage from feminists and the left, most prominently President Obama, who personally called Fluke to offer his support and to say that her parents should be proud of her.

It’s worth noting that Limbaugh’s comments were intended to be humorous, even if they came off more crass than comical. One needn’t credit the left’s labored claim that he was slandering an innocent private citizen – Fluke had willingly inserted herself into the public square to support the Obama administration’s new rule requiring employers to offer health plans that include birth control coverage – but it’s only fair to acknowledge, as Limbaugh himself did with a subsequent apology, that the remarks were out of line.

Yet it’s equally fair to point out that Fluke is hardly the model public-spirited citizen that President Obama suggests, nor is she the feminist hero that some on the left have anointed her. In many ways, indeed, Sandra Fluke exemplifies much of what is wrong with the modern feminist movement.

Start with her complaint that contraception is driving female law students into dire financial straits. “Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school,” Fluke has said. Even discounting the obvious point that there are surely cheaper ways to obtain birth control – including but not limited to limiting one’s sexual activity – it’s hard to sympathize with this grievance. In another instance, she has sorrowfully recounted how one woman she knew felt “powerless” at a pharmacy counter when informed that contraceptives weren’t covered by the school’s health care plan. No doubt that was an unpleasant moment, but it trivializes female empowerment to an absurd degree to suggest that the woman’s experience is worthy of either public attention or private subsidy.

It’s true, of course, that law school imposes steep financial burdens on students, but primary among these is the exorbitant cost of attendance — $46,000 a year in tuition alone at Georgetown Law. Compounded over three years, that is a significant financial hardship. But of course it was Fluke herself who made the choice to attend such an expensive and elite school law school, rather than, say, accepting a scholarship from a less prestigious institution. Considering that she did make that choice, it takes a special kind of chutzpah for her to now demand that someone else has to pay for her contraceptive needs. Yet it is all too typical of a widespread entitlement mentality that demands financial protection – a bailout, as it were – from the costs of voluntarily made decisions. Special pleading for contraception coverage is not only a singularly poor example of public spiritedness and an affront to responsible citizenship, but it is selfish in the extreme.

The entitlement mentality is evident on another level, as well. For the left, contraception itself is a special female entitlement, and entitlements come without price tags. Notwithstanding the left’s claim that this debate is about women’s “health” and “reproductive freedom,” the real objective is free contraception for all women, at public expense, which is what ObamaCare has essentially achieved.

Pages: 1 2

  • John Galt

    I started out feeling for the poor victim Sandra Fluke. I mean, after all she is so sexually active that paying for contraceptives was going to keep her from being able to buy food, or pay for college, or buy clothes, etc. etc.

    I thought to myself, of course we tax payers (all 50% of us), need to provide her, and her ilk, with contraceptive devices.

    Then, low and behold, I saw a picture of Ms. Fluke and I knew I had been misled. Ms. Fluke’s face all but eliminated the need for any contraceptives.

    • Black_Lib

      Too bad she never mentioned her sex life in her testimony dummy and the story she told was about a friend of her's who due to Georgetown's policies was unable to afford birth control which she used for a homronal issue and wound up losing an ovary. Yeah, don't let right wing loonies keep the facts from you or anything.

      Nice the way you uphold the right's traditon of sexism too in your last paragraph. Keep tallking, conservatives are completely losing the woman vote.

      • John Galt

        Hey Black Lib,

        What are you an idiot? Sarcasm – ever heard of it. Oh that's right, to understand sarcasm it requires a higher brain order…..Never mind. Just go collect your entitlements and leave me alone.

      • Bob

        Please think about this. The birth control pill cost most women between $15 to $50 per month. So at the high end of the range it is around $600 per year. I am assuming if Ms. Fluke cannot come of with that money then she is on some type of financial aid either government or private. So not only are we paying for her birth control we may well be paying for her education. Have Sallie Mae add a few thousand for to her student loan to cover and then when she gets a high paying job she can pay it back with the other student loans.

        • Guest

          Bob…that's how much birth control costs WHEN IT IS COVERED BY INSURANCE. Ms. Fluke's concern is that contraception is NOT covered by her university health plan, for which the STUDENTS pay a premium. You, or anyone else in the country, are not paying for it…ok? Get it? No one is asking for your money.

          It's seriously scary how completely misinformed most people are.

          • http://callofthepatriot.blogspot.com HermitLion

            If you don't like the price of the pill, DO NOT TAKE THE PILL.

            It's seriously scary how completely spoiled some people are.

          • Todd Beaucoudray

            Can we say the same to those on insulin and other drugs because they refuse to change their diet?

      • coyote3

        Then what is she doing complaining before Congress about it. It is between her and the school. She, and the woman she claims is in such dire straits, chose to go to that school. They were not drafted. As far as the comment goes, trust is an absolute defense to any defamatory comment. Let's see, wants compensation, in kind, for having sex. Kind of sounds like it to me. Winston Churchill once asked a woman if she would have sex with him for a lot of money (don't know if it was dollars or pound sterling). She replied, probably. He then asked her if she would have sex with him for what was a very small amount of money. She stated something like. "Absolutely not, what do think I am, sir?" He replied, "Madam, we have already established that, we are just talking about the price." Yes, she did put her sexual conduct, in terms of advocating sexual promiscuity, for all to see.

        • Jim_C

          Don't be a dumb@ss like the others here. You're a smart guy. She was advocating for a friend who needed the medication for treatment of ovarian cysts. If you want to make a point about there being no need for her insurance plan to pay for this procedure, make it. You don't need to disparage the woman.

    • marc

      You are really quite stupid.

    • Guest

      I don't understand why the right is having such a hard time grasping this. It's seriously not complicated information.

      Ms. Fluke, was not, in any way, asking asking anyone to PAY for contraception, hers or otherwise. This is not a person asking for a handout. Her point was, if women are paying their own insurance premiums, why should employers or insurance carriers be able to dictate what medications or procedures they will or will not allow based on so-called "moral" obligations.

      • trickyblain

        Hey, this is FPM. Stop framing the argument in a totally accurate way! We need this to be about us paying her to have SEX!

        • Jim_C

          It's amazing…these guys are emotional basket cases. Facts and figures are for snobs who study things.

      • coyote3

        Then what is she doing complaining before Congress about birth control. Congress can't do anything about her private school. You mean to tell me that she did not complain about her university in an attempt to give support to the argument that contraception should be taxpayer funded?

      • EKP

        "I don't understand why the right is having such a hard time grasping this. It's seriously not complicated information."

        Well, it appears to be complicated to YOU! Nothing is free, you idiot! Yet, you seem to think contraception is free and insurance companies can just throw them in there for free. But, because you're an idiot, you believe that "free" doesn't cost anybody anything. And that's where you're wrong. For an insurance company to provide free contraceptives to policy holders, they will have to raise the premiums of all their customers as well as increase the customers deductibles in order to cover the cost of providing "free" contraceptives.

        I could go on, but I'm quite sure that I'm already talking over your head and that you probably still don't understand the issue because it's too complicated for an idiot like you.

        Sheesh. What a maroon.

    • Guest

      It really is disturbing how many grown "adults" in this country have no idea how birth control functions. If you're taking the pill, it's taken once a day, and costs the same each month. You don't increase your pills based on how much/little sex you have. Sheesh! It's like dealing with children!

    • Guest

      Viagra is covered by insurance. Like the birth control pill, it's used to treat medical conditions, but it's primary use is with erectile dysfunction. Why is it ok MEN to have insurance coverage for a drug that gives them the ability to have all the sex they want, unfettered by even physical limits…but female birth control is not covered?

      Please explain to me how that's fair? Because I haven't heard one reason yet.

      That being said, this article is complete BS, and so factually inaccurate that it borders on willful misinformation. The "journalists" involved should be ashamed.

      • coyote3

        It is not fair, it is a contractural relationship. It is not supposed to be fair. They are free to write the policy of insurance, or the provider decide what services it will provide. You are free to get another insurance company/provider. Are you saying that they don't know that these things aren't covered going into the contract?

      • Jacques

        It isn't. Viagra shouldn't be covered by insurance either. It should be available over the counter.

    • Guest

      Wow. Are you some handsome man, Mr. Galt? Because even if you were Brad Pitt, I don't understand how anyone would want to sleep with such a crass and judgmental man.
      Also, and I'm sure you must know this: *the statement that "she is so sexually active that paying for contraceptives was giong to keep her from being able to by food.." makes NO sense! Maybe you don't know this because you've never been in a relationship with a woman for more than a night, but contraceptives aren't something you take every time you have sex. One takes them on a nightly basis every day. It doesn't matter if a woman is having sex once a month or once a night, the amount of contraception she takes is no different.

    • Killerrabbit

      Ayn must be turning over in her grave.

    • George B. Bopper

      I will answer you, with opinion. ED is a medical condition (regardless if men abuse it because they feel they need to have sex longer than they should: not the point). Avoiding or preventing pregancy is a personal choice. Just like choosing to live by a particular religion is also another personal choice. Ms Fluke chose to go to a Catholic University. Roman Catholics do not believe in contraception. The insurance that Ms Fluke and her other female and male classmates are using is provided by Georgetown Univ. (through an underwriter of course). Georgetown is private, and therefore doesn't have to follow the rules that President Obama has created. remember that contraception is a choice.

    • George B. Bopper

      and also…
      Ms Fluke's arguement is like saying "I am a college student who has the right to drink beer, therefore the taxpayer/insurance company should pay for me to get drunk everynight of the week for each year I am in school…" Do you see how stupid her arguement is? Maybe not because everyone can only see their side. I can tell you that the two arguements are VERY related. Ms Fluke has a lot of intercourse right? Sexual intercourse with a man the way she looks would require that a man drink A LOT of beer (or spirit of his choice). His judgement would have to so impared that most likely he should be within walking distance of her home (I would never bring a woman that FUGLY to my place for fear that she would come back for more. No one was around to pay for my beer in college, did that all on my own. I also had sex with a few beasts, like Ms Fluke. Rush was right, she is a slut and we are all idiots for even listening to politicians like Pelosi and Obama.

    • Jacques

      That's not really the point. Birth control pills are perscription-based; it doesn't matter if you're having sex every day or less than once a month, or at all for that matter, since they have other medical uses. Nice name btw; I'm a libertarian, in fact reading Atlas Shrugged at the moment, and although I don't think there should be a mandate either, I don't support lying to meet your goals. It just makes your opponent's case easier,

  • Guest

    "There is nothing obviously “feminist” about living in a world in which men can have depersonalized sex with numberless women because they’re all on birth control."

    While I won't quarrel with the notion the feminism has its shortcomings, I fail to understand the logic in the statement above. It seems to suggest that simply having sex is inherently "depersonalized". Does that mean that any sex outside of marriage is wrong?

    I think one of the underlying issues here is the extent to which female sexuality is controlled and governed. Contraception is but one facet of that mechanism. And indeed, such control is very nearly universal in most human societies today. In suggesting that "men can have depersonalized sex with numberless women because they’re all on birth control", what you're really saying is that, regardless of whether or not women use birth control, men can (and largely do) have – take – all the sex they want.

  • Maxie

    "Social progress can be measured by the social position of the female sex.”
    Karl Marx

    And women represent a large voting bloc.the Left is "buying" with contraceptives paid for by the taxpayer. It's just another in an endless process of robbing Peter to pay Paul, Mary, Sandra, Carlos, Abdul and Yoshi. Obama and the MarxiCrats lose Paul's vote but get six in return. It's called Coercive Utopianism built on perpetual political power.

    • coyote3

      Well, "pandering" has always been a fact of politics in the U.S. It seems, however, that since the beginning of the 20th century it has been on steroids. Both sides do it, but it seems that the left does with an ever increasing demand for "rights", that don't really exist. Even if I have a "fundamental" right, that doesn't mean that other people should pay to finance it, regardless of whether it is private or public dollars.

      • Jim_C

        OK, this is an excellent point. I am not a big fan of pulling "rights" out of thin air. Education is a privilege. Health care is a privilege. Both things may seem fundamental to national security and indeed be worthwhile investments for a democratic republic to vote funding for. I think they are and should both be funded by taxes. But I still consider them privileges.

  • Maxie

    That should read you "lose Peter's vote"

  • Robert

    One more note. If the government were concerned about womens health they would ban all contraceptives instead of make insurance pay for them. They have been linked to more health issues than many other drugs which have been pulled from the market. Also before you respond take a look at the studies that say they are ok to use. Most are sponsored by the company that sells them.

    • Guest

      Excellent point, because contraception is a money market, as with any other drug from big pharma. Obviously, more independent research is needed.

      But this isn't just about birth control. Hormonal therapy, or the pill, is used to treat a variety of women's illnesses, including endometriosis and ovarian cysts, which if left unchecked, can develop into reproductive cancers. Based on that information alone, insurance carriers should be required to cover birth control.

      There are many studies about the dangers of Viagra and heart health, but it continues to be covered.

    • smh

      Wrong Robert. Birth control pills, when taken by healthy women have many health benefits that outweigh the risks (i.e. numerous studies show that birth control used for 5 years decreased uterine, ovarian, and colorectal cancers by an astounding 50%.!) Not to mention that this reduced risk continues even after the pills have been stopped. How is this a health issue? Not to mention that pills are very helpful in regulating women's periods and making them more bearable. Of course you are not a woman so you don't have a CLUE!

      • coyote3

        You didn't address the part about the studies which says these thing are so wonderful, are, in large part sponsored by the companies that sell/manufacture them. Now, that doesn't make the studies invald, in and of themselves, but it has to be taken into consideration. Why are we supposed to be any less skeptical of conceptive studies sponsored/conducted by those that stand to gain financially from their sale, than we are studies conducted by other industries, e.g. oil companies etc?

  • trickyblain

    "They have been linked to more health issues than many other drugs which have been pulled from the market."

    Citation?

  • Hannah

    First off, I'm a woman, and I went (on full scholarship, because my family isn't rich, at all, and there are kind and rich alum) to an Ivy League school where I majored in Physics, so I think I can say I am something of a feminist.
    Really, this isn't about women's health. It even kind of is about rich kids going to expensive schools thinking they own the world (I know, I've been to school with them) but even more than its about about entitlement, its really about building a brave new world with a redefinition of society.
    Its part of this movement to redefine the basic needs of persons, to include a new redefined "sexual needs." I got the whole speech from the administration no less, preaching at me to go and have (safe) sex because if I was abstinent I would be a loser. They had an agenda, they wanted us to believe we just HAD to go out and "express our sexuality" or we would be defunct human beings. Forget about self control and self respect. Heck, we were breeding animals with hormones and if we didn't do it, there was something seriously wrong with us or "you just couldn't find someone willing…"(actual Health Admin words at my NSO). Its about reinventing a new society…that really hurts women. And you were judgmentally told that if you didn't engage in sexual activity in college you were a loser. This was all at my freshman NSO at UPenn.
    Well, I guess by their standards I was a loser, because I was abstinent (and its free!) and then I got married and have 2 kids and no regrets. I think of my friends with no regrets, and of my friends with regrets…and all the ex's with bad memories and the kind of emotional pile up and physical repercussions , and honestly, its even better for a women's health, mental health, and dignity to remain abstinent till marriage. I've watched it both ways to people I really love. And this have-safe-sex-because-you're-a-loser-if-you're-abstinent-and-its-impossible message we got from the admin was so not true. Women's health is best served by abstinence till you are in a real committed (married) relationship.
    And that aside, why isn't the guy paying for the birth control? (He's the one getting out of child support…)

    • Guest

      Well, let's see. I have widespread endometriosis, including abdominal adhesions that were so painful I couldn't even tie my own shoes…at the age of 22. The ONLY known therapy for this illness…is the birth control pill, combined with anti-inflammatory medication. So how would abstinence serve me in this situation?

      This isn't about the sanctity of sex and love, or the sexualization of our culture. This is about people – like yourself – who are using your personal beliefs on a topic to attempt to exercise control over other people's medical choices. THAT'S what hurts women.

      Birth control is just as medically useful as Viagra, but unlike Viagra, is subject to non-eligibility based on the "morals" of the provider in question. That is wrong. Period.

      • coyote3

        No that is called freedom of contract. They have the right to exclude certain things. You can live with that, or you can find another insurance carrier/provider.

      • ferndoc

        But dear they gave (or sold) you medication to treat your endometriosis, not to provide you with birth control products. It is generally coincidental that the medication given you was ALSO an effective birth control product. Perhaps they should have called that medication by some other name when it was used to control endrometriosis to avoid these harmful genralizations you tend to make.

        The American taxpayers and the insurance companies would probably be more than OK with the medical treatment of such conditions as endrometriosis becase that is a ligitimate health issue. Having sex IS A CHOICE ISSUE, and if you want sexual intercourse and feel you need birth control , then you or your partner should pay for that birth control.

        BTW, Viagra is not sold as a birth control product, it is sold to treat a medical condition.

      • JoJoJams

        How about a compromise?? I know that's tough for the loony left (and the far right). NO coverage for "the pill", in general, but if there is a definite medical condtition, such as you had, then coverage! In short – it's covered if you're going to the doctor for some very real medical condition! NOT just so you can have protected sex! That's a compromise BOTH sides should be able to deal with!! (but I'm not holding my breath for either side to accept that.

    • Guest

      "why isn't the guy paying for the birth control?"

      *Facepalm.*
      Oh Dear Lord!

    • RagMop

      Thank you ,thank you, thank you! You make this 66 y.o. woman fell that all is not lost!

      • regmop

        *feel, not fell!

  • roy gotaas

    Why John Galt has to reduce the discussion to a matter of his own shallow, hormonal physical reaction to Ms Fluke's face, I'm blessed if I know! Clearly he's one of the shallow males who make the easy availability of contraception so important . . . we certainly don't want to perpetuate his type.
    But, since he takes it there, let me say, as a mature adult male, that I think Ms Fluke is a VERY attractive woman. It isn't about blatant sexuality (and neither are her comments): it's about the character that shows in a face, in the eyes, in the smile-lines. Perhaps when Mr Galt grows up he'll learn to appreciate that.

    • Epicurus

      Tastes differ

  • old Fasioned

    What we have here is not a contraceptive problem but one of morality. Both men and women are equally guilty. We now have at least 40 percent of all children born out of wedlock. It's time to quit just thinking about having a good time and start thinking of the problems we are creating for these children and future generations.

  • Bright Knight

    IMO contraception doesn't belong to the Health Care, it's about "personal pleasure" and therefore is to pay out of your personal wallet (unless there are medical reasons, hormone problems or whatever – that's something different). PERIOD!

    What would be next? Health care is paying for condoms? If this happens, I want the Health Care to pay for red wine, because after a couple of wines I get tired and don't want to have sex, i.e. it's some kind of contraception.

    OK, to be serious: this "the Health Care has to pay for everything" must stop! IMO, Health care (which should NOT be mandatory! It's my decision if and how I insure me) should be offered in "modules", starting with a basic, which covers surgeries, long-term-medication stuff such as for diabetes, etc., then you can add modules for sports injuries (in case you're an athlete, playing soccer, football, or whatever), dental and and and… all modules must have the same benefits at every insurance company (as it is with the medigap-plans) to be ale to compare the rates of the insurance companies. This would be one part of a REAL reform.

    • Snorbak

      However, a glass of red wine each day is considered good for your health, so based on the arguments put forward I would like red wine to be included in my health insurance as it deemed beneficial to my health.

    • http://callofthepatriot.blogspot.com HermitLion

      I would also like the free red wine solution.

      • intrcptr2

        Count me in.
        And when my liver goes fatty from accidental overdose, my mandated insurance will cover that too.

        How cool is that?

  • observer

    Although I completely disagree with Ms Fluke's ideas, I greatly admire her courage and her moderation.
    I sincerely believe that conservatism is the best political philosophy that exists, but not that kind of "conservatism" nowadays preached by extreme right scoundrels like Rush. A real conservative is always a gentleman, especially towards women.
    America is a house divided. The tone of the political debate is symptomatic for this. Both the right and the left think that the end – defeating the "enemy" – justifies the means, all means…
    The GOP once was a respectable party but the very fact that a man like Rush Limbaugh is the GOP’s unofficial leader is illustrating its desolate state. It is time to clean up the Augean Stables ousting the extremist and return to moderation.

    • Maxie

      Your Lib double Standard is showing. It wasn't Rush who called Sarah Palin a cun*. It was that vile, foul-mouth POS Bill Maher. I'd love to see him and Palin duke it out. She'd kick his wimpyy, gutless backside.

      • Amused

        The " they did it first ' mentality in all its ignorance .This is why most conservatives are total assshats .Wear the title well Maxie .

    • http://callofthepatriot.blogspot.com HermitLion

      Takes a lot of courage to say something that all your equally entitled friends would support. Takes even more courage to go to a prestigious law school, and make a name for yourself early on with ludicrous demands.
      Yes, a courageous woman, no doubt. She will have to pay dearly for it in fame, popularity, and recognition. Oh, the sacrifice!

    • tagalog

      I admire Ms. Fluke's courage too. I fully support the idea that women go to college and professional school, and have high-paying careers with easy and free access to contraception so that they can hook up with the disposable peter boys of their choice, have lots and lots of sex without marriage, conceive no children, and use their high incomes to support their gigolos. It is obviously good for society to make that the cultural status quo. And it's GREAT for men! A total win-win! You go, girls!

      "Money for nothing and the chicks for free…"

  • MacDaddy31

    Sometimes it is not as easy for people to clearly see twists and turns in a liberal's arguments against rational thought. Here, it is plain as day unless you are so hell-bent bias you cannot see anything. In most other instances, the liberal argument employs similar twists and turns, but they are not as easy to see or quite as preposterous. But I am glad for these hard scrabble liberals that try to distinguish between Rush and Maher (and Letterman, etc.) because it shows the mindset of the hard left and hopefully turns off fair-minded people from moving in that direction.

    • Jim_C

      Really? I can distinguish between Limbaugh and Maher in a most rational fashion. Maher is a comedian on premium cable. I expect bad language and sometimes raunchiness. And there's times when I think he's a blowhard who's not nearly as clever as he thinks he is. And yes his comments were awful.

      In contrast, Rush isn't a comedian–he's the guy who is singularly more responsible for the success of a political movement than anyone besides Ronald Reagan. Any time a Republican politician has run afoul of Rush, he goes back on hands and knees begging Rush's forgiveness. We've seen this time and again.

      In short, Rush is actually an important person. Rush matters. Maher doesn't.

      And you want to talk mindsets, it says a lot about his defenders that instead of bringing up the point Rush poorly made–that insurance shouldn't have to pay for birth control medication—they echoed his slur against her character.

      • MacDaddy31

        You can slice it and dice it all you want. I think your distinction is weak. Regardless, no decent person talks about another person AND THEIR FAMILY in that manner with a public mic in front of their face (or otherwise). It is fine for a comedian to make fun, but what Maher, Letterman and others did is just plain MEAN and mean-spirited. You go ahead and rationalize it if you like. At least Limbaugh – who I am no great fan of – apologized without being forced.

        • Jim_C

          You really think the distinction is weak? I've never seen a politician go back on his statement for fear of rousing the ire of Letterman or Maher. I've seen that on many occasions with Rushbo. I agree with you that their comments were just plain mean, and I thought so at the time. Is there anyone who can unequivocally say the same for Rush? Anyone?

  • Albert Reingewirtz

    Plunk! I just deleted Frong Page.

  • Amused

    " Fair minded people " ???? Where ??? Here on FPM ? You gotta be kidding ! Most here are no more fairminded than their counterparts at KOS ,the same arrogant self-righteousness , the same hypocrisy and narrow-mindedness , your mirror image as it were . You think not ? Think again .
    Both chastize then denigrate their moderates and coddle their demagogues on a leash , both having a memory hole regarding their faults . Obama won for ONE reason , not because he was black , or a "commie " , or a marxist , or Liberal , he won because the alternative offered in McCain a proven phony and crook [Remember The Banking Loan Scandal & Keating from the 80's ? ] and Palin , a know nothing to a painfull fault placed ONE heartbeat away from Potus was simply unasccreptable to The Majority of "Fair Minded People " . And Republicans are doing it AGAIN with the TWO clowns being offered this time around . Santorum the "
    Exorcist ", and Romney a.k.a. "FLIPPER " who's for and against whatever the crowd he happens to be addressing is for or against .

  • Amused

    Well ,neither hard Right nor Hard Left will have their way , because the "fair-minded " just left and right of center will decide this election . Make no mistake , it will be the Centrists , Independents , and those aforementioned left and right of center , who will resolve the issues this country faces . The morons on the left and right fringes , will be marginalized ,as well they should .They live in their own little closed universes ,with their own "set of facts " , their own dissonance and will be in for a rude awakening . Limbaughs and Mahers notwithstanding .

  • intrcptr2

    Jacob, Nicole,
    I may get back to all the demi-mindless blather about insurance and contraception, but I have two other concerns about this whole debacle.
    1. Why was she testifying before a Congressional committee in the first place? She's a law student, right? So outside a rather large bill for tuition, what insights did she provide of which anyone, in that room or outside it, were previously ignorant? Which Congressman asked her there that day to "put a human face" on this issue of mandatory birth control?
    2. Has no one quite caught what her testimony indicates concerning what Georgetown Law is teaching? How is it ANY law student can publicly proclaim that not only is it right and proper for Washington, or by extension any government in this land, to force individuals to purchase a service from a private corporation, but that preventing the continuation of the human species is a personal matter of good health?

    I quite understand how Rush has managed to incite the media into crucifying all non-statists or leftists as misogynistic scum, thus derailing any real criticsim of her testimony. And I appreciate this article for looking at it, without contradicting any of it. But how bad are things in American higher education considering that a 30-something law student can lay out a positioin which rests on the idea that ObamaCare, in any guise and by any other name, is Constitutional?

    • Proud liberal

      Did you even listen to her testimony? She was talking about how contraceptives are used for things other than birth control. Hey I am a proud Liberal. We founded this country. We believe in critical thinking, look it up. It means considering all sides. It means reading up on something before shooting off one's mouth. Try it. As for feminism, women have been put down for the entire history of mankind. Women priest? Heaven forbid.

      • Amused

        No , they didn't listen , nor will they .The only thing conservatives in this lot hears , is what ignorant utterances expectorate from the mouth of their demagogue Limbaugh .. Afterall , WHY should they …."Rudsh is right " ! LOL….now here's a man who , whilst stating on his show , that drug users should unequivically BE THROWN IN JAIL , was sending his maid out to by oxycodone …ILLEGALY .
        Welcome to " Hypocrisy Central " .

        • intrcptr2

          Next time you care to think for me, tell me, so that I can point out where you are talking through your hat.

          1. Registered Independent, for the sake of jury duty. I don't vote, due to religious conviction.
          2. Socially and legally conservative. The Federal government is, as the Founding Fathers anticipated, too big and powerful. Illicit drugs are a cancer, illegal immigration has gone on too long, with a wink, and all immigration should be halted for about a generation, to allow all immigrants already here to assimilate. There is no reason that the state cannot regulate marriage, according to the moral dictates of the people. Yes, that includes restricting legal marriage to biological marriage.
          3. Don't listen to talk radio.
          4. Bush was in over his head, and Obama is a bald faced liar.

      • intrcptr2

        I am pretty sure that was a question I asked there, so no, I made it obvious I didn't listen to her testimony. I didn't listen to Rush either.
        I do not see how the purpose of using contraceptives (As far as I know that applies only to the pill) for health reasons not connected to pregnancy would drive the cost so much higher. $3000/annum seems rather expensive; what, $240/month. Is that how much the pill normally costs? Again, I confess ignorance here.

        And no, liberals, in the current sense of communal statists most assuredly did not found this country. n the first place, it was, in general, Christians fleeing the English state who founded the various colonies which later agree to craft a single national government, free from religious mandate. People like Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, Rush, Morris,(To say nothing of Locke, Rousseau, and Mill) etc would be flabbergasted at what modern liberals claim under the term.
        I am quite capable of thinking critically, mum. 'Tis why I do not believe ObamaCare is Constitutional, or moral, or Christian.

        Notice, I have 77 pips next to my name. I do not shoot my mouth off. Perhaps you could address my second question, which is actually more important than the one you reacted to.

        And second-wave feminism has rather little to do with elevating women as much as allowing them to act like the animals men mimic far too often. Politically speaking, there is no such thing as a "woman's issue"; we are all in this together. IF men have messed something up, the solution is not for women to take over and ignore men in the process of fixing it. And anyway, there have been no men around to mess things up who got here in the absence of women. Or to put it more bluntly, all wife beaters had a mommy.

      • JoJoJams

        So, if you "consider all sides", then you should be able to agree on……wait for it…… a COMPROMISE!!! That would be: NO coverage for contraceptives, in general, but coverage if you have a definite medical issue such as we've heard about ad nauseum. you know – the rare physical issue that "the pill" could actually help to alleviate. So, no coverage just to get the pill, so someone can have protected sex at everyone elses expense, but coverage if you have a definite physical malady. Does that sound "fair", Proud Liberal?

  • PDK

    When I was a child I did not get money from my parents as an allowence, this even though I had family chores I was responsible for. However I, just like other children wanted some money to spend as I chose. So from early on I mowed lawns in summer, shoveled driveways in winter and got a paper route.
    I still went to school, practice an instrument and got some play time in.
    I did not expect my parents to take from the family to give to me special.
    I am appalled, not just at Fluke, but all liberals, especially the young adults, i.e. OWS, who want our goverment to take from others, even those with familys of their own and give to them rather than they be expected to get a job.
    It is the liberal mindset that they are "owed" this.
    We are 15.3 trillion $s in debt, we are a financial good ship Titanic and they demand the freebies they are owed by someone elses hard work.
    This liberal mentality bodes and augurs poorly for the longevity of America. Thank you.

    • Amused

      What a CROC of B.S>

  • PDK

    It seems clear that the difference between the conservative mindset and the liberal mindset is that what conservatives percieve as the duty of personal responsibility, the liberal sees as their right owed to them by the taxpayer. One view is matured, the other is immatured. Thank you.

    • W. C. Taqiyya

      But that personal responsibility thing is so difficult and it means making decisions and thinking and other stuff I don't have time for. Why can't the government just give me everything I want? Is immature a bad thing? And even if immature is a bad thing, so what? I want a free computer, phone, car and house. NOW!
      I will continue to stamp my feet and cry loudly until Obama is reelected. So there.

  • mrbean

    Hmmmm… $9 for a month's supply or $24 for 3 month supply at any Walmart Pharmacy w/o medical insurance for her birth control pills – yet she can afford to fork out $30,000 a semester for law school – dress in stunning style – probably uses Este Laudre – probably dines out in Georgetown – and can fly all over the place going from talk show to talk show as an activist campaigning for free governmenthandouts to subsidize her sex life and plying the victim because someone call her a nasty name. Got news for you Ms Fluke, you are a parisitical leftist and that is a lot worse than any names you were called by Rush.

  • Amused

    Spoken like the true rhetoric parrot that you are .BTW -you're not welcome , and stick your condescending estimation where the sun don't shine .I doubt if you've ever gotten your hands blistered or caloused from a hard days work . Your parents did you a dis-service by not making sure your head was screwed on straight .Tere are literal millions who've broke their backs for a living in this country , are you diumb enough to think they all were Conservatives ? And because they dont vote or thionk like you and your lot , that makes them what ? Immature ? Really ? Man your parents really dropped the ball with you chump .

    • PDK

      Amused let us agree to separate out into two mutual exclusive countries. I`m sure the liberal states of America would make it. You think you liberals would make it, don`t you?
      Personally I`d be glad to be rid of liberal immaturity. Wouldn`t you be glad to be rid of conservative maturity.

  • Amused

    P.S.- PDK , there is no such word as " immatured " . Bad schooling too huh ?

    • PDK

      Amused after reading tour posts not only do I see your immaturity but your spelling is below grade and your ideology reflects both imaturity and stupidity. You are not worth corresponding to, you are a liberal dolt dumping. Stay in your mothers basement. Good bye Mr. Immature.

  • Robbo

    I'm not from the US but understand that this issue arose over whether a Catholic-endowed hospital should be required (against their principles, to include artificial birth control as part of employee health insurance.
    I wonder what the Administration would have done if non-Muslim employees of a Muslim-endowed hospital had protested that pork products be compulsorily available in the staff cafeteria?

  • Amused

    Here';s another hypothetical …what if a muslim endowed hospital is " forced " to pay health insurance that covers medically approved "assist " or "seeing eye dogs " for the blind ?

    • JoJoJams

      Well, obviously, they would be exempt from any Obamacare edict. lmao. Of course, since there aren't any hospitals in America endowed (and run) by muslims in America, it's just a hypothetical — as opposed to the reality of a Catholic institution (endowed AND run) being forced to comply with Obamacare.

  • Amused

    Given Limbaugh's racist and just plain mean spirited remarks over the years , an addition to his own personal behavior andd hypocrisy , I doubt that he even gives a rats asss about anyone 's religious dogma . His slanderous remarks concerning this woman are merely driven by his stated animus towards anything "Obama " which this big bag of conservative hot air has been billowing since the day after Obama won the election .. Does Rush practice "the sex only for procreation " rouitine , or the "rhythum method " of birth control , as it is the only "acceptable method of birth control" recommended by the Catholic Church ? LOL…..Do any Catholics follow this method ?

    • mrbean

      God you are boring, so stuff it you idiot!

  • Amused

    Since when does religious dogma become the paradigm of public policy ? Let alone Limbaugh's .

    • Libtard

      My GAWD you're stupid!

      You're so indoctrinated you're actually stupid

  • Ivan Bitcherkokoff

    If Ms Fluke is having unprotected sex (I'm assuming so, since her birth control of choice appears to be pharmeceuticals instead of an IUD or condoms) and complaining that she cannot afford the $10 -$15 a month that generic birth control pills would cost her, why hasn't anyone commented on the dangers of her spreading sexually transmitted diseases such as syphilis, gonorrhea, hepatitis-C, or Human papillomavirus (HPV), the virus that causes cervical cancer, or even HIV? Any of her transient male partners can easily transmit to her any of these STD's, some of them fatal, or can catch them from her from a previous encounter Ms Fluke had with a previous sex partner and then pass these diseases on to their next female one-night stand.
    The highest rates of sexually-transmitted diseases (all of the above) in the country are in the Baltimore-Washington corridor according to the NIH. A promiscuous female such as Ms Fluke may well constitute a public health hazard.

    • Hannah

      Just very true.I am from a liberal European country. promiscuity seen as normal,pill covered by insurance though some want it taken out as so expensive, apart from for medical reasons. A doctor friend told me the LARGE majority of his patients come to him with STD's. He was bored…the same old thing, day after day, people asking "but it's normal isn't it"? He replied "no" ! I felt for him. And I assure you he was no zealous religionist or anything, far from it .

      Same as a lawyer I know, most of his cases involve divorce, mostly bitter..day after day after day he said, "boring"…yes it's called "modern European life" everyone ,and aren't we all so much happier?? !

    • Georgina

      You assume a lot. How about I am assuming she wants something like an implant, or the pill to ensure she does not get pregnant and demands that the man uses a condom to protect against STDs?

  • Amused

    Hey Ivan j..,.erkoff , how do you know Fluke is promiscuous ? Are all women taking the pill or using contraceptives "promiscuous " ? You're just as fooked up as Limbaugh .But you're a sycophant , what else could be expected eh ? Gee , about 80%or better of married catholic women practice birth control visa-vis the pill or other means of contraception ….are they all promiscuous ? Are they all spreading diseases ? Man what a schmuck you are .

  • Amused

    And you aint no better Hannah. Next time the fat blowhard Rush lifts his leg on some woman , maybe you'll be the lucky one eh Hannah .

  • http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/ JasonPappas

    Why is this woman's sexuality a political issue? She wants birth control and so do many responsible conservative women. Like everything else, if you want something you pay for it. It's not about the merits of birth control.

    What's wrong with conservatives that they can't stop thinking about sex. There public debt going through the roof, over $1 trillion spent trying to turn Muslims into Jeffersonian Democrats, an expanding state, and an over-regulated economy. But conservatives go off the deep end about a few dollars spent on birth control pills. Obama didn't have to do much to sidetrack conservatives.

  • Georgina

    I was on the pill for 8 years to control bleeding after an operation. I know many career women who are on the pill because they cannot afford to have PMS cloud their judgment. (Shame there is no such pill for men.)

    I know people who have had implants to alleviate the side effects. Medical contraceptives are MEDICINE. I prefer my tax dollars go to keeping a student from getting pregnant that supporting an unwanted child (have pity on the child).

    Women who want to have sex will have sex, better to put all young women on implants until they have the maturity and environment to bring up children.

  • tagalog

    "…she has sorrowfully recounted how one woman she knew felt “powerless” at a pharmacy counter when informed that contraceptives weren’t covered by the school’s health care plan."

    Yes, when I was negotiating for a new car the other day, I asked if my auto insurance carrier would cover the cost of the car. They told me that they wouldn't cover that, as it's not in my policy and that's not what my policy's for.

    I felt so powerless.

  • tagalog

    "For the left, contraception itself is a special female entitlement, and entitlements come without price tags."

    If I have a Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, do I get my guns for free because I have an entitlement to own firearms? What kind of logic is it that says having rights means you get stuff you're entitled to for free? Even though I have the right to freedom of the press, I still have to pay for the newspaper I pick up at my local Seven-Eleven.

  • mrbean

    I am absolutely sure all the man hater feminists have what Bill Cosby calls "Brain Damage" . COLUMBUS – Before getting a prescription for Viagra or other erectile dysfunction drugs, men would have to see a sex therapist, receive a cardiac stress test and get a notarized affidavit signed by a sexual partner affirming impotency, if state Sen. Nina Turner has her way. The Cleveland Democrat introduced Senate Bill 307 this week. A critic of efforts to restrict goverbment funded abortion and contraception for women, Turner says she is concerned about men’s reproductive health. (great steaming piles) Turner’s bill joins a trend of Democratic female lawmakers submitting bills regulating men’s health. This group of Democratic control freak hags must be truly brain damaged.

  • mrbean

    Post this about the control freak Democrat feminists, COLUMBUS – Before getting a prescription for Viagra or other erectile dysfunction drugs, men would have to see a sex therapist, receive a cardiac stress test and get a notarized affidavit signed by a sexual partner affirming impotency, if state Sen. Nina Turner has her way.

  • Puzzled

    How come Fluke needs contraception with a dildo or vibrator?

  • A. Cooper

    And teabagging, too!

  • Kyntale

    Ad Meretricem Caesaris

    To abortionist Sandra Fluke.

    Alas, the name has come to wrap itself around
    Your putrid frame, a second skin that might astound
    All onlookers with eyes of pity as they gaze
    At one so lacking shame. If ever you amaze,
    Tis not by beauty long since tainted and disgraced
    As much by outward use as your polluted thoughts,
    (With women, it is from within that beauty rots),
    Nor woman’s modesty by servile lust effaced,
    Much less the antique charms of gentle ladies past
    Whose looks commanded armies and their fame outlast;
    Oh no! Your fascination is the gutter kind,
    But with a special twist for which you’re most maligned:
    That you should prostitute your leaden mind to Hate,
    To service—in full view—the Phallus of the State.

    Kenneth Kyntale http://www.poetrypac.com/index.html