Author Topic: Miss Fluke goes to Washington  (Read 4243 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Miss Fluke goes to Washington
« on: March 10, 2012, 03:08:25 PM »
When even casual sex requires a state welfare program, you're pretty much done for

I'm writing this from Australia, so, if I'm not quite up to speed on recent events in the United States, bear with me – the telegraph updates are a bit slow here in the bush. As I understand it, Sandra Fluke is a young coed who attends Georgetown Law and recently testified before Congress.

Oh, wait, no. Update: It wasn't a congressional hearing; the Democrats just got it up to look like one, like summer stock, with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid doing the show right here in the barn and providing a cardboard set for the world premiere of "Miss Fluke Goes To Washington," with full supporting cast led by Chuck Schumer strolling in through the French windows in tennis whites and drawling, "Anyone for bull****?"

Oh, and the "young coed" turns out to be 30, which is what less-evolved cultures refer to as early middle age. She's a couple of years younger than Mozart was at the time he croaked but, if the Dems are to be believed, the plucky little Grade 24 schoolgirl has already made an even greater contribution to humanity.

She's had the courage to stand up in public and demand that someone else (and this is where one is obliged to tiptoe cautiously, lest offense is given to gallant defenders of the good name of American maidenhood such as the many prestigious soon-to-be-former sponsors of this column who've booked Bill Maher for their corporate retreat with his amusing "Sarah Palin is a c***" routine ...)

Where was I? Oh, yes. The brave middle-age schoolgirl had the courage to stand up in public and demand that someone else pay for her sex life.

Well, as noted above, she's attending Georgetown, a nominally Catholic seat of learning, so how expensive can that be? Alas, Georgetown is so nominally Catholic that the cost of her sex life runs to three grand – and, according to the star witness, 40 percent of female students "struggle financially" because of the heavy burden of maintaining a respectable level of pre-marital sex at a Jesuit institution.

As I said, I'm on the other side of the planet, so maybe I'm not getting this. But I'd say the core issue here is not religious liberty, which in these godless times the careless swing voter now understands as a code phrase meaning that uptight Republicans who can't get any action want to stop you getting any, too.

Nor is the core issue liberty in its more basic sense – although it would certainly surprise America's founders that their republic of limited government is now the first nation in the developed world to compel private employers to fully fund the sex lives of their employees.

Nor is it even the distinctively American wrinkle the Republic of Paperwork has given to governmentalized health care, under which the "right to privacy" the Supreme Court claimed to have discovered in Griswold vs. Connecticut and Roe vs. Wade will now lead to thousands and thousands of self-insuring employers keeping computer records of the morning-after pills and herpes medication racked up by Miss Jones on reception.

Nor is the issue that America has 30-year-old schoolkids – or even 30-year-old schoolkids who expect someone else to pick up the tab for their extracurricular activities, rather than doing a paper route and a bit of yard work to save up for their first IUD, as we did back in my day. After all, the human right to government-mandated free contraception is as American as apple pie and far healthier for you. In my most recent book, I quote one of Sandra Fluke's fellow geriatrics gamboling in the groves of academe and complaining to the Washington Post about the quality of free condoms therein:

"'If people get what they don't want, they are just going to trash them,' said T Squalls, 30, who attends the University of the District of Columbia. 'So why not spend a few extra dollars and get what people want?'"

All of us are born with the unalienable right to life, liberty and a lifetime supply of premium ribbed silky-smooth, ultrasensitive, spermicidal, lubricant condoms. No taxation without rubberization, as the Minutemen said. The shot heard round the world and all that.

Nor is the core issue that, whatever the merits of government contraception, America is the brokest nation in history – although the Fluke story is a useful reminder that the distinction between fiscal and social conservatism is generally false.

As almost all those fashionable split-the-difference fiscally conservative/socially liberal governors from George Pataki to California's pathetically terminated Terminator eventually discover, their social liberalism comes with a hell of a price tag. Ask the Greeks how easy it is for insolvent nations to wean the populace off unaffordable nanny-state lollipops: When even casual sex requires a state welfare program, you're pretty much done for.

No, the most basic issue here is not religious morality, individual liberty or fiscal responsibility. It's that a society in which middle-age children of privilege testify before the most powerful figures in the land to demand state-enforced funding for their sex lives at a time when their government owes more money than anyone has ever owed in the history of the planet is quite simply nuts.

As stark staring nuts as the court of Ranavalona, the deranged nymphomaniac queen of Madagascar at whose funeral the powder keg literally went up, killing dozens and burning down three royal palaces. Indeed, one is tempted to arrange an introduction between "T Squalls, 30," now 32 going on 33, and Sandra Fluke, 30 going on 31, like a skillfully negotiated betrothal between two royal houses in medieval Europe. The student prince would bring to the marriage his impressive fortune of a decade's worth of Trojan Magnums, while the Princess Leia would have a dowry of index-linked RU 486s settled upon her by HHS the Margravine of Sebelius. They would not be required to produce an heir.

Insane as this scenario is, the Democrat-media complex insists that everyone take it seriously. When it emerged the other day that Amanda Clayton, a 24-year-old Michigan million-dollar lottery winner, still receives $200 of food stamps every month, even the press and the bureaucrats were obliged to acknowledge the ridiculousness. Yet, the same people are determined that Sandra Fluke be treated with respect as a pioneering spokesperson for the rights of the horizontally challenged.

Sorry, I pass
.

"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom," wrote Benjamin Franklin in 1784. In the absence of religious virtue, sexual virtue and fiscal virtue, one might trust to the people's sense of sheer preposterousness to reject the official narrative of the Fluke charade. Yet even that is not to be permitted.

Full disclosure: I will be guest-hosting for Rush Limbaugh this Monday, so it would not be appropriate for me to comment here on Rush's intervention. But let me say this. Almost every matter of the moment boils down to the same story: the Left's urge to narrow the bounds of public discourse and insist that "conventional wisdom" unknown to the world the day before yesterday is now as unquestionable as the Laws of Physics. Nothing that Rush said is as weird or as degrading as what Sandra Fluke and the Obama administration are demanding. And any freeborn citizen should reserve the right to point that out as loudly and as often as possible.

Op-ed

"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Christians4LessGvt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11139
    • View Profile
    • "The Religion Of Peace"
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Miss Fluke goes to Washington
« Reply #1 on: March 10, 2012, 07:09:21 PM »
"Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" - Ronald Reagan - June 12, 1987

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Miss Fluke goes to Washington
« Reply #2 on: March 13, 2012, 04:49:04 PM »
New Sandra Fluke Column: I Won't Be Silenced!

Perhaps sensing that her 15 minutes of fame are dangerously close to expiring, Sandra Fluke has taken to CNN.com to chronicle her own heroism, and gallantly assert that name-calling and attacks will not "silence" or deter her.  Let me first stipulate that I think she is entitled to defend herself against some of the offensive and counterproductive smears from certain figures with large media megaphones -- although you'd think a private phone call and outspoken public support from the President of the United States might have sufficed.  That being said, to paraphrase the late Sen. Moynihan, Ms. Fluke is not entitled to her own set of facts.  Let's review a few excerpts from her column that miss the mark:
 
These attempts to silence women and the men who support them have clearly failed. I know this because I have received so many messages of support from across the country -- women and men speaking out because they agree that contraception needs to be treated as a basic health care service. Who are these supporters? They are women with polycystic ovarian syndrome, who need contraception to prevent cysts from growing on their ovaries, which if unaddressed can lead to infertility and deadly ovarian cancer. They are sexual assault victims, who need contraception to prevent unwanted pregnancy.  

Fluke writes that some women need contraception for non-pregnancy-related needs, such as the prevention of potentially malignant ovarian cysts.  It is definitely reasonable to suggest that any employer should strongly consider covering contraception under such circumstances (although some would still contend that the federal government should not swoop in and mandate that they do so).  Fluke's own testimony reveals that at least one significant religiously-affiliated institution does, in fact, make such an exemption -- the very school she purported to represent at the hearing:

A friend of mine, for example, has polycystic ovarian syndrome and has to take prescription birth control to stop cysts from growing on her ovaries. Her prescription is technically covered by Georgetown insurance because it’s not intended to prevent pregnancy...

"Technically."  Later in her soliloquy, Fluke relayed a story of a young woman who supposedly didn't report a sexual assault because she assumed Georgetown's insurance wouldn't cover her medical needs.  Setting aside whether this anecdote is true -- it may strike some people as rather implausible -- it turns out that (again) Georgetown's policies do cover those servicesFurthermore, basic, affordable birth control pills are readily available and very affordable at several drug stores in the immediate vicinity of Georgetown's campuses.  Back to today's piece.  After describing a laundry list of reasons why women can benefit from using birth control, most of which elicit no quarrel from me, Fluke tackles the issue of cost:
 
Despite the misinformation being spread, the regulation under discussion has absolutely nothing to do with government funding: It is all about the insurance policies provided by private employers and universities that are financed by individual workers, students and their families -- not taxpayers. I am talking about women who, despite paying their own premiums, cannot obtain coverage of contraception on their private insurance, even when their employer or university contributes nothing to that insurance.

Who, exactly, is propagating this alleged taxpayer funding myth?  As Fluke mentions earlier in her Op/Ed, the government already funds some limited forms of "free" contraception under Title X and through programs like Medicaid.  What is at issue here is the new federal edict requiring virtually every single employer in America to directly pay for plans that must cover birth control with zero co-pay.  The mandate makes no exceptions for religious employers such as Catholic hospitals, schools, and other private companies run by people who adhere to church teachings.  Fluke obliterates the taxpayer funding strawman, as if that alone vindicates the unprecedented federal intrusion that is the crux of today's controversy.  The First Amendment protects individuals' and entities' rights to freely exercise their faith.  This right is not absolute, but it is sacred, and the government must identify a very compelling and overwhelming state interest to justify violating it.  Also, when HHS coerces private insurance companies to provide more services "for free," those costs don't magically vanish.  Costly government mandates result in higher premiums for everyone else.  We also know that in the recent past, Ms. Fluke has advocated extraordinarily expensive government "healthcare" mandates, such as the requirement that employer-provided insurance cover gender reassignment surgery.  This woman is not your average, run-of-the-mill student.  And as for her gripe that her college/employer "contributes nothing" toward the type of insurance she demands, let me repeat: Sandra Fluke, like all of her colleagues, chose to attend and/or work at Georgetown.  In her case, it appears she selected Georgetown specifically because of its policies, which she's been obsessed with changing by any means necessary.  Fluke concludes:
 
Restricting access to such a basic health care service, which 99% of sexually experienced American women have used and 62% of American women are using right now, is out of touch with public sentiment.

Whether those statistics are precisely accurate is irrelevant.  Nobody is advocating "restricting access" to birth control.  Period.  Forcing all employers to pay for something -- especially with no opt-out for religious institutions and businesses -- does not constitute access restriction. 

Think of it this way: The Second Amendment explicitly guarantees Americans' right to bear arms.  This right has been affirmed by two recent Supreme Court decisions.  Let's say some gun advocates launched a hypothetical campaign to impose a federal mandate forcing all employers pay for their employees' guns, would it be fair to say that opponents of that effort were "restricting access" to firearms?  Of course not.  This is sophistry.  Finally, as I've discussed previously, opposing the Obama administration's unconstitutional conscience-violation requirements is not "out of touch with public sentiment."  After two full weeks of "war on women" demagoguery and distortions from the Left, CBS News and the New York Times published the following poll last night:



By an 11-point spread, Americans believe that average employers who happen to be religious should be able to "opt out" of the new federal rule, and by a 21-point margin, Americans believe that religiously-affiliated employers (hospitals, schools, universities, etc) should have an opt-out available.  That is very encouraging news, and must be a gut-punch to those who have invested so heavily in this manufactured, liberty-depriving endeavor

Op-ed on the op-ed
« Last Edit: March 13, 2012, 05:36:44 PM by sirs »
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16141
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Miss Fluke goes to Washington
« Reply #3 on: March 13, 2012, 05:29:04 PM »

Christians4LessGvt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11139
    • View Profile
    • "The Religion Of Peace"
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Miss Fluke goes to Washington
« Reply #4 on: March 13, 2012, 06:37:04 PM »

"Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" - Ronald Reagan - June 12, 1987

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Miss Fluke goes to Washington
« Reply #5 on: March 13, 2012, 08:10:01 PM »
New Sandra Fluke Column: I Won't Be Silenced!

Think of it this way: The Second Amendment explicitly guarantees Americans' right to bear arms.  This right has been affirmed by two recent Supreme Court decisions.  Let's say some gun advocates launched a hypothetical campaign to impose a federal mandate forcing all employers pay for their employees' guns, would it be fair to say that opponents of that effort were "restricting access" to firearms?  Of course not.  This is sophistry.........................


Sophistry  supopistristry, lets do it!

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Miss Fluke goes to Washington
« Reply #6 on: March 13, 2012, 08:15:13 PM »
 8)
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16141
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Miss Fluke goes to Washington
« Reply #7 on: March 13, 2012, 08:36:13 PM »



I'm not sure how accurate that photoshop is.

I have no idea if she is a slut.

But i don't believe her message is that she wants to be compensated for putting out.

What she is saying is that contraceptives should be covered in insurance policies and that contraceptives should be covered in the policies of those organizations who do not for religious reasons currently supply coverage.

In essence this choice advocate advocates no choice for religious organizations.

There are a couple of points that need to be made.

1) I am not sure that insurance policies is in the federal domain, i believe that falls to the states as it currently does.

2) even is the feds have status to define insurance coverage, does that status trump the first amendment.

I don't think so.





Christians4LessGvt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11139
    • View Profile
    • "The Religion Of Peace"
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Miss Fluke goes to Washington
« Reply #8 on: March 13, 2012, 09:14:51 PM »
agreed BT....
the Feds can go to hell
next it will be:

"well why wont someone pay for my health club membership?
After all if I exercise I will be more healthy and be less of
a burden on ObamaCare"
"Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" - Ronald Reagan - June 12, 1987

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16141
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Miss Fluke goes to Washington
« Reply #9 on: March 13, 2012, 09:29:21 PM »
The other thing is that ObamaCare does not provide universal health coverage i believe it might cover 25% of the 44 million uninsured.

Now that leaves 33 million folks 16.5 million of whom are women and  are being denied free contraceptive coverage because ObamaCare and the democrats failed to deliver on their promises.

I wish MS. Fluke would speak to that during her Reproductive Justice Tour.




sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Miss Fluke goes to Washington
« Reply #10 on: March 14, 2012, 12:48:06 AM »
Let me add.......there is no "right to BC or Contraceptives" (not to mention that there's no right to healthcare either).  BOTH is the government mandating the services/products to another, at tax payer's expense.  The former, as it relates to religious institutions, not only isn't the domain of the Fed, but is literally counter the 1st amendment of the Constitution

Just sayin
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Miss Fluke goes to Washington
« Reply #11 on: March 14, 2012, 02:18:36 AM »
 Rights not enumerated should be considered the rights of the people .

Only for really good reason should the peoples rights be limited.

But expecting that the people have a right to have their rights financed by the government doesn't follow.

It has been suggested that our second admendment right deserves subsidy, this is rediculous.

Perhaps it is usefully rediculous.

The people who could demand the government pay for ammunition is doubble the number that might ask for free contraception.

What a huge and frivolous class action.

Either way.

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16141
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Miss Fluke goes to Washington
« Reply #12 on: March 14, 2012, 02:25:44 AM »
I still don't get where this regulating of insurance policies is happening at taxpayer expense.

Georgetown pays directly, the students indirectly. What does the government pay?

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Miss Fluke goes to Washington
« Reply #13 on: March 14, 2012, 02:56:22 AM »
Would you be referring to the mandate that religious organizations, provide BC, counter to teir doctrine, via whatever insurance carrier they have??  That's actually the far more egregious Fed act, than that of trying to mandate universal health coverage
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16141
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Miss Fluke goes to Washington
« Reply #14 on: March 14, 2012, 02:58:38 AM »
You said this:
Quote
BOTH is the government mandating the services/products to another, at tax payer's expense.

In the Georgetown case , where are the fed dollars?