Is it Just a Fluke, or . . .
. . . am I missing something?
Because I just can't understand why, in all this hooha over Rush Limbaugh, the thirty-something Ms. Fluke, and why it's necessary for the Catholic Church to pay for her birth control, there doesn't seem to be a significant or widespread challenge to her initial premise, which is that the cost of such birth control ($1000 per year) is so burdensome that whey-faced and gormless girls are wandering aimlessly about all over Catholic campuses in a nationwide funk because they can't get someone else to pay for their pills.
Is it really true, as it seems to be, that Walmart and Target offer generic birth control pills for as little as $9 per month, even if you don't have insurance? That seems to be the current Internet meme.
- Comment (31)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Dec '10
Re: Is it Just a Fluke, or . . .
I think she said she was on a "Public Interest Scholarship." (I love that the acronym is PILS).
Here's what PILS provides:
So, if that's the case, she may have a subtantial amount of her tuition forgiven . . . I realize that doesn't answer Crab Bait's question.
Mar '11
Re: Is it Just a Fluke, or . . .
BTC123: Very true, and then I read this over the weekend:
http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/03/meet-law-student-and-contraception-advocate-sandra-fluke/
The Fluke is not a fluke; she's been focused on "women's rights, women's studies," pro-abortion and securing free contraceptives for awhile now. Another straw man for the liberal cause. · 5 hours ago
I read the article and was struck by the fact it does not mention who is bankrolling Ms Fluke's career as an activist. Who paid for her stint at Cornell? Who paid $45,000 a year for her to go to Geogetown for the purpose of disrupting it?
It said she is currently an intern.
Mar '11
Re: Is it Just a Fluke, or . . .
My response to Ms. Fluke's testimony:
"ma'am, you and your doctor know your medical needs better than anyone else. If you and your doctor conclude that your optimal contraception costs $1000/year, we respect that decision. However, it is unconscionable to force a religious institution to spend any of their money on contraceptives against their will, regardless of how badly you may need them. If expensive contraception is a high priority in your life, you should have factored this into your choice of healthcare provider."
Why are we speculating on how much money Ms. Fluke actually needs for her contraception, and what she needs her contraception for? Didn't we spend the last month (during the Santorum rise) trying to make the case that conservatives aren't interested in judging private citizens' behavior in the bedroom?
Edited on March 6, 2012 at 12:12amFeb '11
Re: Is it Just a Fluke, or . . .
Mendel:
.....
Why are we speculating on how much money Ms. Fluke actually needs for her contraception, and what she needs her contraception for? Didn't we spend the last month (during the Santorum rise) trying to make the case that conservatives aren't interested in judging private citizens' behavior in the bedroom?
Exactly, attacking the issue in the way Rush did only makes the left's job easier. There was plenty to attack in Fluke's testimony (and the disingenuous preening of the participating legislators, and the whole sordid timeline leading up to this farce), like the definition of "access", or asking for clarification of how it is that individuals would be able to "obtain" contraceptives directly from the insurer, or asking how it is that Georgetown is the one imposing a "burden" on anyone, or by more directly asking why Georgetown should be required to provide any benefits at all.
Edited on March 6, 2012 at 1:11amDec '10
Re: Is it Just a Fluke, or . . .
Ed G.
Mendel:
Why are we speculating on how much money Ms. Fluke actually needs for her contraception . . . ?
Exactly, attacking the issue in the way Rush did only makes the left's job easier. There was plenty to attack in Fluke's testimony . . . like the definition of "access", or . . . how it is that individuals would be able to "obtain" contraceptives directly from the insurer, or asking how it is that Georgetown is the one imposing a "burden" on anyone, or by more directly asking why Georgetown should be required to provide anybenefits at all. · 30 minutes ago
That last one's easy. Georgetown should be required to provide benefits because not to do so imposes a terrible burden on women, because they can't afford the cost of contraception ($1000/year), and anyone who says different is a mysogynistic creep, because that's what it costs.
Isn't it?
Would that Rush (or someone else with with a sound mind and a big megaphone), had gone through her 'testimony,' as you suggest, and addressed the substantive issues you mention so as to ignite an honest debate.
But I don't think that happened.
Or if it ever will.
Mar '11
Re: Is it Just a Fluke, or . . .
She
Would that Rush (or someone else with with a sound mind and a big megaphone), had gone through her 'testimony,' as you suggest, and addressed the substantive issues you mention so as to ignite an honest debate.
But I don't think that happened.
Or if it ever will. · 1 minute ago
Actually he did. Repeatedly.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/03/01/welfare_disguised_as_women_s_rights
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/03/01/left_freaks_out_over_my_fluke_remarks
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/03/02/fellow_co_ed_fluke_doesn_t_speak_for_me
And I didn't include everything he said. All but two words [for which he apologized] was lost in the left's outrage....the left that refused to listen to what he was saying.
Feb '12
Re: Is it Just a Fluke, or . . .
Would that Rush (or someone else with with a sound mind and a big megaphone), had gone through her 'testimony,' as you suggest, and addressed the substantive issues you mention so as to ignite an honest debate.
But I don't think that happened.
Do you listen to Rush Limbaugh?
He absolutely went through her testimony that way.
Dec '10
Re: Is it Just a Fluke, or . . .
I do listen to Rush. I like Rush. I'll give you that he mentioned some of the issues raised here.
But as I recall, this debate began because of a federal requirement that Catholic institutions be required to fund contraceptive and abortifacient coverage for their employees. That requirement was sternly rebuffed by the Church, and because of the pushback, a fig leaf of 'compromise' was imposed, whereby institutions would not 'pay' for this coverage, insurance companies would 'pay' instead. A distinction without a difference, especially in the case of the many self-insured institutions.
Somewhere, these constitutional issues got lost, and for the last several days, it's all been about Sandra Fluke, who is, as Rush has pointed out, an experienced activist with an agenda, one who either sought out, or was sought out by, Nancy Pelosi and company for the purpose of deflecting the discussion back to 'women's rights,' rather than 'religious freedom.'
Had Rush been more disciplined, I think he could have educated, and perhaps changed, some minds, but I think he got carried away on this one. I think his transcripts demonstrate that, and I think he knows that.
But I still like Rush.
Feb '12
Re: Is it Just a Fluke, or . . .
I think everyone agrees he got carried away; He even said it wasn't a good choice. But I don't think we should make too much of this. The discussion was pretty derailed way before he said anything.
May '10
Re: Is it Just a Fluke, or . . .
I think we should accept Ms. Flukes stated expenses for contraceptives as sincere and factual because everyone knows [redacted for Code of Conduct].
Edited on March 6, 2012 at 5:07pmDec '10
Re: Is it Just a Fluke, or . . .
Well, rightly or wrongly, she was certainly put out by some of the comments that were made about her.
I hope you're not raising the specter of Michelle Obama's diet police just to distract us. Not taking the bait.
Edited on March 6, 2012 at 5:07pm