Yes. Let’s!:
Fluke came to Georgetown University interested in contraceptive coverage: She researched the Jesuit college’s health plans for students before enrolling, and found that birth control was not included. “I decided I was absolutely not willing to compromise the quality of my education in exchange for my health care,” says Fluke, who has spent the past three years lobbying the administration to change its policy on the issue. The issue got the university president’s office last spring, where Georgetown declined to change its policy.
Fluke says she would have used the hearing to talk about the students at Georgetown that don’t have birth control covered, and what that’s meant for them. “I wanted to be able to share their stories,” she says. “My testimony would have been about women who have been affected by their policy, who have medical needs and have suffered dire consequences..?.?.The committee did not get to hear real stories I had to share, about actual women who have been dramatically affected by this policy.”
— Or, in other words, she’s an activist, a plant, and a person who made the choice to come to a Jesuit university in order to force it into acting in the way she wanted it to act.
She is, in short, a would-be tyrant who the left is busy celebrating for her “courage” in going before Congress to beg the rest of us to pay for her freely-chosen lifestyle choices, even though access to contraception is abundant and cheap — as is access to schools other than a Jesuit institution, should your priorities include access to “free” contraception.
This is not a battle over rubbers or pills. It’s a battle over the willing surrender of liberty. People like this Fluke woman want to see our liberties taken away, and are more than willing to surrender them in exchange for the removal of personal choice and responsibility — which, it turns out, demands that we live with the consequences of our own actions and choices.
The left is making its pitch here: surrender individual autonomy and the idea of personal responsibility, and we’ll figure out a way to make sure you get some free shit.
To borrow from Al Sharpton, resist we much.
(h/t Rush Limbaugh)
The progressive Trojan Horse.
Never trust a cumslut what shares a name with a bottom-feeding fish.
Didn’t Franklin say something about trading liberty for security, something the Left was fond of quoting not so long ago?
That does explain why she’s resistant to cheaper alternative forms of birth control, doesn’t Abe?
Heh. Are birth control pills even expensive? Maybe I’ve been banging a uniquely upper crust brand of classy dame all these years, but I have never, ever, ever heard a girl so much as remark on the cost of the things.
So who wants to hire a lawyer who admits to spending this much time in law school getting hit on instead of hitting the books?
My guess geoff? The kind of guy who’s more interested in service for service than fee for service.
Of course, you get what you pay for….
This is where the Right has a blind spot.
Whats needed for Fluke and her ilk is the kind of point blank clinical writing-about-sex approach that all women who write at Slate are seemingly naturally gifted at.
Mary Catherin Ham or the 10k worth of blond pundit types at Fox–I worked there, they’re all experts–need to sit down and write some reasoned rebuttal to this shit.
Someone needs to point out that there is no issues of health here, only choice and preference. Fluke could use rubbers or a sponge but prefers–rationally–to use the Pill. There are of course other sex acts she could engage in that meet the same broad goal; or she could abstain all together until she is economically established and can secure the coverage she prefers. But she wants the federal government to use force of law to coerce or force a private institution to underwrite (at a loss, natch) birth control she percieves as more pleasurable.
Veruca Salt has gone to the college of law.
Has it been determined that Ms. Fluke has sex with men?
Isn’t Planned Parenthood always going on and on about how they’re all about women’s health and women’s choice, and not strictly an abortion factory? Maybe this Fluke chick could wander down to their offices…
How did anyone sit through that with a straight face? It would have made more sense healthwise to lobby for free toothpaste and tooth brushes.
Actually Roddy, the least interesting thing going on here is the false notion that contraception is a sexual “health” issue.
Scratch that. You’re right about Sandra Fluke’s proclivities, of course. But it’s always good to get the joking and tittering out of the way.
I think our society has stopped producing adults.
We talk about how a college education today is the same as a HS diploma 50 years ago, but worse I think, a 35 yo today doesn’t have the maturity a 15 yo had 50 years ago.
This Fluke woman is like a 4 yo in a store throwing a tantrum over candy. And half the fucking customers are on the four yo’s side, along with the store owner.
It’s pathetic.
Wal Mart and Target both sell bcp for $9/mo. Rubbers are about 50 cents a piece. Limbaugh has been having a field day ridiculing this bimbo: how much do you have to fuck to go broke buying contraceptives?
The right should be all over this, make them look like the fools they are.
Taranto was talking about the compression of the generations last week. I think in the same column in which he took on feminism’s birth control dogma.
It’s not foolish. It’s contemptible. Not the implied promiscuity, but the demand that society subsidize a promiscuous lifestyle.
Thank you sex. ed. lobby!
Ernst is very square.
You know, I came of age in the late 1960’s, when “Free Love” didn’t mean making your neighbors buy your sex toys
It’s my dull midwestern upbringing.
I think Ms Fluke is the square. If she wasn’t so uptight, she would just put a cognac snifter, maybe with a couple twenties in there for seed money, and set it next to her bed. She could be rolling in cash in no time.
I wouldn’t think less of her…
I figured it was the Germanic thing. Not the squareness per se, but the ability to take a brilliantly aggressive idea (B Moe’s) and suck the joy out of it.
Just think of the profits the makers of the Orgamatron 3000™ stand to make if they can have it certified as a medival device! Who do you suppose they’ll have to bribe?
I can see condoms as a “sexual health” issue for the prophylaxis (Uncle Sam says, “Avoid the clap! Wrap your happy chap! Buy Liberty Bonds”). But the pill? Only if you view pregnancy as a disease.
Wait a moment…..
ach so. na ja.
Looks like Limbaugh is mocking Ms. Fluke and Congressional Dems are demanding apologies!!
heh
Perhaps ve vill compromise. As tey say, ja?
Can we agree to make fun of the Democrats trying to buy votes as it were by promising to pay for people to get their freak on?
I’ll bet a lot of college boys spend nine bucks a month on hand lotion. Why does the left only care about subsidizing vaginas?
“Why does the left only care about subsidizing vaginas?”
Dunno, but maybe it has something to do with the sole remaining common use of the term virtue, and the necessary final rub out? heh.
Hand lotion should definitely be subsidized. The stuff is amazing! It will turn rock hard skin soft in minutes!
If Ms. Fluke is concerned about her sexual health (Ha!), she wouldn’t be knocking boots to the tune of $1000 a year. If she’s getting that much action, she should invest in a webcam and become an Internet sensation.
they fear a lesbian beat down?
free aspirin for the wymens!!11!!
“free aspirin for the wymens!!11!!”
Screw that too.
Politico gets in on the anti-Limbaugh action too.
Back when I was in college, when men supplied the contraceptives (which thought brings up a whole nother line of questioning: is there a law against men buying contraceptives in Georgetown?), I seem to recall spending several magnitudes more money on liquor than condoms.
How long before the taxpayers are going to get hit with that bill?
Keep your Ovaries off my Rosaries!
I anticipate the GOPer will be coming out with their “it’s very unhelpful” arguments — where it doesn’t matter what Limbaugh actually said, it only matters what the left can do with it once it’s stripped from context — soon enough.
Shampoo, rinse, repeat.
In this instance we can’t even use the arguing about price line from the old joke as the price has been announced in advance and is no more than $3 per night.
I’ll bet a lot of college boys spend nine bucks a month on hand lotion. Why does the left only care about subsidizing vaginas?
And that serves a health purpose. That shit is poison if it just sits there inside you.
Paul Rahe takes up his sledgehammer and commences to pound away, once again: The Church Flatulent
I can see condoms as a “sexual health” issue for the prophylaxis (Uncle Sam says, “Avoid the clap! Wrap your happy chap! Buy Liberty Bonds”). But the pill? Only if you view pregnancy as a disease.
Wait a moment…..
There are a few actual (hormonal) health uses for the pill, but they’re mostly for hormonal regulation for women who have problems like hypo/hyperthydrodism or polycystic ovarian syndrome. It’s also prescribed in some cases for amenorrhea, extremely painful or frequent periods. In those specific cases, however, it’s not being used as birth control so much as it’s being used to regulate estrogen in the body and moderate its effects.
This is probably the angle they’re attempting to argue for women who’ve had their lives negatively affected by not having free access to the pill, but it’s like cases where abortion becomes a medical necessity for the health of the mother–it’s a pretty clear line from “I need the pill so I can do a bunch of guys” or “I need the pill so I don’t get pregnant whenever I choose to have sex”.
Perhaps that is Ms. Fluke’s cocern, Pellegri.
I read on another site (screechy feminist blog) that she is a lesbian and has only one ovary. No mention as to why she has only one. At any rate, her pursuit of the Pill isn’t about birth control.
That and she is a shill, of course.
That pretty much leaves us with anti-Catholicism, doesn’t it?
Why, yes. Yes it does.
effin rock and roll these asshole. hey sugar tits pelosi whose’s your surgeon? fight the asssholes
start “interviewing pelosi and dsw’ with a dildo microphone. effin’ give them some “money shots”
yo interview the minority speaker with a large black dildo microphone. you go gal
give the leftoids some porn. that’s what they want.
if i had some soft ware skills: madame pelosi would be rubbing her aged cunt on you tube with an assist from dws. special guest weiner.
@leigh, Ernst: Yep, I got that.
Mostly I just bring up the non-birth control, medical uses of the pill because I’m trying to chew my way around how it might be possible for the Catholic church to handle that kind of thing doctrinally.
This is what always drives me up the wall about arguing with progressives, though, because they are intent on making the problems they say they want to solve functionally insoluble. Want better birth control outcomes for women in companies owned by the Catholic church? Find a way to make birth control acceptable to the church (like getting a variant of the pill passed back through FDA approval as a new application for PCOS so Catholic insurers will cover it) or to publicly offer free control so women aren’t reliant on their insurers for it. Don’t turn it into making all Catholics agree with your value structure.
They’re so terrible at framing problems. They want to be social engineers but they don’t have the first idea about how to actually succeed at engineering, which requires setting up solvable problems.
All problems have a single solution.
And nothing is “free.”
Pellegri, I’m glad you brought up the medical uses of the pill, unrelated to birth control. It is quite possible that many people are unaware that there is a need for it outside its utility as a contraceptive.
Leftists are indeed terrible at framing their arguments. The Catholic Church is not just now challenging birth control: Contraceptives have always been verboten and the idea that I see floated around on a lot of other blogs that the bishops are “out of touch” is ridiculous. Now is now and the Church is eternal. But, then that devolves into a lot of hand-waving about pedophile priests. *sigh*
Ernst, problems can have multiple solutions. Agreed that nothing is free.
You completely missed my point leigh:
Pelligri wrote:
I replied:
I didn’t think it was really necessary to specify the whom or the what.
Also, if their framing is so terrible (not sure I agree), what’s it say about our side that so many either accept it or fail to successfully reframe it?
It’s the Bell Curve, Ernst. The Evil Bell Curve insures that we get half of the not-too-smarts. It’s social justice at work.
(I missed your point re: social engineering because I just woke up. Sorry.)
Well. More correctly, their framing is terrible in the sense it serves the overall equality-of-outcome/single-message/multiculturalism-but-only-for-cultures-we-like dominant paradigm they’re all intellectually shackled to. From an engineering standpoint, they are not setting up the problems they say they want to solve in such a way that they’ll actually solve that problem and get the outcomes they want.
In the case of better healthcare opportunities for women pre- and post-pregnancy, they’re trying to force a situation where everyone absolutely agrees with them regardless of value structure that pregnancy is identical to an STD and should be as easy to avoid or eliminate, because to say otherwise is to deny women the freedom to express their sexuality the same way men “always have”. (Regardless of the fact there’s a hidden cost for men who “freely” express their sexuality to the degree we’re assuming women should be permitted to here; but shh, men are the oppressor class so implying anything negative happens to them is by implication ignoring the fact women have it worse.) This however completely ignores the complexities involved in dealing with, well, everyone who has a stake in the termination or continuance of an individual woman’s pregnancy, not to mention the societal effects of such a policy.
In arguments about this specific issue they’ll typically level all the various reasons why a woman should be free to abort (absent father, life-threatening health problems, loss of income, rape/incest, too young to continue a pregnancy/loss of education, family size, fetal disease or defect, “other reasons”) and then flatly deny there is any other solution that repairs some of these problems in a way that doesn’t require everyone accepting abortion as morally correct. Yes, the other solutions might be extremely difficult to enact, but I will stake a week’s worth of my antipsychotics on the RCC being much happier about discussing a plan to keep pregnant girls in school (and then providing adoption services) than they are about subsidizing birth control. Provided it’s pitched correctly, anyhow.
Uh, where was I getting with this–oh. Anyway. This kind of framing happens deliberately at the top level and is propagated to lower levels because it feels good emotionally, and most people on their side adopt it without giving it a really thorough shakedown. The reason our side doesn’t typically shake it down or reframe it themselves is partly because argumentation for it is heavily emotional in character in a lot of instances (so it’s much easier to argue emotionally in return rather than ripping it apart and giving it the kind of thorough analysis people do here), and partly because the top-level framing is often designed to be either offensive or deceptively innocuous. This again prevents thorough analysis because people are either too busy defending their own values or letting it slide by because there’s “bigger things to fight for”.
tl;dr: They’re not helping their allies, they’re using them as a bludgeon to hurt their enemies.
That was well said. Thanks for taking the time Pellegri.
Well said.
I just said that,
he said with a straight face.
[…] you’ll find plenty of sympathy for Sandra Fluke; in the media, in Congress, spineless former sponsors of Rush Limbaugh. Heck, before long […]