America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Sandra Fluke is being sold by the left as something she's not. Namely a random co-ed from Georgetown law who found herself mixed up in the latest front of the culture war who was simply looking to make sure needy women had access to birth control. That, of course, is not the case.

As many have already uncovered Sandra Fluke she is, in reality, a 30 year old long time liberal activist who enrolled at Georgetown with the express purpose of fighting for the school to pay for students' birth control. She has been pushing for mandated coverage of contraceptives at Georgetown for at least three years according to the Washington Post.

However, as I discovered today, birth control is not all that Ms. Fluke believes private health insurance must cover. She also, apparently, believes that it is discrimination deserving of legal action if "gender reassignment" surgeries are not covered by employer provided health insurance. She makes these views clear in an article she co-edited with Karen Hu in the Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law.

The title of the article, is Employment Discrimination Against LGBTQ Persons and was published in the Journal's 2011 Annual Review. I have posted a transcript of the section I will be quoting from here. In a subsection of the article entitled "Employment Discrimination in Provision of Employment Benefits" starting on page 635 of the review Sandra Fluke and her co-editor describe two forms of discrimination in benefits they believe LGBTQ individuals face in the work place:

"Discrimination typically takes two forms: first, direct discrimination limiting access to benefits specifically needed by LGBTQ persons, and secondly, the unavailability of family-related benefits to LGBTQ families."

Their "prime example" of the first form of discrimination? Not covering sex change operations:

"A prime example of direct discrimination is denying insurance coverage for medical needs of transgender persons physically transitioning to the other gender."

This so called "prime example" of discrimination is expounded on in a subsection titled "Gender Reassignment Medical Services" starting on page 636:

"Transgender persons wishing to undergo the gender reassignment process frequently face heterosexist employer health insurance policies that label the surgery as cosmetic or medically unnecessary and therefore uncovered."

To be clear, the argument here is that employers are engaging in discrimination against their employees who want them to pay for their sex changes because their "heterosexist" health insurance policies don't believe sex changes are medically necessary.

Additionally Sandra Fluke and her co-editor have an answer for why exactly these "heterosexist" insurance policies, and the courts that side with them, deem sex changes as medically unnecessary:

"In Mario v. P & C Food Markets, Inc., an employee who was denied such coverage brought claims under the federal Employee Retirement Income Security (ERISA) and Title VII. The court rejected the ERISA claim, finding the plaintiff's mastectomy and hormone therapy were not medically necessary. The court's ruling was based upon controversy within the medical community regarding that treatment plan. Much of that controversy has been linked to ignorance and bias against transgender persons, and the American Medical Association has declared the lack of coverage to be discrimination."

You see, all opposition to the determination that sex changes are medically necessary, and therefor must be covered by private employer provided health insurance, is based on "ignorance and bias against transgender persons".

The section on discrimination against those seeking gender reassignment ends with Sandra Fluke and her co-editor wondering why more lawsuits aren't filed against private employers on these grounds. Especially in comparison to the frequency with which these types of cases are filed against Medicare, Medicaid, and even the prison system:

"The reason for this lack of cases is unclear. Private employee insurance plans do not more frequently cover this need, so it may be a sign that transgender employees do not see the courts as likely to provide any assistance against private employers."

The argument made in this article edited by Sandra Fluke and Karen Hu is quite clear. "Gender reassignment" is a medically necessary set of procedures that must be covered under employee provided health insurance policies. If it is not covered by those policies that is tantamount to discrimination and legal action should be taken against the employer.

So, as you can see, Sandra Fluke is not what she is being sold as. Instead she is a liberal activist pushing some rather radical ideas. Keep that in mind as the left holds her up in the spotlight.

http://mrctv.org/blog/sandra-fluke-gender-reassignment-and-health-insurance

I was waiting for this one. I am surprised it took so long.

passing yourself off as 23 when you're actually 30 is creepy. It just speaks to the dishonestly of the tactics. I am surprised Limbaugh took the bait.

She'll have no chance at slander claims. She made herself a public figure.

What's a chat room?

I thought the prescription issue was part of the secret Bohemian Grove initiation.

She is the one who made the too much sex comment.

Damn right.......she's obviously a fuqqing whore..................Anybody got pics of her???LOL


Ron

Lefty Broads are lousy lays..

The funny thing,
This whore is prolly a Rug Biter that doesn't need contraception,,,

+1

I don't argue much with lawyers, but I will opine. I doubt she'll sue (unless that celebrity attention whore from the left coast talks her into it for some more face time on TMZ). The only reason she would sue would be to start shopping her resume to DC area law firms.

She's no kid who got bushwhacked. She's a 30-year-old liberal feminist going to one of the most expensive law schools in the country, whining because she thinks the someone else should pay for her rubbers. While the "morally outraged media" is all a-flutter over Limbaugh (same media that giggles when Bill Mahr calls Sarah Palin a "tw*t and a "cu*t"), most folks are still in tune with the real issue here, which is: "What a set of balls on this woman to demand her birth control be paid for by someone else!" Since when is birth control a pre-req to graduate from college? If so, why stop at that? Starbucks is damn expensive, too. So is pizza, beer, and Spring Break. She didn't have to go to Georgetown. Go to SUNY or the local CC.

And as for the Dems and their little show trial they put on, really? This is your cause celeb in an election year? Not free drugs for AIDs paitents? Not free drugs for diabetic senior citizens? No, it's free birth control for some snotty college girl who wants to bang like a porn star but "can't afford it." Boo-f'n-hoo.

Agreed, Stepped in it is better phrasing.

Of course! Let's make an op-ed radio talkshow host the equal to a GOP frontrunner for the POTUS and fire the ovens!

You don't have to agree with what he says. He does have a right to say whatever he wants. No matter how stupid or outlandish. Did he have his "brain power" restrained?

YES!!!

Now THAT'S something that Congress should take up!

Why should they be bothered to say bring a budget to the table that's Constitutionally mandated? Why should they even bother with term limits or passing legislation that states they adhere to the same legislation that they themselves vote on?

Yes, it's these cans boss...he hates these cans!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBbTIGNnwjU

STAY AWAY FROM THE CANS!!!

I agree 100%.

But, there is a price to pay whether or not it is monetary. What he said about her on broadcast radio is what I think is dead wrong. That is not civil discourse over issues. Who in their right mind doesn't think it was hostile, boorish and pathetic.

Americans have different opinions on birth control, its cost and who should bare that cost. That's America, love it or hate it. Rush can oppose or support whatever he wants to within fair boundaries. But, if he crosses such a bright line- there will always be some price to pay.

That is my only thought about the matter right now and the only aspect of the issue and debacle I have posted about. Any one who wants to debate the morals and costs of birth control pills is free to do so- good luck influencing or changing any one's mind!

The left says similar and worse with regularity. I never hear of advertisers fleeing their shows.

David Letterman, Ed Schultz, & others make ugly comments, yet there is suddenly a conscience attack with Limbaugh.
Haven't heard of any advertisers leaving other shows when they make ugly comments.

Ok, so I think I have most of the letters figured out in "LGBTQ." But I'm having a hard time figuring out the Q....is it QUEERS! Is "queer" socially acceptable now? What about an "F" for fags?

Tuesday, March 6, 2012

Gregory Smith at 2:50 AM

Limbaugh wrong in apologizing to Sandra Fluke.

I'm not going to get into Limbaugh's brain, because he explained his reasons for apologizing very well today. He basically said that a conservatives must not be dragged down to the level of the left. You know, that old idea that we should fight nice while our enemies fight dirty.

Well, as a right-leaning libertarian, I disagree. The left loves fighting dirty, Bill Maher can call Sarah Palin the c-word and get away with it. Rush Limbaugh himself has been called all kinds of nasty things. Michelle Malkin has been called a gook and a ****, Ann Coulter has been called nasty names, as Chattanooga's commie cartoonist Clay Bennett has drawn black conservative Herman Cain as a confederate general and as a clown.

So to my friends on the right, why are you being nice? If a woman spends $3,000 a year on birth control and demands a Catholic university to pay for it, she is a slut. If Fluke had kept her sexual life private, nobody would be calling her any names. I mean, folks, if you go to a Jewish neighborhood wearing a swastika, you're not going to get a warm welcome.

I'm ok with Fluke having sex, in fact, I'm a bit of a libertine when it comes to sex. but here's the problem:

Liberals in the 1970s: "If it feels good, do it." Progressives in 2012: "If it feels good, pay for me to do it."

Well I'm sorry liberals/progressives, but I don't want to pay for your lifestyle. I don't pay for the sado-masochists who buys a $300 chain vest, I don't pay for the guy who visits the Bunny Ranch, I don't finance nudist colonies, and I don't even pay for the porn I sometimes watch online. See? That's how society should work, you pay or enjoy the free preview of what you like, you don't pay for what you don't like.

Yet now millions of women like Fluke want to screw the entire country. How would progressives feel if they had to pay for my bullets, my guns, my concealed carry permit, and all the things I do as a gun owner? How would women feel if the lap dances I sometimes get where paid by them?

The libertarian solution of course is to fight for Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Association. Georgetown also needs to clean house and get rid of those stupid liberal professors defending Fluke. You're CATHOLIC for God's sake! I doubt your university has a Pro-Choice Club or a Secular Humanist Club, or anything that doesn't fit in with Catholic Values.

So why are you defending Sandra Fluke? If that floozy had gone to Brigham Young University, she would have been expelled months ago! People like Fluke belong in Harvard, Berkeley, MIT, University of Michigan, and the usual places where conservatives are discriminated against while liberals are empowered.

Come on, Georgetown, you can do better than a freak like Fluke! Have pride in your FAITH! Georgetown is a great institution BECAUSE of the Catholic tradition. If you start tolerating Catholic enemies like Fluke, you'll be destroyed from within.

This already happened at Brandeis University (Jewish) which has allowed an invasion by Muslims and self-hating Jews who have attacked Zionism. So beware, Georgetown, you are not invisible.

She and another girl wrote an article that was over 635 pages long. Do you think anyone "read all that" (just like Obamacare) to figure out what it meant?

OK, Well great first post I guess you got my dumb azz. LMAO!

This isn't an issue of right v. left. Each side cries unequal treatment. It is up to each "side" to watch side to fix their own problems.

If other s have made similarly offensive comments, they too are equally wrong. If the language and scenario was like Limbaugh's, I would find it absolutely repulsive. But, Limbaugh's situation is compounded by his long history, vehemence and crummy apology.

As to advertisers leaving Limbaugh- that is their prerogative. It is their advertising and their money. If you own stock in any of them, take it up as a stockholder. Or, write them a letter. On top of that, vote against them with your dollars- by not doing business with them.

IMO reason they fled is that they simply feel they cannot afford to be affiliated with or support Limbaugh with their dollars. It is likely just a simple business decision made by Executives and Directors. It may even be more than that. Who knows?

Pathetic in too many ways to reply, except for the most important issue in my mind. Liberals and conservatives should all be on the same page as to the well being of our country and its citizens. I think that is ultimately both sides goal, but they set themselves up for failure by squabbling and hatred. The last decade or so of a historically new style of discussing issues and fighting over them has been detrimental to all. Both sides are to blame, not one or the other.

Pot..kettle...left...right...it goes both ways.




Sure it is an issue of left vs. right. The left says this, the right cries. The right says that, the left cries. Neither side will fix any problems until they can repair their own house (so to speak).



Others have made similarly offensive comments (see posted article above). It's just that each side is too blind to see it...you know the saying "don't worry about the speck in someone else's eye when you have a plank in your own." The only reason anyone in the media or a celebrity apologizes is to save their arse and because their PR person told them to.



Advertisers leaving is just like the fake apologies offered by celebs and media, IMO. They're only leaving (many times) to look good in the public eye and save their arse from any retribution. Most would probably want to continue advertising because it's stuff like this that may actually boost ratings, but they know the general public is a bunch of whiney puzzays that look for any reason to flame someone. If I want a Sleep Number bed, do you really think I'd not buy one becuase they advertise on Rush's show? Whatever. If I have a product and I advertise on Rush's show it's because I want get my name out there, and he has a huge audience. It's not because I have him or any other celeb tuned in on my radio 24/7. It doesn't mean his views necessarily reflect my own. But people don't see it that way.

Ignorance ? Really? I don't watch the crap on TV, when reading I pass over the lifestyles section. When it comes to current events why would I pay attention to something like this ? I don't care what others do, just don't push your weird, unconventional, sick lifestyle on me thinking it is normal. Why would I bother to Google this ? It is of no interest and nothing would ever compel me to learn more about that freak show.

Amazing what some have give normalcy to these days. Sodom and Gomorrah he we come.

Awesome first post!

So I guess it's OK for someone to be part of the LGBTQ crowd, but not divorced? Or to have an addiction?

The only thing you're proving with your first post is that you need Rush and his ilk to tell YOU which side of an issue to take.
Sure, it's the opposite position, but is that really any different?

Is it?




Is it?

Who is going to pay for rfenst's Love Bot 5000? Clearly someone should, and not him. Robot love should be covered with tax dollars!

all this is just Eugenics in a foil wrapper . Ribbed for her pleasure..


wheel,

ignorant ig·no·rant/ˈignərənt/

Adjective: Lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about something in particular.



Let me make absolutely certain that I am clear. If one does not know, for example, what the acronym LGBT stands for and doesn't bother to look it up on Google (or elsewhere) when they come across it and wonder what it means, I believe they are ignorant.