DrMaddVibe
14 years ago
Sandra Fluke: I will not be silenced

Sandra Fluke is clearly not concerned about the risk of overexposure — but she might not need to be. Liberal outlets continue to praise her as the mainstream voice that will end sexual shaming and usher in a new era of respect for the “reproductive rights” of women. For those of us who disagree with her, though, this debate is getting old primarily because it’s going nowhere.

Most recently, Fluke authored an op-ed for CNN to restate the case that she thinks has been so distorted by talkers and writers on the right. Here’s an excerpt:

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.

They are Catholic women, who see no conflict between their social justice -based faith and family planning. They are new moms, whose doctors fear that another pregnancy too soon could jeopardize the mother’s health and the potential child’s health too. They are mothers and grandmothers who remember all too well what it was like to be called names decades ago, when they were fighting for a job, for health care benefits, for equality.

They are husbands, partners, boyfriends and male friends who know that without access to contraception, the women they care about can face unfair obstacles to participating in public life. And yes, they are young women of all income levels, races, classes and ethnicities who need access to contraception to control their reproduction, pursue their education and career goals and prevent unintended pregnancy. And they will not be silenced.

It’s a well-written op-ed, but, for those who saw her testimony or who have followed the subsequent controversy, it’s not worth reading in its entirety. Why? It says nothing new.

Fluke doesn’t seem to grasp that anyone could have heard her arguments and actually disagreed with them. Her premise is still that women have a right to insurance that covers contraception because they have a right to have sex without the fear of pregnancy.

Fluke shows very little respect for reality. The reality is that (a) the exercise of a right generally doesn’t cost somebody else something and, if it does, that might be a clue the so-called “right” is not actually a right and (b) the only completely foolproof way to prevent pregnancy is to abstain from sex. The possibility of pregnancy — even with contraception — is part of the reality of sex.

Fluke thinks objectors don’t understand that she’s not asking taxpayers to directly subsidize her birth control. She’s asking insurance companies to include contraception coverage in the plans they develop for clients (a.k.a. religious employers) that don’t want contraception coverage included in the plans. That shows little respect for the prerogative of the insurance company to include in its plans whatever it wants to assume risk for — and no more. It shows little respect for the prerogative of an employer to negotiate for a group rate for a plan that doesn’t violate his conscience. If Fluke and her Georgetown classmates want to purchase insurance that covers contraception, they are free to do so — such plans exist to meet the demand — but they are not then free to avail themselves of the group insurance rate negotiated for by an employer that opposes contraception for religious reasons. Simple enough.

Women who have sex when they’re not in a position to become pregnant are engaging in a risky behavior that triggers the need for contraception. Women like that on an insurance plan that does cover contraception are driving premiums up for everyone on that plan. As a woman who is not engaging in that risky behavior, I’d like to have the option to purchase an insurance plan that doesn’t cover contraception.

Like Fluke, I am not alone. Who are the people who share my opinion?

They are women with polycystic ovarian syndrome, who use one of the many other forms of medication available to treat their condition. They are sexual assault victims, who, in the midst of the horror and trauma they’ve experienced, find healing in the embrace of life and the love of a child.

They are Catholic women who affirm the Church’s teaching on contraception, recognizing that openness to life in all its fullness is the fundamental posture from which to engage reality. They are new moms who use natural methods or breast feeding to space the births of their children — and exult in how “in tune” with their bodies they become as a result. They are mothers and grandmothers who remember all too well what it was like to be denigrated by their fellow women for their decision to be at-home wives and the primary caretakers of their children.

They are husbands, partners, boyfriends and male friends who respect a woman’s fertility, who recognize that pregnancy is a possibility even with contraception and are ready and willing to embrace the responsibility of fatherhood and/or committed to forgoing sex if they’re not. And yes, they are young women of all income levels, races, classes and ethnicities who choose to wait to have sex until they are prepared for whatever the consequences of the decision to have sex might be. And we will not be silenced.

This is not a plea for Sandra Fluke to become like me. It is a plea for her and for others like her to recognize that (a) some men and women legitimately object to contraception on religious grounds and (b) to recognize that some women — even women who don’t object to contraception in general — legitimately do not think all insurance plans should be made by the federal government to cover contraception. It is a plea for her to respect that.

Before Rush Limbaugh called Sandra Fluke a “sl-t” and a “prostitute,” I watched the video of her testimony. Based on the evidence of that testimony, I didn’t think she was either of the words Rush Limbaugh used, but I thought she was unbelievably spoiled and disdainful of the opinions of others. Nothing that I have seen or read since then has changed my opinion of her. How I’d love for something to change it now!

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/03/13/sandra-fluke-i-will-not-be-silenced/ 


You can't make this stuff up...it just falls in your lap!
View All Posts by User
borndead1
14 years ago

"They are sexual assault victims, who, in the midst of the horror and trauma they’ve experienced, find healing in the embrace of life and the love of a child."


I was with her 100% until this bit of insanity.

View All Posts by User
DrMaddVibe
14 years ago
Gov. Granholm Goes Wild With Her Claims Of A War On Women

What an utterly disgusting and intellectually dishonest person Former Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm is. She has taken to Politico to decry the "war on women" being carried out by evil Republicans. Granholm claims that Virginia's decision to require pre-abortion ultra-sounds, the defunding by some states of Planned Parenthood, and Rush's crass description of Sandra Fluke add up to an all out Republican War on "women's rights." Her arguments are disingenuous at best - and she omits any mention of the elephant in the room, Obama's HHS mandate that all employers fund free contraception and abortion plan B pills for all female employees.

Granholm first attacks Virginia's recent passage of a law requiring women to view an abdominal ultrasound before undergoing abortions. The sole purpose of the law is to insure that the women opting to undergo an abortion understand that they will be destroying a human life. For Granholm, this is exhibit one in the evil Republican "war on women." A 10 minute ultrasound hardly seems to be a "war on women," but to Granholm, who is apparently an advocate of abortion on demand without any moral considerations, any state action that would require nothing more than a woman face the morality of her actions is both "demeaning" and "unnecessary."

Granholm's next argument is that any state that acts to defund Planned Parenthood of our tax dollars is likewise conducting a war on "women's health." Granholm neglects to mention the fact that Planned Parenthood is a radical left wing organization pushing a far left social agenda of sex without physical consequence or moral considerations. Granholm likewise neglects to mention that Planned Parenthood, even though it receives vast tax dollars, is also our nation's largest provider of abortion services. They do so under the canard that the money used to provide abortions is separate and apart from taxpayer funding.

What is really going on is that the Obama administration shares the goals of Planned Parenthood and is intent on that organization receiving our tax dollars funneled through the states via Title X. Two recent examples paint this clearly. When New Hampshire voted to remove Planned Parenthood from the list of eligible recipients for Title X funds, the Obama Administration actually stepped in and gave a $1 million dollar no-bid contract with Planned Parenthood of New England. When Texas voted to provide Title X funds only to organizations that do not provide abortions, the Obama administration took the step of withholding all Title X funds for women's health from the state. What this dust up is about is not a war on women's health, it is a war being waged by the left to insure that one of their most sacred cows, one that fully pushes their social agenda, Planned Parenthood, continues to get fat on tax payer dollars. Yet Granholm, ignoring all of this, claims that this focus on Planned Parenthood amounts to "sexual McCarthyism." The reality is that this is Granholm and the Obama administration Komenizing the states that refuse to fund Planned Parenthood.

Lastly, Granholm claims:

Rush Limbaugh did more than insult a law student with his diatribe about Sandra Fluke; his words revealed a mind-set about women. Republicans have been chanting that they want to “take our country back.” Sure they do … back in time. Back to the good old days when women didn’t have the opportunities for personal and professional advancement that they do now.

What a disingenous ass this woman is. Not a single word has been mentioned by any Republican of reducing women's opportunities in any profession in any way. Not a single Republican has advanced the proposition that contraception should not be available to women under Title X. So how can Granholm make this outrageous charge?

Republicans are doing this by waging a war against contraceptive choice. Not just abortion, but birth control in general — the very thing that set women free to pursue equality in the first place. Studies have shown that since women have had access to the pill and family planning measures, they have made huge gains in both wages and in careers that were dominated by men. Which is why we’re seeing an outpouring of outrage from women. The legislation being advanced threatens those gains.

Granholm's last argument is cause and effect - that only access to the pill has made women able to succeed in the job market. That is ridiculous. The great societal change that began with "first wave feminism," then WWII with women working outside the home and finally the 1964 passage of the Civil Rights Act, are what have allowed women to achieve parity with men in the workforce. Without those changes, every pill in the world would be meaningless. Granholm's argument is akin to saying that because dew forms on the grass at about the time the sun rises, that one causes the other.

As to her other argument, how can Granholm possibly portray anything that anyone on the right has done as an attack on "contraceptive choice." If her problem is with limiting funding of Planned Parenthood, which it implicitly is, the only way that argument could be valid is if there were no other organizations that could meet the requirements of Title X - and that is an absurdity.

Granholm, like virtually all on the left, is an intellectually dishonest person. The only war going on here is the HHS mandate, which is a war on the First Amendment religious rights of all Americans, not merely the Catholic Church. It is a deeply cynical, election year war being waged by Obama to reduce religion in the public square and to create the illusion that he is championing "women's rights" against evil Republicans. Yet the HHS mandate is the one issue Granholm manages to ignore. That alone tells you all you need to know about this piece of partisan excreta.


http://wolfhowling.blogspot.com/2012/03/gov-granholm-goes-wild-with-her-claims.html 


It's the gift that keeps on giving the whole year through.
View All Posts by User
FuzzNJ
14 years ago

"They are sexual assault victims, who, in the midst of the horror and trauma they’ve experienced, find healing in the embrace of life and the love of a child."


I was with her 100% until this bit of insanity.

borndead1 wrote:



Probably a nod to the cultural conservatives in her audience (live or on tape) to try to avoid controversy.

"Well, you can make the argument that if she doesn’t have this baby, if she kills her child, that that, too, could ruin her life. And this is not an easy choice. I understand that. As horrible as the way that that son or daughter and son was created, it still is her child. And whether she has that child or doesn’t, it will always be her child. And she will always know that. And so to embrace her and to love her and to support her and get her through this very difficult time, I’ve always, you know, I believe and I think the right approach is to accept this horribly created — in the sense of rape — but nevertheless a gift in a very broken way, the gift of human life, and accept what God has given to you. As you know, we have to, in lots of different aspects of our life. We have horrible things happen. I can’t think of anything more horrible. But, nevertheless, we have to make the best out of a bad situation."

Santorum
View All Posts by User
DrMaddVibe
14 years ago

We have horrible things happen. I can’t think of anything more horrible. But, nevertheless, we have to make the best out of a bad situation.

FuzzNJ wrote:




http://www.lifenews.com/2012/03/12/obama-admin-finalizes-rules-1-abortions-in-obamacare/ 
View All Posts by User
rfenst
14 years ago
What is the total cost of birth control pills being paid for by health insurers v. the cost of pregnancies being paid for?
View All Posts by User
DrMaddVibe
14 years ago

What is the total cost of birth control pills being paid for by health insurers v. the cost of pregnancies being paid for?

rfenst wrote:



If only Algore were to invent a device where we could network servers of information together and we could access it and use it to communicate.
View All Posts by User
rfenst
14 years ago

If only Algore were to invent a device where we could network servers of information together and we could access it and use it to communicate.

DrMaddVibe wrote:



Don't think for a minute that health insurers and their actuaries are keenly aware.
View All Posts by User
fiddler898
14 years ago
Wow, you guys are giving this more than ol' Rush ever did! Maybe this should be a 1,000,000 post...
View All Posts by User
HockeyDad
14 years ago
I have no idea who Sandra Fluke is.
View All Posts by User
wheelrite
14 years ago
]

I have no idea who Sandra Fluke is.

HockeyDad wrote:



a Lib Dyyke that wants Free Birth control...
😝
View All Posts by User
HockeyDad
14 years ago
What the hell would she do with free birth control. Plant it in a garden and grow pine trees?
View All Posts by User
wheelrite
14 years ago

What the hell would she do with free birth control. Plant it in a garden and grow pine trees?

HockeyDad wrote:



I know,right...
View All Posts by User
HockeyDad
14 years ago

I know,right...

wheelrite wrote:




This is why I rarely post on the politics forum......way too darn confusing.
View All Posts by User
DrMaddVibe
14 years ago

What the hell would she do with free birth control. Plant it in a garden and grow pine trees?

HockeyDad wrote:




YOu and your smug nose...poking it out from under the cone to see what us groveling proles are busy doing. Make me sick!

As for the pine trees...It could be a pitchfork handle boon!
View All Posts by User
HockeyDad
14 years ago


As for the pine trees...It could be a pitchfork handle boon!

DrMaddVibe wrote:





I trusted liberal douchebags once with pitchforks.....

Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice, won't get fooled again.
View All Posts by User
DrMaddVibe
14 years ago

I trusted liberal douchebags once with pitchforks.....

Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice, won't get fooled again.

HockeyDad wrote:




Liberal douchebag...kinda redundant!

[whip]
View All Posts by User
rfenst
14 years ago

Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice, won't get fooled again.

HockeyDad wrote:




Someone appears to have watched a movie! But, if you are going to quote it accurately, use ellipses and perhaps a long parenthetical to try to convey to the long pause that took place.
View All Posts by User
DrMaddVibe
14 years ago

Fluke: Some Women Need More Expensive Contraception Than Others



Contraception activist Sandra Fluke tells MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell that private insurance should cover contraception just like the government does. Fluke says that it is "completely untrue" that taxpayers would have to subsidize contraception.

"The entire point, the policy point which is what I have always been trying to talk about and there's certainly a lot of misinformation that's been circulating about this being a taxpayer program where taxpayers were going to be paying for contraception or the government was going to pay for contraception. And that is just completely untrue," Fluke said on MSNBC.

"This is a program about private insurance. And it has nothing to do with government funding. The government does and should pay for contraception access for the very poorest women through programs like Medicaid, but it is important to be clear that this policy is not about that. This is about insurance that women pay for through their own premiums through their own employers and their universities," she said on Wednesday night.

In the segment, Fluke was informed that widely-accessed pharmacies, such as Wal-Mart, that sell generic contraception often do at $9 a month or lower. Fluke says this is not true in all circumstances and then cities an obscure story about a woman with a genetic condition that wrote her. According to Fluke, this woman had to take a special type of birth control due to her condition and it cost $1200.

Fluke, however, did not specify if $1200 was the cost for a month or for a year. Regardless, Fluke said the point is so many have different "medical needs" so they need to have access to all types of expensive contraception.

"I'd like to share the response of a woman who saw some of that type of coverage and e-mailed me because it upset her very much," Fluke said when asked about cheap, normal contraption. "She actually has a genetic condition and she's unable to use cheap forms of contraception, less expensive forms because of her genetic condition."

"So for her, her contraception costs $1200. And I think that the point really is that different women have different kinds of medical needs and that requires them to use different forms of contraception," Fluke said.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/03/14/fluke_some_women_require_more_expensive_contraception_than_others.html 


Oh, yeah...that's a horse of a different color!](*,)

Go to the link to actually see this mouthbreather in action!
View All Posts by User
snowwolf777
14 years ago
She's hitting 14:30 on the fame-O-meter. They're mocking up her Trivial Pursuit card as we speak.

🐴
View All Posts by User
Users browsing this topic
Mobile! Terms | Privacy | Contact Us | Help | © 1998-2026, CigarBid.com