Limbaugh is a lying douchebag. She never referenced her own sexual habits at all, much less claimed she had "so much sex she couldn't afford the birth control." In fact, I'm curious how this is even possible, given that most of the more expensive types of birth control are unrelated to how frequently you have sex.
Second, Fluke is partly right. There is a women's health issue involved; some women do need birth control pills to regulate various medical issues.
That said, she is also wrong. It
is an issue of religious freedom.
Third, the panel chaired by the Republicans was not debating the question of contraception in healthcare, it was debating the requirement issued by the Obama administration for religious institutions to provide it under Obamacare. The lack of women
clergy is disturbing; not the lack of women in and of itself.
Fourth, the committee is not obligated to hear Sandra Fluke just because the Democrats want her there. They allegedly submitted her name late, and if the situations were reversed I have no doubt Pelosi would have had a dozen Sandra Flukes and not a single Clergyman. Pelosi held her own hearing and Fluke got to talk anyhow and probably ended up getting more publicity than any of the clergymen anyhow.
Fifth, there are plenty of ways to get contraception for less than $1,000 per year. Namely, even if it does cost that much, why are the males not paying about half of it?
Sixth, Only
14% of women use contraceptive pills for exclusively noncontraceptive purposes:
Quote:
The study—based on U.S government data from the National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG)—revealed that after pregnancy prevention (86%), the most common reasons women use the pill include reducing cramps or menstrual pain (31%); menstrual regulation, which for some women may help prevent migraines and other painful “side effects” of menstruation (28%); treatment of acne (14%); and treatment of endometriosis (4%).
What this means is that the vast majority of women who use oral contraceptives for other medical purposes
also use it for contraceptive purposes. I'd also point out that other treatments for these conditions may be available, and while I'm not a medical person and can't speak to the others I do know perfectly well that acne, for example, can be treated quite a few other ways. Men certainly do not take birth control pills for acne that I've ever heard of.
Last, and most important.. Fluke is a worthless douchebag who is at Georgetown Law
with the intent of challenging this policy.Quote:
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.
Quote:
Fluke plans to continue working on the issue to ensure that the health reform regulations do eventually require Georgetown University to provide birth control to its students.
1) There are other fine law schools besides just Georgetown. She did not need to "compromise her education" to be able to get contraception.
2) Fluke is not some unwitting victim who showed up and then was trapped having to attend a law school that doesn't provide contraception. In fact, she showed up there and made an issue of it right away whether she needed it herself or not.
3) Fluke is not there to get the government to pay for her contraception under Obamacare, she's there to get the government to force Georgetown to do so.
4) Georgetown law school is an
expensive and privileged place to go, and $1,000/year for contraceptives is at the extreme upper end of the cost range. If you're Sandra Fluke and on a
public interest scholarship to go there, you're already "not compromising your education" to the tune of about $46,000 per year of Georgetown's money. They also don't insist that you adhere to any particularly Catholic-friendly political viewpoint to qualify:
Quote:
PILS is non-partisan and welcomes diverse views from participants with a range of political philosophies.
The fact of the matter is that Fluke is in that little category of feminazis that seem to think that simply pointing out the women's health issue makes it not a religious freedom issue. She's wrong. The bottom line is that you don't need to go to a Catholic law school to get a decent law education if you need contraceptives, and even if you do there are other avenues to get them that will be suitable for many women. You especially don't need to go there on a scholarship they provide you and then ***** that they won't buy you contraceptives based on the extreme top end of contraceptive costs. You also are not entitled to birth control from a religious institution just because you have another medical need; the bottom line is that it's still birth control and that women who only want it for contraception can just doctor-shop until they get one that will make up a fake perscription because they don't like Catholics either.
If it's about Obamacare, or the government providing health care and contraceptives, then it's a different issue altogether. Religious freedom has nothing to do with that. That's simply a "should the government provide healthcare?" issue.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
