Sandra Fluke’s Appearance Is No Fluke

Posted by on Mar 02, 2012 at 10:49 am

For me the interesting part of the story is the ever-evolving “coed”. I put that in quotes because in the beginning she was described as a Georgetown law student. It was then revealed that prior to attending Georgetown she was an active women’s right advocate. In one of her first interviews she is quoted as talking about how she reviewed Georgetown’s insurance policy prior to committing to attend, and seeing that it didn’t cover contraceptive services,  she decided to attend with the express purpose of battling this policy. During this time, she was described as a 23-year-old coed. Magically, at the same time Congress is debating the forced coverage of contraception, she appears and is even brought to Capitol Hill to testify. This morning, in an interview with Matt Lauer on the Today show, it was revealed that she is 30 years old,  NOT the 23 that had been reported all along.

In other words, folks, you are being played. She has been an activist all along and the Dems were just waiting for the appropriate time to play her.

While she is described as a “third year law student” they always fail to mention that she is also the past president of Law Students for Reproductive Justice.

July 30 2011

Does your campus’s LSRJ chapter face opposition in regard to facilitating a comprehensive conversation about reproductive justice? Well mine definitely does! While my campus has a mix of people with different backgrounds, and a rich liberal arts community, the Midwest doesn’t exactly scream bleeding liberal. Some LSRJ chapters at conservative campuses face opposition in the form of other, more conservative, student run organizations; some face it from their administrations, and others from their peers, or the community in general. Whatever the opposition is, it can be incredibly frustrating and disheartening.

The question is, how do we combat this conservative opposition and oppression, in order to facilitate a discussion and educate others about the RJ movement? I am obviously not alone in facing these problems, as Sandra Fluke of Georgetown lead a packed room in a discussion on this question at the first Issue Caucus that I attended at the Leadership Institute, LSRJ’s national conference at Berkeley.

While no solution was definitively reached, and I personally don’t begin to have the “right” answer, I was really charged by the discussion and feel many great ideas were presented. Some campus chapters decided to take an adversarial approach, feeling it important to use those “scary” words the opposition fears.

Further background research on Ms Fluke reveals that she got her start in government in New York in 2009.

Sandra Fluke’s professional background in domestic violence and human trafficking began with Sanctuary for Families in New York City. There, she launched the agency’s pilot Program Evaluation Initiative. While at Sanctuary, she co-founded the New York Statewide Coalition for Fair Access to Family Court, which after a twenty-year stalemate, successfully advocated for legislation granting access to civil orders of protection for unmarried victims of domestic violence, including LGBTQ victims and teens. Sandra was also a member of the Manhattan Borough President’s Taskforce on Domestic Violence and numerous other New York City and New York State coalitions that successfully advocated for policy improvements impacting victims of domestic violence.

As the 2010 recipient of the Women Lawyers Association of Los Angeles Fran Kandel Public Interest Grant, she researched, wrote, and produced an instructional film on how to apply for a domestic violence restraining order in pro per. She has also interned with the Coalition to Abolish Slavery & Trafficking; Polaris Project; Neighborhood Legal Services of Los Angeles County; Break the Cycle; the Domestic Violence Legal Empowerment and Appeals Project; NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund; Crime Victim and Sexual Assault Services; and the Human Services Coalition of Tompkins County.

Through Georgetown’s clinic programs, Sandra has proposed legislation based on fact-finding in Kenya regarding child trafficking for domestic work, and has represented victims of domestic violence in protection order cases. Sandra is the Development Editor of the Journal of Gender and the Law, and served as the President of Law Students for Reproductive Justice, and the Vice President of the Women’s Legal Alliance. In her first year, she also co-founded a campus committee addressing human trafficking. Cornell University awarded her a B. S. in Policy Analysis & Management, as well as Feminist, Gender, & Sexuality Studies in 2003.

My only question is, how does someone go from being a champion of domestic violence issues to an expert of women’s reproductive health issues?

Tags: ,

194 Responses to “Sandra Fluke’s Appearance Is No Fluke”

  1. NateDogg614 on 2/02/12 at 12:16 pm

    “…she is quoted as talking about how she reviewed Georgetown’s insurance policy prior to committing to attend and seeing that it didn’t cover contraceptive services she decided to attend with the express purpose of battling this policy.”

    So in other words, she made it a personal crucade to change the policy, regardless of how Georgetown feels about the matter. Typical liberal “damn the torpedoes…full speed ahead!” type attitude and it reflects how they are the ones who are truly intolerant of other people’s beliefs, opinions, and attitudes.

  2. NateDogg614 on 2/02/12 at 12:19 pm

    “My only question is how does someone go from being a champion of domestic violence issues to an expert of women’s reproductive health issues?”

    Very good question. I think the answer is, you don’t really. You just say that you’re an expert and (because you’re a liberal and your “heart is in the right place”) no one is going to challenge you on it — especially the media.

  3. comatus on 2/02/12 at 1:08 pm

    That’s a hell of a double major she picked up, there. Because if you can’t make it in policy analysis, you can always fall back on gender studies to make your fortune. Which is, if you look at it that way, exactly what she’s doing right now.

    Where I come from, they tell you right up front that if you take those degrees, you should not expect to have sex. Ever.

  4. 3foot1 on 2/02/12 at 1:09 pm

    Please make up your mind, Nate. In Comment 2) you ridicule Fluke for speaking from her “heart,” but in Comment 1) you suggest she should defer to Georgetown because of how Georgetown “feels about the matter.”

  5. HeatherRadish on 2/02/12 at 1:10 pm

    “My only question is how does someone go from being a champion of domestic violence issues to an expert of women’s reproductive health issues?”

    Same way Mrs. SCOAMF went from being a lawyer to hospital admissions to an expert on childhood nutrition?

  6. NateDogg614 on 2/02/12 at 1:22 pm

    As far as I’m concerned, Fluke can do what she wants…but to go to a school for the express purpose of changing one of the policies seems to be a rather strange priority in my view.

  7. djm1992 on 2/02/12 at 2:03 pm

    “My only question is, how does someone go from being a champion of domestic violence issues to an expert of women’s reproductive health issues?”

    She obviously a proponent of the “all sex is rape” school of thought…..

  8. Bang Out Of Order on 2/02/12 at 2:06 pm

    Been a little behind in this issue, but here’s what I gather:

    So a 23-year-old “co-ed” — errrrrr, 30-year-old liberal activist — knew of Georgetown’s policy rejecting socialized contraception (making the rest of the student body of the Catholic school pay — through higher student fees — for her birth-control, which is against the Catholic doctrine). Rather than simply going to another school, she set about undermining Georgetown so that it conformed to her sensibilities and benefited her pocketbook.

    So when the Democrats sought to expand the scope of her intolerance of Catholic doctrine to the entire federal government, she became their poster child — errrrrrr, 30-year-old woman — as someone who can afford to go to Georgetown Law and live in Washington (and probably have an iPhone and a iPad2 with unlimited data plans and fabulous clothes and shoes) but cannot afford the thousands and thousands of dollars of (presumably gold-plated) birth-control pills she desires.

    All so the media can run with: Republicans Hate Women! again?

    Hmmm. Well, I’ll give them this: I’m pretty sure I would hate this freeloading rabble-rouser Fluke.

  9. B-Line on 2/02/12 at 3:04 pm

    From the sound of this professional rabble rouser the irony of her name certainly isn’t lost on me.

    Fluke (Def): trematode/parasitic flatworm

    Parasite
    There are many different types of flukes. These include blood flukes, which can cause blood clots; fish flukes, which come from eating undercooked fish; liver flukes; lung flukes, which cause a persistent cough; intestinal flukes; lymph flukes; and pancreatic flukes. A parasite feeds off the nutrients provided by the host that it has infected. Flukes have external suckers that they use to leech the nutrients.

  10. Smokey Behr on 2/02/12 at 3:05 pm

    I knew there wasn’t something “not quite right” with Fluke. She looked far to old to be 23, and too well put together and rehearsed to be an ordinary law student.

    I was waiting for the other shoe to drop, and it certainly did. Now watch the MSM kick it under the bed…

  11. Gadfly on 2/02/12 at 3:23 pm

    I am much older than 23. I am also a third-year law student. I am surprised to learn that makes me fraudulent on any issues I choose to speak about. Thank you for the information.

  12. Redwine on 2/02/12 at 3:34 pm

    Gadfly – You may be a third-year law student, but you’re not too bright. The criticism of Fluke is that she was intentionally misrepresented as a 23-year-old “coed”, rather than what she really is – as an activist with an agenda who was deliberately recruited as a prop for pushing an unconstitutional government policy.

  13. RichM on 2/02/12 at 3:35 pm

    Gadfly – obviously being a 3-year law student doesn’t make you any smarter. It concerns having to lie about your age .

  14. pwt on 2/02/12 at 3:56 pm

    Notice that she was a first year student in 2003, now eight years later, she is in her third year. Her parents are not proud, they are broke.

  15. Blue Hen on 2/02/12 at 4:14 pm

    Hey, she’s learning. Now, shes’ her own PR person, her own client and her first case. That’s the beltway bandit version of efficiency. The fact that she can’t find her way to Target but she can find a microphone is telling.

  16. B-Line on 2/02/12 at 4:15 pm

    A fluke and now a gadfly. It appears the left has cornered the market on parasidic pests and are proud of the fact.

  17. DrD on 2/02/12 at 4:37 pm

    ” While at Sanctuary, she co-founded the New York Statewide Coalition for Fair Access to Family Court, which after a twenty-year stalemate, successfully advocated for legislation granting access to civil orders of protection for unmarried victims of domestic violence, including LGBTQ victims and teens. ”

    Okay, I’ll bite. What does the “Q” stand for, and am I correct in assuming she started all this when she was only 3 yrs old, or 10 yrs old as the case may be?

  18. Amy on 2/02/12 at 4:40 pm

    What a terribly weak argument. Fluke’s interest in multiple issues affecting women makes perfect sense, just as people may be interested in various issues involving health care or energy.

    And are you suggesting that there’s anything unusual with someone involved in politics testifying to Congress or that it was in any way right to call her a “slut” for advocating insurance company coverage of contraception.

  19. Smokey Behr on 2/02/12 at 4:44 pm

    DrD: The Q usually stands for “Questioning”, whether they’re an L, G, B or T.

    As for me, I’m a Lesbian trapped inside a man’s body…

  20. DINORightMarie on 2/02/12 at 5:35 pm

    In the article quoted, there was this tidbit:

    “…and has represented victims of domestic violence in protection order cases….”

    Okay, please explain to me how a 3rd year law student, who has interned for MANY leftist groups, is able to “represent” anyone in domestic violence cases???

    Does she have a law degree already?! Sounds like a “social justice” soldier in the leftist army, following Alinsky tactics to achieve their ends – by any means necessary.

  21. Old School on 2/02/12 at 5:35 pm

    I don’t care if she’s a 90-year-old communist. Rush Limbaugh was wrong, and so is anyone else who uses or endorses his vile language. No matter how much disagreement, that stuff is way out of line.

  22. DINORightMarie on 2/02/12 at 5:43 pm

    Also, can someone please clarify this:

    PREGNANCY is NOT a disease. Therefore, contraception has NOTHING to do with “reproductive health.”

    If, as Ms. Fluke’s “testimony” said, someone were to have been prescribed the birth control pill (BCP) for a MEDICAL reason (such as the cysts on the ovaries of her “friend”), then ANY insurance company will cover that MEDICAL need. Even Catholic insurance will cover this – IF the doctor supplies the requisite paper work to substantiate the MEDICAL NEED for the BCP. If the scenario Ms. Fluke related was true, then the “friend” could SUE THE INSURANCE COMPANY for denial of coverage, resulting in her illness, surgery, damages, emotional distress, etc.

    No insurance company would deny a MEDICAL need for such a MEDICAL condition – the liability is too great!!

    You’d think a law student would understand that LAW SUITS for this are one of the reasons that malpractice insurance and insurance fees are so high.

    Gee, just what are they teaching at Georgetown Law these days?!

  23. Andyjunction on 2/02/12 at 5:59 pm

    Nobody would have remembered who Sandra Fluke was by the end of next week if Limbaugh hadn’t attacked her and in such a disgusting way. Was this part of the plot too?

  24. ML on 2/02/12 at 6:01 pm

    “No matter how much disagreement, that stuff is way out of line.”

    Eat my dick, wimp.

  25. ML on 2/02/12 at 6:05 pm

    A society that generates and encourages this sort of opportunistic power-hungry freak, whose sole mission in life is to destroy the family and reduce men to statutory criminality, is on the way down fast.

    But hey, “They hate us for our freedoms!”

  26. Polly on 2/02/12 at 6:11 pm

    A link to Ms. Fluke’s written testimony is also available at

    http://lsrj.org/

    It is instructive to read her actual words. She specifically discusses the belief that any insurance will cover medically-necessary contraception and indicates that the Georgetown U. student policy made obtaining the coverage extremely difficult and sometimes impossible.

  27. Polly on 2/02/12 at 6:27 pm

    “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.”

    http://nation.foxnews.com/sandra-fluke/2012/03/02/sandra-fluke-fame-hungry-activist#ixzz1o0LufbOD

    This quote indicates that she came to Georgetown IN SPITE OF knowing what the health plan covered, not IN ORDER TO change it. She wanted to go to Georgetown regardless of the health plan because she wanted the education Georgetown offered. There is no mention of her attending Georgetown for the “express purpose” of changing the policy. Once at Georgetown, however, she has worked to do so. I fail to see why this is so terrible. Many people work to change policies of institutions they are involved with. . .

  28. Polly on 2/02/12 at 6:28 pm

    This link purports to give a “full transcript” of Sandra Fluke’s interview today with Matt Lauer.

    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kyle-drennen/2012/03/02/nbc-brings-sandra-fluke-blast-limbaugh-rights-deafening-silence-denoun

    Nowhere in the transcript can I see mention of her age, nor of her deciding to attend Georgetown after reviewing their student health insurance policy. Do you have a link that would provide support for these assertions?

    Also, it seems pretty clear that no one concealed her activism. Her past presidency was posted at least by 2/21/12. Here’s the link:

    http://lsrj.org/

    Again, I fail to see the problem with her activism. Activists of all political persuasions testify before Congress.

  29. puckerup on 2/02/12 at 7:00 pm

    “came to Georgetown University interested in contraceptive coverage”
    “spent the past three years lobbying the administration to change its policy on the issue.”

    That pretty much says it. Attend a religious university with the goal of forcing them to abandon their religious doctrine. To hell with the first amendment.

    Do I smell a position opening up in HHS?

  30. Polly on 2/02/12 at 7:34 pm

    Nowhere in the Matt Lauer interview transcript can I see mention of Ms. Fluke’s age, nor of her deciding to attend Georgetown after reviewing their student health insurance policy. Do you have a link that would provide support for these assertions? Her remarks on the foxnews site appear to have been widely taken out of context.

    Also, it seems pretty clear that no one concealed her activism. Her past presidency was posted at least by 2/21/12. I fail to see the problem with her activism. Activists of all political persuasions testify before Congress.

  31. ruralcounsel on 2/02/12 at 7:54 pm

    Seems to me that a 3L at a prestigous law school ought to know better than show this level of deception and dishonesty.

    Don’t all state bar organizations do a ethics and background check of people before allowing them to take the bar exam? They are usually looking for character and fitness flaws that suggest someone won’t make a good attorney.

    Seems like she just set herself up for rejection on that basis. Was she under oath when testifying? Seems like some of her reported statements had to be stretching the truth pretty hard.

    Maybe Georgetown should eject her from the law school on similar grounds. Or at least that she is wasting a spot that someone who could pass a character and fitness investigation could have used.

  32. derekcrane on 2/02/12 at 7:59 pm

    How did this woman get accepted into Georgetown Law? She can’t be very bright. In her tirade against male hegemony a couple of days ago she claimed that her birth control will cost her $3,000 for her three years of law school. A month of birth control pills cost $9 at Walmart/$108 a year and $324 for her stay at Georgetown. If she is paying $3,000 only for the pills, she will be ready for a good job with the profligate spending federal bureaucracy after graduation Well, maybe she uses condoms. Average cost of a condom is 25¢. That would give her 12,000 condoms, 4,000 a year, 11 a day. It seem Rush is on to something here. There is something flukey with Sandra Fluke. I believe that the truth will slowly be revealed during the next few days.

  33. Old School on 2/02/12 at 8:28 pm

    “Eat my dick, wimp.”

    Right. So you think I am some liberal. Far from it. I was a conservative Republican before you were born. Where I come from, men do not treat women that way, no matter what. That gal could be my daughter, and if she was, Rush Limbaugh would be looking over his shoulder for the rest of his life.

  34. Old School on 2/02/12 at 8:30 pm

    “No insurance company would deny a MEDICAL need for such a MEDICAL condition – the liability is too great!”

    You’ve never had a valid insurance claim rejected? How old are you. Maybe 18?

  35. Kathy Kattenburg on 2/02/12 at 8:33 pm

    “PREGNANCY is NOT a disease. Therefore, contraception has NOTHING to do with “reproductive health.” ”

    Pregnancy is not a disease. However, despite the fact that pregnancy is not a disease, pregnancy can involve danger to a woman’s health, up to and including death.

    There are sometimes women who are told by their doctors that they should not become pregnant (at all, or after a certain number of childbirths) because it could gravely damage their health or even kill them. I know you will scoff, but there are really are women who discover this, maybe through a pregnancy that does almost kill them, and it’s due to something that cannot be changed and pregnancy is just too dangerous for them. Now hold on I’m about to try your patience even more. *Some of these women are married.* And some of these married women want to be able to have sexual relations with their husbands. Sometimes vice versa as well.

    What I am attempting to explain to you that sometimes it’s possible that a bodily event or condition or action might not be a disease in and of itself, but nevertheless can be dangerous for some people.

    Here’s another example, unrelated to pregnancy. Take sports, for example. Baseball or soccer or running track. Running is not a disease. Soccer is not a disease. Nevertheless, although it seems so inconsistent, some persons can be seriously harmed, sometimes even fatally, by playing a very active sport if they have an underlying medical condition that IS a disease.

    Do you see how that works? This is why, even though pregnancy is not a disease, contraception DOES have something to do with a woman’s health, maybe even some aspect of her health that is not directly connected to her uterus.

    I’m hoping your confusion has been allayed by the above explanation, but if not, it’s better to ask than to remain ignorant and stupid.

  36. fmder on 2/02/12 at 8:43 pm

    Old School
    We could care less how old you are and if you were in fact her father Im sure you would be very proud of the fact she is having more sex than she can afford and demanding we all pay for it…

  37. Old School on 2/02/12 at 8:49 pm

    I don’t like the whole health system. I don’t even really believe in health insurance, at least to pay for the ordinary expenses, which includes birth control. My own insurance is “catastrophic” only. So, on the issue itself, I am more conservative than you think.

    However, I repeat: It’s not the way a man talks to a woman. Where I come from, Rush Limbaugh would be paying an emergency call to the dentist. Anyone who would endorse his foul language is not a “conservative” in my book.

    Men do not treat women that way and call themselves men. Period.

  38. manofaiki on 2/02/12 at 9:21 pm

    The Washington Post published an article on Feb. 16 entitled ‘Meet Sandra Fluke:The Woman You Didn’t Hear At Congresses Contraceptives Hearing’. The article was written by Sarah Kliff.

    In it, the following passage appears:

    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.

    From that, its pretty obvious she came to Georgetown with contraception coverage foremost in her mind and spent 3 years lobbying the school to change it’s policy.

  39. Clarissimus on 2/02/12 at 9:27 pm

    Old School, seems your objection is to the word more than the categorization. What is a nicer word that you would deem acceptable for some who receives monetary compensation for sexual acts?

  40. Mrs on 2/02/12 at 9:35 pm

    I seem to have missed the ominous point that is trying to be made here. What does it matter if she’s an activist for women’s reproductive rights, and why is that even surprising given the fact that she just made a speech in front of Congress about it?

    Most importantly, how does her age or her activism invalidate her arguments?

  41. manofaiki on 2/02/12 at 9:36 pm

    Early on, there were plenty of reports describing Fluke as a 23 year old coed at Georgetown University. The only one I can find that deviates from that is Dana Milbank, writing an opinion column in the Daily Republic in which he refers to Ms. Fluke as being 24 years old.

    After Limbaugh’s comments the other day, the wrong age for Ms. Fluke, whatever it’s origin, was loudly and prominently repeated in denunciations of Limbaugh, such as this one by Matt Lauer on NBC’s Today show:

    “And an ugly turn in the battle over birth control. Rush Limbaugh has ruffled feathers with his choice words for a 23-year-old woman who supports insurance coverage for contraception.”

    Who gave 23-24 as Ms. Fluke’s age originally? And why was this not corrected until now, as the story of her trying to testify before Congress first broke over 2 weeks ago in the middle of February?

  42. sumhzrd on 2/02/12 at 9:37 pm

    Old School
    Thanks for advocating a principled position in a reasonable way. I only wish your approach wasn’t so rare in commentaries like this.

    Irrespective of one’s point of view on a given issue, comments like ML’s add nothing to the public debate

  43. manofaiki on 2/02/12 at 9:39 pm

    Why, it’s the changing narrative, Mrs. I’ve been following this story for two weeks now.

    At first she was just a ’23 year old coed’. Then she was a ’23 year old coed who also happened to be a ‘reproductive rights activist’. Then she was a ’23 year old coed who also happened to be a ‘reproductive rights activist’ who carefully investigated Georgetown’s policies and decided to enroll specifically to fight the University over contraception insurance.

    And now? The ’23 year old coed’ who also happened to be a ‘reproductive rights activist’ who carefully investigated Georgetown’s policies and decided to enroll specifically to fight the University over contraception insurance turns out to be………….30 years old.

    Street theater like this used to be so much more effective before there was an internet that people knew how to use. It’s getting harder all the time to keep the narrative simple, and effective, and getting the results you want before people figure out they’ve been had.

    Ah well. Too bad. The price of progress and all that.

  44. Kathy Kattenburg on 2/02/12 at 9:47 pm

    “What is a nicer word that you would deem acceptable for some who receives monetary compensation for sexual acts?”

    A wife? A girlfriend? A fiancee?

    On the other side, what would you call a man who accepts sexual acts as compensation for monetary gifts?

  45. Mrs on 2/02/12 at 9:52 pm

    Thanks for your insight manofaiki, but I still don’t see the problem. Who said she was 23 in the first place? Did she lie about her age, or was that out of her hands? Was she even trying to hide her activism? I feel like we can blame lazy journalism on this as easily as it being some sinister plot to trick everyone. How is that possible in this day and age? Anyone with half a brain would know that her background would come up quickly and easily, so if she or some higher force were actually trying to hide it, you’d think they’d have done a better job. This all just seems like a petty means of invalidating her.

  46. Jason on 2/02/12 at 10:02 pm

    “What is a nicer word that you would deem acceptable for some who receives monetary compensation for sexual acts?”

    A wife? A girlfriend? A fiancee?

    Nice try but money for sex is prostitution regardless of what you want to call it.

    “On the other side, what would you call a man who accepts sexual acts as compensation for monetary gifts?”

    Answer: fornicator, adulterer, lecher, take your pick. This stuff is pretty simple, Kathy.

  47. Sittingduck on 2/02/12 at 10:15 pm

    Mrs, the point is…she is a plant, she is a tool being used to mislead and misdirect the lazy MSM devotee, because the Democrats can be pretty sure that the majority of the masses won’t do any research and will take everything that they and their tool say at face value. If you truly believe that the Democrats have no agenda in creating this non-issue and twisting it to give a false impression about Republicans, you are hopelessly blind.

  48. manofaiki on 2/02/12 at 10:19 pm

    First impressions are important, Mrs. And those who engage in Street Theater like this with Ms. Fluke are aware of that.

    My first encounter with these kind of ‘first impressions’ that later turn out to be bogus was with the Clarence Thomas hearings over Anita Hill’s charges.

    When she was brought into to be questioned by the Committee, one of Hill’s lawyers made a big show of gesturing to a group of 4-5 people who were sitting Ms. Hill and her lawyers. The standing lawyer grandly informed the Congressmen – and all the people watching via TV, including me, that this group of people was made up of Hills ‘family members and close friends’.

    In fact, Hill had no family members there. Or close friends. Every single one of the people sitting behind Hill and her lawyers were members of a PR firm.

    This did not come out until many weeks later. But on the day of this particular hearing, everybody took the statement at face value.

    Just recently OWS took over a foreclosed house in Brooklyn in which they claimed they were moving a homeless man and his family into it. The guy who was disputing his mortgage with the bank was OK with it because OWS assured him only this man and his family was moving in. There was a big celebration, news stories about the seizure of the house, helping the ‘homeless man’ and his family move in, etc. A NYC councilman even showed up to have his picture taken with the ‘homeless man’.

    Less than two months later the entire house had been trashed and stripped, and the poor guy left holding the bag found out too late the supposed ‘homeless man’ was actually, uh, a ‘homeless ADVOCATE’ and he and his family never really moved into the house. Instead, they pretty much threw the doors open to any homeless people in the Brooklyn area and turned the house into a squatter’s den. With predictable results. You can probably find the story if you Google this: Occupy Brooklyn Trashes House.

    So when I say ‘street theater’, I mean an impression is deliberately given that is not true in order to make some sort of narrative look good. It usually isn’t until much, much later that the actual facts are learned, and by then the people engaging in the street theater got what they wanted and it’s too late to fix it.

  49. The Moron Whisperer on 2/02/12 at 10:20 pm

    “My only question is how does someone go from being a champion of domestic violence issues to an expert of women’s reproductive health issues?”

    Possibly by being smart and studying. This of course, will be mysterious territory for most “conservatives”

  50. Angela on 2/02/12 at 10:28 pm

    “My only question is, how does someone go from being a champion of domestic violence issues to an expert of women’s reproductive health issues?”

    How do you lack cognizance of the fact that both these issues are founded in women’s (and men’s) rights, specifically not to be beaten and to have control over the number of children they have/when they have those children? Anti-birth-control activists fail to realize that it’s a matter of standards: men have a biological, not to mention social, ability to have as much sex as they want without the concern of becoming pregnant, but without access to contraception, women are unable to do so. Yes, unplanned pregnancy affects men as well, but anyone who says that the effect is always equal is deluded. Feel free to call me a slut rather than engaging with the arguments presented, by the way; it will just solidify my image of Rush-fans as easily manipulated fools.

  51. The Moron Whisperer on 2/02/12 at 10:37 pm

    Angla…

    Something tells me that the average Rush Limbaugh fan is a guy who does not have a lot of experience with actual sex. It would explain a lot of the anger towards women we see here.

  52. Observer on 2/02/12 at 10:38 pm

    Old school you are right. The way Limbaugh insulted Fluke makes his would-be conservatism completely worthless. Most people who call themselves conservatives are in fact negative, uncivalized, discntent boors.

  53. Observer on 2/02/12 at 10:42 pm

    The religion of many American “Conservatives” is not Christaianity but The Mamon, money…

  54. TB on 2/02/12 at 11:10 pm

    Hey, “Observer:”

    For an educational experience, Google “Sarah Palin” and “slut.”

    For extra credit, Google “Sarah Palin” and any conceivable English word that can be used to insult or degrade a woman.

    Then get back to me on “uncivilized boors.”

  55. The Moron Whisperer on 2/02/12 at 11:12 pm

    For an educational experience, Google “Sarah Palin” and “slut.”

    Rush is the most powerful man in GOP politics.

    If you can show us where anyone even near his stature called Palin a slut, get back to us.

    Weak tea indeed.

  56. Alvin on 2/02/12 at 11:17 pm

    @Observer I doubt you actually know any conservatives, short of one you “saw on tv”.

  57. Deninor on 2/02/12 at 11:19 pm

    Liberalism is built on lies, obfuscations and subterfuge. This is just more proof of this.

  58. Kathy Kattenburg on 2/02/12 at 11:41 pm

    “money for sex is prostitution regardless of what you want to call it.”

    You’re agreeing with me then. If accepting money for sex is prostitution, then wives, girlfriends, and fiancees all are prostitutes (assuming, of course, that said wives, girlfriends, or fiancees are actually having sex with their husbands, boyfriends, or fiances).

    None of this has anything to do with Sandra Fluke or with contraception being included in health insurance coverage because it’s health care. Ms. Fluke is not arguing that she and other women should be paid for sex. She is arguing that contraception is part of basic preventive health care and therefore should be included in the health insurance package that they are already getting from their employers. It wasn’t Ms. Fluke who said she was having sex three times a day. It was Rush Limbaugh who said that.

  59. The Moron Whisperer on 2/02/12 at 11:47 pm

    > Liberalism is built on lies, obfuscations and subterfuge. This is just more proof of this.

    All true. Lenin was Obama’s great grandfather. You are very perceptive.

  60. Mic Lawler on 2/02/12 at 11:47 pm

    “Reproductive justice means not just our tax dollars flowing to Murder Inc … ah I mean Planned Parenthood (another leftist oxymoron) and promoting the unrestricted slaughter of innocent children in their mother’s wombs.

    Now Sandra Fluke, Cruella Pelosi, Barack Obama and their ilk are pushing it to a new and more degenerate level. Now hard working Americans must give more of their hard earned wealth to pay for birth control pills, I.U.D. s, morning after abortion inducing drugs and whatever else suits the fancy of the Amoral Secular Humanists who infest the Radical Marxist Left.

    Immorality must be promoted, traditional mores destroyed and American citizens must be forced to pay for their society’s demise while the Marxist vermin use the power of Government to force people to violate their consciences and principals. Alinsky must be looking up from hell with an evil smile on his face. Well guess what it ain’t over yet ! We the people are not defeated and we are not going to surrender our country to Barack Obama and the cadre of vile marxists that he represents !

  61. Proctor on 2/02/12 at 11:53 pm

    I bet her parents are proud that they raised a harlot. Good job! Perhaps she can go to mom and dad and get the money for her birth control or use self-control. And then to bring what should remain private into the public arena she needs to rethink what she is doing… she sounds like a dog in heat… Poor lost girl…

  62. The Moron Whisperer on 3/03/12 at 12:53 am

    @ Proctor & Ulmer

    Not getting laid very often, are you?

    Don’t wear your bitterness on your sleeve. It’s embarrassing.

  63. Jason on 3/03/12 at 2:09 am

    Kathy you live in a world of sluts where, in your words, wives, girlfriends, and fiancee’s all have sex for money.

    Contraception is not “preventative health care.” What malady is being prevented? Pregnancy is not a disease.

    Where you go wrong is that you view sex as an activity whose primary purpose is recreational. That is the sick contraceptive mentality.

    Sex is a marital act. It’s purpose is both unitive and procreative. Both must exist or else the very purpose of the marital act is being distorted and the results will be negative for both the individual and society.

    You want to crank the thighs open for any swinging one with a pulse? Knock yourself out. Nobody is trying to force you to see the light and realize that you’re more than just a piece of meat who is a slave to your physical impulses. Just don’t expect me to applaud while you debase yourself and, on top of that, pay for it.

  64. DANEgerus on 3/03/12 at 2:54 am

    Slut? SLUT?!? There are entire whorehouses that don’t use $3000 in birth control in a year.

    How much birth control does she and her girlfriend need?

  65. DoRami on 3/03/12 at 4:08 am

    Sandra Fluke wants $3,000 a year … Just a thought, at age 30 before bumming 3k from me, so you can bang at your elitist school adventure, how bout you take a part time job at sonic where you can learn to swallow? Media whore

  66. Pharmer1 on 3/03/12 at 5:46 am

    Social degradation has gotten to the point that the leftists expect others to pay for their recreational drugs.

    Note to Kathy: more than half of all abortions done to women who were using birth control. There is no birth control drug which is reliable enough in actual use for a woman to bet her life on it.

    Your suggestion that women should choose hormonal birth control as a means to avoid a pregnancy that would threaten her life, and expect others pay the cost, is irresponsible.

  67. jk on 3/03/12 at 6:45 am

    so….busted?

    Hope this info gets out, unfortunately Republicans are too stupid to be able to simply defend themselves. They can’t even state simple numbers to show spending and revenue for a decade to win an arguement.

  68. Bill G on 3/03/12 at 6:47 am

    My first thoughts about Ms. Fluke had been that this bit was a job application. Things are tough out there these days for law school grad’s and having this in her resume would bring in job offers in droves.
    But, oops, she’s not looking for a job, she’s just another activist trying to ram her theology down everyone else’s throat.

  69. lb on 3/03/12 at 7:42 am

    Using degrading language about women is uncalled for period. Here are just a few samples of what is said about GOP /conservative women daily. Unless you have criticized these men for what they did and do every day, then just be quiet.

    http://www.hark.com/clips/ngytycfsgf-david-letterman-calls-governor-sarah-palin-a-slut

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrbV8LssNfI

    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011/03/bill-maher-calls-sarah-palin-a-dumb-twat-video/

    http://www.mediaite.com/tv/keith-olbermann-calls-sarah-palin-a-tool/

  70. Just a Grunt on 3/03/12 at 8:04 am

    Polly, I watched the interview live and it was far more then the minute and change shown at that link. Matt commented on her age during the interview, something along the lines of “did you ever expect as a 30 year old you would be getting this much attention”. Not an exact quote but that is what made me start looking into this young lady.

  71. Steve on 3/03/12 at 9:17 am

    Wouldn’t a full hysterectomy be a more complete “preventative health” approach for someone who cannot control their actions? This would resolve a lot of longer term health care issues that a pill which as previously noted is not 100% effective.

    The main problem here is someone wanting others to pay for their behavior induced medical issues. Smokers already pay higher premiums, is that any less fair? I am sure that had she researched her options, there is somebody that will provide her insurance for birth control at a cost she can afford, like WalMart.

    And why are these costs to be covered by the insurance company and not the manufacturer? What drug companies are pushing for this so that they can increase their profits and lobbying efforts?

    If we as a society are going to start providing free “drugs” of any sort, wouldn’t we be better off with providing vitamins to school children?

    And while Rush Limbaugh went to the extreme in calling this woman a slut, his comments were enough to raise this issue to a level of national discussion, not hidden behind a DC hearing. Anyone who want to make something better needs to stress it beyond it’s normal limits to see what happens. I am much more offended by Kathy’s comment that the sex my wife and I have makes her a slut.

    Oh yeah, shouldn’t condoms be free too? They would prevent (to a high percentage) unwanted pregnancy AND STDs. She must want to let her partners, and those of all women, go bareback and share all of their sexual history. That surely reduces future health issues.

    Final comment – maybe Georgetown in the school that she wanted to attend BECAUSE of it’s policies and morals, not in spite of them.

  72. spepper on 3/03/12 at 9:37 am

    What do you call a “Fluke” who expects ME, a hard-working taxpayer, to fund HER “lifestyle choice” by way of the federal government confiscating taxes from my hard-earned pay?

    A FLOOSIE.

  73. GeekyGirl on 3/03/12 at 9:53 am

    Now wait a minute. It’s been the liberal mantra for years,  “my body my choice” and personal decisions like abortion should be “between a woman and her doctor”  well, if that’s the case, then paying for birth control should be between you and your man!  It is obvious to me the Catholics are trying to discourage promiscuity,  and the government wants to promote it and make private organizations pay for it. Liberals are like spoiled children, they want it all and someone else to pay for their mistakes and lack of personal responsibility. This woman may not be a slut but for sure she is unethical and a liar. Watch her run for office.

  74. Anthony Ford on 3/03/12 at 10:02 am

    So to those who believe that Limbaugh’s language was “way out of line” — does that mean that Obama will be returning Bill Maher’s million-dollar donation and calling Sarah Palin and Tim Tebow to apologize? Please look at the following, and then let’s hear about how bad Limbaugh is again:

    http://dailycaller.com/2011/03/19/low-brow-bill-maher-says-sarah-palin-is-a-dumb-twat/

    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/entertainment/2011/12/bill-maher-courts-controversy-over-tim-tebow-tweet/

    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/07/16/real-time-guests-discuss-having-violent-hate-sex-michele-bachmann-and

    Come on, libs, let’s see you rationalize THIS one.

  75. dwolf on 3/03/12 at 10:13 am

    I just want to be clear before I vote this fall.

    Is the Republican belief: If you are a woman who uses contraception, that is paid for by an insurer, you are a slut in the eyes of every Republican.

    Is this a correct statement?

  76. GeekyGirl on 3/03/12 at 10:41 am

    Kathy, what you posted is absolutely twisted and ludicrous. At various times I have been a girlfriend, fiancee and now current wife to the same man, and at no time did he ever PAY me for sex. Speak for yourself if you believe sex is a commodity, instead of an expression of love.

  77. ernie s on 3/03/12 at 10:59 am

    ……Great…….lets go after Sandra Fluke now….man the right wing dummies will never, never learn…thankfully most Americans have an IQ greater then their shoe size……

  78. Susan on 3/03/12 at 11:02 am

    “My only question is, how does someone go from being a champion of domestic violence issues to an expert of women’s reproductive health issues?”

    Um, one EDUCATES oneself.

  79. 1389AD on 3/03/12 at 11:07 am

    @dwolf,

    No, but to DEMAND that any and all insurers be made to pay for YOUR contraception – yes, that makes you a slut.

  80. jeff talbut on 3/03/12 at 11:10 am

    From the Georgetown Student Code of Conduct…

    Personal Integrity
    The education offered by Georgetown University is an education in values. Especially appropriate in a university community are virtues of truthfulness, honesty and personal honor. Misrepresentation of any kind, whether inside or outside the classroom, is a violation of truth. As a Catholic, Jesuit University, Georgetown expects students to realize values of mutual care and responsibility in their personal relationships. In their sexual behavior, students are expected to exercise responsibility and to show appropriate regard for the Catholic character of the University.

  81. Lovekraft on 3/03/12 at 11:27 am

    Don’t care whose feathers I ruffle:

    with leftist tactics here of planting someone in an organization in order to take it down, there needs to be some open and frank discussion about the Catholic Church pedophile scandal.

    Wouldn’t it be possible that gays were plants in order to bring the Church down?

  82. Mullaney on 3/03/12 at 11:53 am

    First, it amazes me after seeing the left’s reaction to Andrew Breitbart’s death over the past two days, and how Sarah Palin is regularly treated by left, that they would get their panties in a twist over someone being called a “slut”. I suppose you would be shocked to learn that teenager girls across the country regularly refer to their friends as “slut,” “b–ch,” and even sometimes “wh—” as terms of endearment.

    I didn’t hear what Rush said, but it appears to be that if someone else is paying for her to have sex, then she’s a slut or a prostitute. In other words, he’s criticizing the fact that she wants someone else to subsidize her lifestyle, not her lifestyle itself.

    I personally don’t care what this women does, who she does it with, and how many times per day she does it. Doesn’t effect me. But when she starts asking for money for it, then she invites other people to become concerned about her behavior.

    And, I’m hardly a prude about sex. In fact, I think sex is no big deal, so I would not think of this women as a slut regardless of how much sex she has and how many different partners she has. In fact, I think of it as no big deal so much so that I have trouble figuring out why society treats it as something that must be done. Why, she just can’t help it, apparently (for the record, what makes someone a slut is an inability to control themselves, not the sex itself). Why can’t we tell her to keep her pants on if she can’t afford to have sex? Obviously, sex is a recreational activity to her, which is perfectly fine by me, but if she can’t afford that activity, don’t do it. There are plenty of activities I don’t participate in because I can’t afford to. But I don’t run to the government to ask then to force someone else to pay for it.

    And don’t give me the “sex is a health care issue” nonsense. Sure, tangentially it is, but so are a million other things people do daily. Bike riding, for example, is a healthcare issue in the sense that if I wipe-out and injure myself, I’m going to incur health care costs. Should I lobby government to force my insurance company to pay for my bike helmet and other safety gear?

    At any rate, in this era of high unemployment, an anemic economic recovery, if we are recovering at all, high deficit spending, unsustainable entitlements, etc., I’m glad to see that the President’s priority is to personally congratulate a woman for the “courage” to ask other people to pay for her relatively inexpensive personal items. If only we could all have such courage…

  83. SW on 3/03/12 at 12:15 pm

    What is wrong with the whole picture?

    Simple, for the body politic holds that adults should be practicing “safe sex.” This means an unmarried man or woman should be using a condom for each sexual act, not birth control pills. Since she is arguing about expensive birth control prescriptions while condoms are inexpensive and plentiful, she obviously is also arguing for UNSAFE sex, and moreover plenty of it, given the mathematics behind her argument.

    Gay or straight, this is about advancing socialized medicine and condoing promiscuity at the same time.

    Simple. Safe sex in a short-term relationship means condoms, not diaphragms and not pills. Therefore the whole thing is political street theater, and we are supposed to not notice that the “safe sex” issue has been cleared off the dialogue table. What she is advocating is UNSAFE sex.

  84. David Wendell on 3/03/12 at 12:27 pm

    Doesn’t Georgetown say that it is a catholic college ? The news sure down plays that. Why does this woman want to go to a catholic college when she disagrees with official catholic rules and theology ? Why doesn’t she go elsewhere ? I think she is filled with hate for PRACTICING Roman Catholics. Although I am not sure how “catholic Georgetown really is. Seems like everybody “wants their cake and eat it too”.

  85. mark l. on 3/03/12 at 12:58 pm

    big picture for slut or saint…
    she went to a law school which does NOT supply birth control pills.
    does she have any right to demand them, now that she is there?

    she lied about the cost of the pill, to exagerate her point. had she appearred before the actual house/senate, she would be sworn in, and would have committed perjury. She actually sat down in front of dems, and pretended that her testimony was honest.

    it wasn’t.

    100 dollars?
    try 30 dollars. planned parenthood is trying to make money off of a women, by over charging her for the pill? riiighht…

    so,

  86. bubba on 3/03/12 at 1:05 pm

    ” She is arguing that contraception is part of basic preventive health care ”

    Preventative health care my ass.

    tell that to all of my patients that develop deep venous thrombosis and pulmonary emboli because of oral contraceptives.
    maybe the slut will go Dan Blocker.

    condoms and diaphragms are cheaper and don’t require hormonal manipulation.

  87. Old School on 3/03/12 at 1:42 pm

    “For an educational experience, Google Sarah Palin and slut.”

    Here is something I taught my kids: Two wrongs does not make a right. Maybe I am too conservative for the “conservatives.”

  88. Griff on 3/03/12 at 2:21 pm

    Now does everyone understand why Little Georgie Stephanipoulus brought up contraceptive use in A Republican debate 6 weeks ago!! A white house plan to change the focus from the economy and gas prices ..
    Griff

  89. Glenn Koons, LB, Ca. on 3/03/12 at 2:25 pm

    I beg the writers here to send this good solid info column to every Pub in the Congress:both Houses as well as to Rush , Sean , Mark Levin. Let the conservs fight back with the truth and do not allow the MSM to set the tone for Bama’s gender class warfare agenda to capture female votes on a phony issue. The outrage of paying for some’s condoms should be the comedy hit of the year but the Left is so without humor that they think the masses will buy this lady’s baloney with the ongoing baloney of the Leftist Bama as he seeks to pin on the GOP, YOU HATE WOMEN LABEL.

  90. Mica Vim Toot on 3/03/12 at 2:25 pm

    Old School- The post you quote from, “For an educational experience, Google Sarah Palin and slut.” was a response to a liberal posters’ claim that Republican women never have to endure the abuse heaped upon democrat activist matron Fluke.
    He wasn’t making a “Oh yeah well you do it too!” post. He was informing an ignoramous.

    Vim Toot!

  91. Lori on 3/03/12 at 3:10 pm

    Sad! I would be ashamed of her if this were my daughter! This girl has no common sense whatsoever! She has made a complete ass of herself. Hope her future kids don’t hear her idiotic statement ever. I would never ever broadcast my person…al life to the whole world like that. You know I have struggled in my life and still managed to only have two children. No excuse with planned parenthood and all the other social programs that exist to prevent unwanted pregnancies. What the flip is she talking about?! STUPID IDIOTIC MORON! Just another worthless puke looking for free handouts!

  92. Kathy Kattenburg on 3/03/12 at 3:48 pm

    “Kathy you live in a world of sluts where, in your words, wives, girlfriends, and fiancee’s all have sex for money. ”

    Well, they do, right? Of course they’re not called “sluts.” They’re called wives, girlfriends, and/or fiancees.

    “Contraception is not “preventative health care.” What malady is being prevented? Pregnancy is not a disease.”

    I answered that question/statement in my comment no. 40. You’re wrong, and although people can be wrong w/o being ignorant or stupid, in your case, you’re all three.

    “Where you go wrong is that you view sex as an activity whose primary purpose is recreational. That is the sick contraceptive mentality.”

    Sex has many purposes, one of which is recreational. It’s your belief that pleasure and/or recreation is an illegitimate reason to have sex that is sick. Physical and emotional pleasure are perfectly legitimate reasons to have sex — as every male human being who ever existed on this planet has known for all of human history. In point of fact, in terms of human behavior, leaving your twisted definition of morality out of it, pleasure — whether strictly physical or a combination of physical and emotional — IS and has *always been* the primary purpose of sex, and the primary motivation for having sex — not procreation. What’s more, nobody has any problem with that concept on the male side, as I said before. It’s only women having sex purely for pleasure that’s immoral in the diseased minds of people like you. As illogical as that seems (since women don’t have sex by themselves), it’s absolutely and unequivocally true.

    “Sex is a marital act. It’s purpose is both unitive and procreative. Both must exist or else the very purpose of the marital act is being distorted and the results will be negative for both the individual and society.”

    That is your opinion, and you are obviously entitled to it. It’s not a fact or a truth though, as strongly though you may think it is. It’s an explicitly religious belief, which is fine as long as you don’t conflate religious beliefs with scientific or universal truth.

    “You want to crank the thighs open for any swinging one with a pulse? Knock yourself out. Nobody is trying to force you to see the light and realize that you’re more than just a piece of meat who is a slave to your physical impulses. Just don’t expect me to applaud while you debase yourself and, on top of that, pay for it.”

    I don’t know who your “you” refers to. I do know you’re a misogynistic religious fanatic as well as a plain vanilla idiot. Sandra Fluke said nothing about having sex in her testimony. She did not make any reference to whether and/or how frequently she or any other woman has sex. You clearly haven’t listened to her testimony, which is only 10:58 long. That’s what makes you an idiot. You don’t know what you’re talking about. Fluke’s plea for employers’ insurance policies to cover contraception had *nothing* to do with having sex. She never said it did. The fact you are spewing this bile about women spreading their legs and having sex three times a day and having no self-control comes *entirely* from your own sick, sick, sick mind and heart.

  93. Angel Nova on 3/03/12 at 4:38 pm

    Bang, bang the witch is dead! And for all those who showed quick sympathy to this woman, and the special compassion by the “chosen one” , crap on you is coming back to you! Rush Limbaugh was right! She is a prostitute, a bitch and so called sex crazy although she actually look like a lesbian and I repeat a lesbian to me!!!

  94. Whitey Ford on 3/03/12 at 5:10 pm

    Fluke is a leftist agitator, nothing more. Why does a lezzzie like her need contraception anyway? Seriuosly.

  95. Otis Campbell on 3/03/12 at 5:16 pm

    So let me see if I under stand this.

    She’s posing as a student, but advocates a lifestyle that includes irresponsible sex with multiple partners, and she wants working men and women to pay for birth control or abortion (if the need arises).

    I wouldn’t call her a prostitute (they’re smarter than this). This is the lifestyle that whores prefer. Slut might be a better word…

  96. The Moron Whisperer on 3/03/12 at 7:08 pm

    Rush is trying to walk this back as sponsors bail on him.

    Pocketbook over principals…

  97. The Moron Whisperer on 3/03/12 at 7:11 pm

    @ Otis

    Please prove that she is not a student.

    Please show where she advocated “irresponsible sex with multiple partners”.

    Please show where she said “working men and women” should pay for anything.

    John Wayne once said “Life is hard. It’s harder if you are stupid.”

    You must have a very hard life…

  98. canusee on 3/03/12 at 7:46 pm

    @Moron Whisperer: Fluke advocated irresponsible sex with multiple partners when she said it cost $3000 per year for contraceptives. 1. This number shows sex 11 times a day, every day of the year. 2. Uh, one man? Riiiiight.

    The breakdown as mentioned further upthread,
    “And who has sex 11 times a day? “In her tirade against male hegemony a couple of days ago she claimed that her birth control will cost her $3,000 for her three years of law school. A month of birth control pills cost $9 at Walmart/$108 a year and $324 for her stay at Georgetown. If she is paying $3,000 only for the pills, she will be ready for a good job with the profligate spending federal bureaucracy after graduation Well, maybe she uses condoms. Average cost of a condom is 25¢. That would give her 12,000 condoms, 4,000 a year, 11 a day.”

  99. canusee on 3/03/12 at 7:57 pm

    Hello, all those insisting it wasn’t gentleman of Rush to call Fluke a slut; as in how dare he. Weeeelllll,

    Obama Sponsor Bill Maher: Hey, I’m Allowed to Call Sarah Palin a C-nt
    Posted by Jammie on Mar 03, 2012 at 12:50 pm

    Funny, for all the feigned outrage over Rush Limbaugh calling slut Sandra Fluke a slut, the Democrats are awfully silent over a guy who’s contributing a million dollars to Obama calling Sarah Palin a c-nt.

  100. Ken from Charlotte on 3/03/12 at 8:06 pm

    In other words, Fluke’s a flake who for fifteen minutes of flickering fame, fudged fables as a fibbing flapper. Faux 23 fittingly 30, lying dirty, wannabe Leftist flirty asking US to pick up tab for her imaginary fornicating freebies.

  101. ECM on 3/03/12 at 8:33 pm

    @ The Moron Whisperer: Yes, the salient quote being “without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school. ”

    What we do know is that this is a bald-faced lie, based on, oh, a million stories on a million different sites from ever political angle pointing out that *nobody* is paying 3k over the course of 3-4 years of *anything*.

    Or you could just do a few quick searches and confirm that, yes, pills are $9/month at Wal-Mart (and Target) w/o insurance (free from PP if you’re completely broke/destitute). The same goes for condoms, doctor’s appointments, and the lowly diaphragm ($60…once).

    Basically, you can’t even make the math work to get it to even 2/3rds of that number she quoted even if you assume she’s paying 3x as much for the pills. (But, as noted, a diaphragm will set you back…$60.)

    So, basically, she’s either a brazen liar or was handed talking points that are brazen lies. In the former shame on her and the latter, uh, shame on her. But since she was a political prop (this wasn’t even at an actual Congressional committee w/ sworn testimony, which is good, because if she tried to fob off $3000 for 3-4 years of birth control, she would have been pounded by people not so sanguine about her difficulty with objective reality) it doesn’t really matter either way since the goal wasn’t honesty, but to push an agenda.

    So, yeah, she’s getting the old tetherball tretament because she’s a LIAR and that her ‘testimony’, take at face value, could have done incalculable harm because it’s predicated on LIES. If you don’t want to be hammered in the press (and across the Internet) a good start is to not LIE.

  102. naql on 3/03/12 at 8:51 pm

    I always thought “reproductive justice” was when Daddy showed up at the house of the guy who knocked up his daughter with a shotgun in hand.

  103. The Fop on 3/03/12 at 9:29 pm

    It’s funny how “contraception advocates” always seem to also be “abortion advocates”. You’d think that people who are so adamant about the use of contraception would be anti-abortion, seeing as avoiding an unwanted pregnancy would be the primary motive for using contraception.

    The ugly truth is that the people who are pushing to have elementary school kids learning how to put a condom on a cucumber are total goddamned liars when they say that they just want to educate young people about safe sex. What they really want is to encourage young people to be as sexually active as possible at as young an age as possible.

    And when one of these young people gets pregnant, the very same people who claimed to think that it was so important for young people learn about contraception will tell them that it’s perfectly fine to get an abortion, and that they should feel absolutely no guilt or shame about it.

    This is all about undermining Judeo-Christian teachings about sexual morality. Nothing more and nothing less.

  104. The Only Smart One Here on 3/03/12 at 9:51 pm

    I’d like to know where she was referred to as a 23 yr old student b/c I’ve only heard her referred to as a 3rd year law student. 23 or 30, she’s still a student and she is also an activist. Nothing wrong with that!
    Pro-contraception does not equal pro abortion as someone noted above. As well, pro choice doesn’t equal pro abortion! It just means that each woman should have the right to choose for herself!!!!
    Everyone here is all afluff over this age issue, as if it is one, when the fact remains, she was ONE woman that wanted to testify amongst a bunch of MEN!! Men making choices for women! I guess the Right is serious about going back to the days of our “Founding Fathers” where women have no rights… I bet you want slaves back too?!
    Democrat doesn’t equal Liberal. There are conservative and moderate Dems, you know. There isn’t one box to fit in. I wouldn’t consider all Republicans Conservative or stupid, but the ones that choose to make choices based on their religious beliefs and push that agenda on everyone else, certainly are and I will reserve the right to judge accordingly!
    By the way, Rush is on his fourth marriage (that’s morally upholding, isn’t it?!) and yet with all those marriages, hasn’t produced one child (!!)… is he using birth control? Or does he just shoot blanks which is that the cause of his extreme animosity towards sexually gratified women?!

  105. The Moron Whisperer on 3/03/12 at 9:58 pm

    > she said it cost $3000 per year for contraceptives

    She did not say that. Read the frigging transcript.

    Idiot.

  106. IronGoddess on 4/04/12 at 1:37 am

    The Only Smart One Here said: “I wouldn’t consider all Republicans Conservative or stupid, but the ones that choose to make choices based on their religious beliefs and push that agenda on everyone else, certainly are and I will reserve the right to judge accordingly!”

    I wouldn’t consider all people double talkers, but trying push one’s agenda and trying to force others to pay for it, when their religious convictions go against it, sure sounds like double talk to me. You seem to think one side should go against their convictions so the other side can have their agenda satisfied! Which is it Oh Smart One? You speak from both sides of your mouth! And I reserve the right to judge accordingly as well!

  107. berlet98 on 4/04/12 at 2:23 am

    Fluke, Flake, Fraud–or All Three?

    No stranger to controversy, conservative talk radio commentator Rush Limbaugh stirred up a wasp’s nest last week when he concluded Georgetown Law student Sandra Fluke had to be a slut and a prostitute.

    More specifically, he said, “What does it say about the college co-ed Susan Fluke [sic] who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex–what does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute.” Limbaugh added, ”She’s having so much sex she can’t afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex.”

    On Saturday, without retracting the reasons for his rant, Limbaugh apologized to Ms. Fluke on his website for his “insulting word choices.”

    He needn’t have.

    The derogatory term “slut” refers to a sexually-promiscuous woman, “prostitute” to someone who accepts payment for sex acts. As injudicious and inflammatory as his words were, Limbaugh was correct since, by definition, Sandra Fluke fits the definitions.

    Republican Presidential hopeful Rick Santorum characterized Limbaugh as “absurd,” House Speaker Boehner termed his language ”inappropriate,” and President Barack Hussein Obama called Ms. Fluke with some encouraging words.

    In what was the most outrageous defense, Jesuit Georgetown University President John DeGioa praised her: “She was respectful, sincere, and spoke with conviction. She provided a model of civil discourse. This expression of conscience was in the tradition of the deepest values we share as a people.”

    What Jesuitical BS!

    On the other side of the controversy, Bill O’Reilly also criticized Ms. Fluke for wanting taxpayers to pay her for her hyperactive sexual activities, Michelle Malkin called her a radical feminist tool, and Eric Bolling said, “She seems like a plant.”

    Rep. Darryl Issa precipitated the Fluke controversy when he refused to allow her to testify at last month’s hearings on religious liberty and the constitutionality of Obama’s mandate that church-related institutions bury their collective consciences by providing free insurance coverage for women seeking sterilization, abortafacient drugs, and contraceptives.

    Obama’s “compromise,” shifting the burden of providing “free” birth control to those institutions’ insurance companies, simply meant religious institutions would pay indirectly through increased premiums for what they regard as morally-objectionable procedures.

    Issa’s decision that Ms. Fluke was unqualified to testify in a matter involving the Constitution and religious rights was totally valid.

    Nevertheless, ignoring constitutional issues, Democrats used Ms. Fluke as a tool to cover Obama’s infringement on religious liberty and promptly provided her with a forum to espouse her point of view.

    The next day she appeared on MSNBC’s “The Ed Show” where she told Ed Schultz that the outpouring of support ”really has meant a lot to me. And I think to women across America . . . I don’t really see why anyone would not condemn this type of language.”

    She said she would testify in the future if asked and, with a blinding sense of altruism, promised, “I think what I’m going to be doing from here on out is just continuing to do what I have been, sharing the stories of the women who contact me and really trying to make sure that their voices are being heard. . . ” (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=15503.)

  108. IronGoddess on 4/04/12 at 2:49 am

    Old School said: However, I repeat: It’s not the way a man talks to a woman. Where I come from, Rush Limbaugh would be paying an emergency call to the dentist. Anyone who would endorse his foul language is not a “conservative” in my book.

    What are you talking about? Do you even go out in public? Women are just as bad as men, and some are worse nowadays! They curse just as big and loud. They use the F-bomb fluently in public, can drink a man under the table, wear scant amounts of clothing inviting but daring a man to make a comment so they can act like they’re offended and pounce on him, dance provacatively, sleep around, and on and on. (sorry guys, I know not all of you are that way as all women aren’t) However you see and hear and see it out of women more and more often nowadays! I say when you act like a man you get treated like a man. Women don’t ask for any respect so what is it you’re so upset about? If a woman wants respect she needs to earn it in this day and time. She can’t be that way and expect respect. She lets him know it’s OK becase she does it too! Whose fault? You tell me!

  109. William Westchester on 4/04/12 at 9:00 am

    ODE TO A PROMISCUOUS STUDENT AT GEORGETOWN LAW

    Each night she opened up her legs,
    Each weekend opened lots of kegs.

    She spent so much time giving ass,
    Sweet Sandy never got to class.

    She went to college just to flook*
    And never opened up a book.

    Till now just happy to be laid,
    This “lady” now wants to be paid.

    The Left has pushed her forward but
    It will not let us call her “slut”.

    * According to Jay Carney of the White House Press Office, the family name rhymes with “look”.

  110. A good guy on 4/04/12 at 10:05 am

    Is there any reason to ever believe a liberal? The true socialist agenda seems to have shown it’s colors in this woman.

  111. Mullaney on 4/04/12 at 10:29 am

    “Here is the transcript of Fluke’s actual testimony”

    Thanks for that. It made for good comedic reading. There’s little in there that is remotely compelling. If anything, I have a less positive view of this woman after having read that.

  112. Jennie Eisler on 4/04/12 at 11:47 am

    You missed the point…again. Now you need to trash Fluke and the policies she help make for womans rights.

    Let’s hold a “womens only” hearing on mens health issues.
    We can talk about viagra and the need for it.
    Make sure no men are in the room.

  113. Doug Miller on 4/04/12 at 1:10 pm

    @oldschool
    Where was your outrage when Bill Maher called Sarah Palin a cun- ? Where was your outrage when he suggested that Eliz Hasselbeck replace the female reporter who was raped in Egypt? as well as many other despicable comments about conservative women?I believe you have what is called…Liberal selective memory

  114. Mullaney on 4/04/12 at 1:53 pm

    Jennie, it is you who misses the point.

    This issue is not about access to contraception (or really, just birth control pills, because that is all Fluke is really referring to in her statement). Birth control pills aren’t that expensive, and the lack of access to them among college students and law students is hardly one of the most important issues of our time. Many insurance companies don’t pay for birth control pills, and plenty of women still use them despite this. Some pills may costs as much as Fluke suggests, but if she’s paying that much, she’s not shopping around.

    The issue is really about a women using the force of government to impose her values on a religious institution. When religions impose their values on the left (or even simply express their opinions, in some cases), the left has a collective hissy fit, but they see no problem with using the force of government to impose their values on others. If Fluke were to try to change the policy by working within the university, more power to her. But by running around the administration to government, she invited criticism.

  115. Jason on 4/04/12 at 2:48 pm

    The cavemen on this page are pure disgust. You have zero class. People calling a woman a slut for her speech? What kind of creeps are you people.

    You are a an insult to every decent man in the Republican Party. I am ashamed to be in the same party with you.

    What sick souls you people have. Go to a meeting! Go to church! Do something positive! Stop being such cowards. Such enormous coward – sitting in your houses writing insults about a woman you know nothing about.

    You are creeps. You define the word CREEP.

  116. Henny on 4/04/12 at 2:58 pm

    Any of you jerks ever had a date you didn’t have to pay for? I didn’t know they let rapists have computers.

    This is like reading a journal from some child molester. You people are depraved.

    But keep talking, you’ve got journalists now quoting these comments for profiles in the right wing attitude toward women.

    What cowards. What pure wimps.

  117. Mullaney on 4/04/12 at 3:06 pm

    Wow, Henny, hypocrisy alert!

    In a short comment, you referred to people here as jerks, rapists, child molestors, cowards, and wimps.

    All in protest to someone being called a slut?

    Pot, kettle, and all that…

  118. David on 4/04/12 at 3:08 pm

    Hi, this article is very confusing to me.

    I don’t remember any press outlet referring to Fluke as a “23 year old coed.” I thought it was Limbaugh who made the original reference to her that way.

    Could someone give me a link to the source where she is referred to as a 23 year old coed?

  119. Julie on 4/04/12 at 4:32 pm

    Old school: I am a young woman, wife and mother of a daughter. I appreciate your attempt at chivalry. But calling a spade a spade is exactly what is needed. If my daughter went before Congress and testified that she is having so much sex she cant afford to live and happens to be single then she deserves to be called what she is a a woman of ill repute, loose, tramp, slut whatever…. That is what she is and if she doesn’t want her virtue questioned then she needs to actually have some VIRTUE!!!!!!! Women nowadays can get away with behaving like trash and being refered to as ladies. That is an insult to women who truly have virtue. Thank GOD we’ve raised a lady and not a Fluke. How proud her parents must be, well they probobly raised her with no morals

  120. Brian on 4/04/12 at 5:05 pm

    I am having trouble finding a link for the interview where she is portrayed or described as being 23. Can anyone help me here?

  121. JSP on 4/04/12 at 5:17 pm

    OldSchool: “Men do not treat women that way and call themselves men. Period.”

    Sigh. You might want to look past your local community and see the direction the rest of the world is going. There are plenty of women who call men what ever they want and guys like you excuse your princesses actions. We live in a world where statements like all men are potential rapists is lauded as “right on” but woe be to those who call a woman a slut or dare to say all women are potential rapists or potential sluts/gold diggers etc. etc..

    We live in a world where even conservative women use these government tools to screw over the men in their lives, because they can. Because Daddy will always support his pwetty princess even if she is a she-devil hoebag.

  122. trailbee on 4/04/12 at 8:05 pm

    You did your homework, and handed it to us. Most of us would not even have known where to look. It is a very timely issue. Thank you for digging and making us aware of the truth.
    By the way, Websters defines a slut as a sexually immoral woman. If the shoe fits …

  123. Siouxsieq on 4/04/12 at 10:34 pm

    It took me a while, but I found a citation for the “23 year old” statement. There are probably more, but the one I found was aired on MSNBC, I believe on 3/1/12 and said by reporter Anne Williams, “the 23 year-old Georgetown law student, prohibited from testifying” in a report on Limbaugh’s controversial remarks. Note how long after she went public that a seasoned reporter is still refering to her as 23

  124. Anymouse on 4/04/12 at 11:45 pm

    This case is a not the case of simply calling a girl a slut. This is quite justified in many respects. If she had simply been a college girl getting into trouble then her father could have dealt with this using his belt. And that would have been the end of it, as it should be.

    Flue is openly trumpeting her behavior to the world, and is completely unrepentant. She is not a sympathetic character by any stretch of the imagination.

    “We live in a world where even conservative women use these government tools to screw over the men in their lives, because they can. Because Daddy will always support his pwetty princess even if she is a she-devil hoebag.”
    Absolutely correct.

  125. Warrior on 5/05/12 at 1:55 am

    I know that whenever I decide to return to school for an advanced degree, my first criteria is the school’s contraceptive health policy…

  126. Fontana on 5/05/12 at 6:09 pm

    Moron Whisperer said:

    Rush is the most powerful man in GOP politics.

    If you can show us where anyone even near his stature called Palin a slut, get back to us.

    Weak tea indeed.

    ———–

    I can do a lot better than that.

    Speaking of tea, late last year, Labor Hilda Solis called Tea Party Patriots, teabaggers, and there was nary a peep from Obama, his Administration and the MSM.

    Limbaugh is a member of the media. Hilda Solis is a public servant in one of the highest offices of the land, being funded through MY tax dollars. Truly despicable!

    Her exact quote is below:

    “I’ll be darned if I’m going to set that aside now because a few tea baggers want to somehow muzzle my voice,” she said

    Read more: http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-11-01/politics/30344756_1_tea-party-tea-baggers-national-press#ixzz1oHpAT236

  127. Fontana on 5/05/12 at 6:28 pm

    Oldschool,
    As a woman, I appreciate your attempt at chivalry. But please know, that I understood quite well what Rush was talking about. He likes to illustrate absurdity with absurdity.

    Fluke’s statements were patently absurd, if you consider the actual cost of contraception. The pill can be purchased at Wal-mart and any number of other stores for $10 or less. Condoms are quite cheap also, or Ms. Fluke could march right over to Planned Parenthood and acquire what she wants for free — funded by me the taxpayer.

    Rush’s point was that if a woman has to spend that much money on contraception, she’s getting lots of action. If you run the numbers it works out to be about five times per day.

    Oldschool, these are different times and women are different today. Many are foul, manipulative, mean-spirited operators. My guess is that Fluke fits into this category considering that she is a hard-core leftist activist.

    Want to know what some of these women are like? Watch some videos of the Occupy protestors in all of the glory.

  128. Sea King on 5/05/12 at 9:04 pm

    Moron Whisperer, apparently you can’t spot a bait-and-switch: “contraception … can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school. For a lot of students who, like me, are on public interest scholarships, that’s practically an entire summer’s salary.” Obviously for the women who need a specific type of treatment from contraception, $3,000 may be possible. But then she included her ability to pay *that* much, without qualifying why she would have to pay that much. And then she goes on to state the financial burden that is for 40% of women at Georgetown.

    Well, *does* she have to pay *this* much? If she doesn’t whether or not it’s a summer’s salary for her is entirely irrelevant.

  129. Thoughtforfood on 5/05/12 at 9:11 pm

    You have James O’Keefe parading around as a pimp, and you all find a woman going to law school, partially chosen to protest something she disagrees with, abhorrent? My goodness Republicans are a hypocritical lot.

  130. Dylan on 5/05/12 at 9:48 pm

    We are missing an important angle here. She probably perjured herself when she said she paid $3K for birth control in the last three years. In that case, she’s also a felon.

  131. Cecil on 5/05/12 at 11:48 pm

    She’ll be nominated to the Supreme court sooner or later .At the rate she’s going she may be out of college at 65.

  132. Fontana on 6/06/12 at 10:23 am

    It’s also been revealed that Fluke has been a reproductive rights activist who is so radical that she advocates insurance companies pay for sex reassignment surgery. I thought that only the loons in San Francisco were that extreme, which might be why she was chosen by the Pelosi Dems for this obvious bit of political theater.

  133. Hector on 6/06/12 at 10:36 am

    Having read many of the comments on here and coming in late, I might echo someone else’s comments…for that I apologize.

    One of the questions that has been asked is, what does her age and activism have to do with her testimony?

    As a “23 year old student” she comes across with more weight in the eyes of many people. If her true nature, that of a 30 year old activist, had been the one that had testified, less attention would have been focused on her than was in her portrayal as a “23 year old student”. Perception is more important than reality. In addition, if it had been revealed that one of her intentions as an activist had been to force Georgetown to change their insurance exemptions, even less attention would have been focused on her, the perception being that she had an axe to grind.

    As to the Limbaugh question…was he wrong to call her that? Yes, because now the focus is on her, and to some extent, the left’s “hurt feelings and outrage”. Could he have said simply that she was wrong? Yes…it expresses his opinion without the disrespect. The media have gone whole hog on the Limbaugh story while ignoring other stories that are as disrespectful.Compare that to the lack of outrage, and coverage, when a left leaning information source denigrates a faith community:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-doyle/the-jesuseating-cult-of-r_b_1296358.html

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-doyle/dear-catholics-i-am-heart_b_1307837.html

    Didn’t hear about it? Well…then I guess that outrage is selective. If you are truly an unbiased source, your outrage is across the board…not just the stories you support.

  134. JustAJoe on 6/06/12 at 10:42 am

    I fail to see the problem here. She has worked to help Domestic Violence Victims. She has worked to help people who are victims of slavery. She has worked to promote women’s rights. This all sounds commendable. Then she tried to testify before Congress on women’s issues. She took an undergraduate degree that included study of women’s issues, so it is to be expected she would be working on these issues. I do not see she deceived Congress or the public in any manner, would you expect someone testifying on an issue to be uninterested and without any background in it for it to be OK with you?

  135. Hector on 6/06/12 at 10:45 am

    Background is not the problem, Joe…the dishonest way in whcih she was portrayed is. She was portrayed as a “23 year old coed”…Again, perception makes a difference. People are going to feel sorry for a 23 year old coed…but they won’t for a 30 year old activist with an agenda.

  136. planters on 6/06/12 at 12:17 pm

    So here is one question I have not seen asked anywhere that would totally discredit her entire argument. Excuse me Ms. Fluke, what is your sexual orientation? Lets see she follows Rachel on twitter and is a 30 year old single women’s studies major…kinda makes you wonder now…

  137. Richard Wee on 6/06/12 at 2:52 pm

    So the drug addled sack of pigshit gets too high one day and goes on the radio and speaks of the hate he truly feels for women. Guys who have a hard time getting laid tend to think like that. Why do you think he suggested Ms. Fluke make him a sex tape? You can try to cast Ms. Fluke as an “activist” or whatever word you want to hide behind to dehumanize her and discredit her, but it doesn’t change what Mr. Oxycodone let fly from his lips. Rush screwed the pooch again, and it is going to cost him a good chuck of his $50 million a year salary this time. I’m sure his insurance covers Viagra. He’ll just have to make fewer trips to Costa Rica to get that teenage tang he craves. Why would anyone even attempt to support the POS??? There are some morally bankrupt individuals commenting here. Now, go ahead and see if you can dehumanize and discredit me for telling you the truth.

  138. BethesdaDog on 6/06/12 at 5:48 pm

    This thing smells more and more. So she went to Georgetown specifically so she could challenge the Catholic Church’s long held policy on contraception. Then she has the gall to complain about the financial pressures notwithstanding that they gave her a partial scholarship.

    This is all guerrilla theater, cleverly put together by Pelosi and her professional law-student agitprop.

    Rush stepped right into it. He should keep his big mouth shut. If he keeps talking, he’ll singlehandly re-elect Obama. Think things are bad now, wait until you get to see another four years of this character.

    By the way, when I went to Georgetown Law, we probably didn’t have anywhere near the breadth of coverage under the student health insurance that they have now. I still found it financially difficult, I didn’t have a “professional agitator” public interest scholarship, and didn’t have birth control coverage. Of course, if you saw most of the Georgetown women, you would know why I didn’t need it. Half of ‘em were heavy duty drinkers at the Dubliner or Irish Times, the nearby bars. Not my thing. And virtually all of them were not very appealing.

  139. Abra on 6/06/12 at 6:01 pm

    Rush wasn’t concerned with sluts when he was stopped on a flight to the dominican republic with someone else’s viagra pills(prescribed to another person).

    He is a pile of sh_t!

  140. Siouxsieq on 6/06/12 at 6:56 pm

    Just checked on FACTS of viagra incident with Mr. Limbaugh. He was cleared of all appearance of guilt by the Office of the State Attorney in Florida. And it was in 2006, over five years ago, almost six. What you mudslingers don’t seem to understand is that he called her a slut and poked fun at her making a video for general consumption. I happened to be listening to that show and could tell he was attempting to be humorous. Was it funny when Bill Maher called Sarah Palin a dumb twat? Was that hilarious? No, but noone on the left thought that any woman had been offended. I was, greatly. That work is an old one for genitals, and a very offensive one. Calling someone a slut for wanting money from GU for contraception at the tune of $3,000 for three years (where is her planned parenthood clinic?) indicates sluttish behavior. And all you people who are attacking people on this post personally and Limbaugh in particular, let me teach you an new phrase that is the darling of the liberals, and some conservatives, and one I personally hoped not to find on this thread: AD HOMINEM ATTACK. It means to attack the speaker and not what the speaker said. In other words, with no factual basis to stand on, people attack the other personally instead of having a civil debate. It stinks and it shows your lack of credibility.

  141. Chip J on 6/06/12 at 10:03 pm

    It’s very interesting that many leftists are attacking Rush Limbaugh for using language liberals and rappers frequently use. An even MORE interesting aspect is that many liberals bring up Rush’s drug use, but in 1992 and 1996 they thought a pot smoking draft dodger made a terrific president. Can we say “hypocrisy”?

  142. Rhett on 6/06/12 at 11:56 pm

    Amazing how many people are content to toss out an opinion on something without having bothered to check even the most basic of facts, starting with what Sandra Fluke was even talking about in the first place.

    Here goes:

    (1) The topic has nothing to do with sex whatsoever. It is about medical issues for which contraceptives happen to have beneficial (read: preventative) effects. The outrage at Rush is not just a matter of the words he used, but of his misinformed characterization of the topic in the first place. We can see a microcosm of the effects of that here.

    (2) Birth control pills vary in pricing depending upon the composition. The Wal-Mart variety being cited here would not necessary work to prevent an issue such as the ovarian cysts which Ms. Fluke was referencing. Rather, a prescription for a particular/specialized composition of the pill would be required to address such an issue. Hence the spike in cost.

    (3) No one is asking the taxpayer to pay dime one. The government would not be providing the coverage; private insurance companies would.

    (4) Nowhere has Sandra Fluke claimed her age to be anything other than 30. The first journalist to cover her testimony made the mistake of publishing an incorrect number. Domino effect from there – it happens quite often in this day and age of lazy, cut & paste journalism … mostly due to the rush of getting the story online first.

    (5) Personal pet peeve: If you are going to attack a person for a particular stance on an online forum, how hard is it to open a new tab, go to Google, search for and read the person’s actual statements first? You know, “educated opinion” and all. Some of you make that basic of a task sound like rocket science.

  143. Rhett on 7/07/12 at 12:13 am

    For the record, I do not necessarily agree with Ms. Fluke’s stance that the costs should be automatically and unquestionably covered by insurance.

    I do believe that if a medical issue can be shown to exist, and if a particular drug can be proven to be of medicinal benefit for said issue, it is worthwhile debating whether that drug should be covered. The question I would ask is, does the insurance company cover another form of drug which would have a similar effect on the issue at hand (in this case, ovarian cysts)? If so, the whole thing is moot.

    However … if the companies do not offer a drug that addresses the issue, and if contraceptives have been proven to act as a preventative/medicinal agent for the issue (and other issues as well) then certainly it would seem reasonable to open a debate on whether those should be included in the companies’ coverage.

    Which, for the record, is exactly why she spoke to Congress in the first place.

  144. Marc on 7/07/12 at 9:35 am

    @rhett: thank you for posting a thorough and rational response. I’d also like to add this from David Frum at CNN.com, in response to those who claim a double standard in dealing with Rush vs. Bill Maher, etc.

    “As advertisers quit the Rush Limbaugh radio program — and as Republican politicians squirm uncomfortably — the broadcaster’s fans are complaining about double standards.

    Yes, they’ll concede, maybe Limbaugh went too far in denouncing a female law student as a “slut” and a “prostitute” and then demanding that she post a sex tape online for him to view.

    But look (they continue) at all the liberal/lefty broadcasters who have also said obnoxious things! No one calls Democratic politicians to account for them. Why us?

    It’s a question that will be aired often in the week ahead. Here’s the answer, in four points.

    Point 1: Even by the rough standards of cable/talk radio/digital talk, Limbaugh’s verbal abuse of Sandra Fluke set a new kind of low. I can’t recall anything as brutal, ugly and deliberate ever being said by such a prominent person and so emphatically repeated. This was not a case of a bad “word choice.” It was a brutally sexualized accusation, against a specific person, prolonged over three days.

    Point 2: The cases that conservatives cite as somehow equivalent to Limbaugh’s tirade against Fluke by and large did bring consequences for their authors.

    After David Letterman for example made an ugly joke about Sarah Palin’s daughter, he delivered an abject seven-minute apology on air. (To which Palin responded by refusing the apology and insinuating that David Letterman was a child molester.)

    When liberal talker Ed Schultz nastily called my dear friend Laura Ingraham a “slut” on his radio show, MSNBC responded by suspending Schultz for a week without pay from his TV show. Schultz likewise apologized in person on air. (Ingraham accepted the apology with grace and humor.)

    The exception to the general rule is Bill Maher, who never apologized for calling Palin by a demeaning sexual epithet. But now see point 3:

    Point 3: Limbaugh’s place in American public life is in no way comparable to that of David Letterman, Bill Maher or Ed Schultz.

    Letterman is not a political figure at all; and while Maher and Schultz strongly identify as liberals, neither qualifies as anything like a powerbroker in the Democratic Party. I’m sure the Barack Obama re-election effort is happy to have Maher’s million-dollar gift, but I sincerely doubt there is a Democratic congressman who worries much whether Maher criticizes him. A word of criticism from Limbaugh, by contrast, will reduce almost any member of the Republican caucus to abject groveling. See, for example: GINGREY, PHIL.

    Among TV and radio talkers and entertainers, there is none who commands anything like the deference that Limbaugh commands from Republicans: not Rachel Maddow, not Jon Stewart, not Michael Moore, not Keith Olbermann at his zenith. Democratic politicians may wish for favorable comment from their talkers, but they are not terrified of negative comment from them in the way that Republican politicians live in fear of a negative word from Limbaugh.

    The ultimate test came in 2002, the vote to authorize force against Iraq. Almost every liberal talker opposed that vote. Hillary Clinton, with her eye on a presidential run in 2008, voted in favor.

    That is why no one asks Democratic politicians to repudiate the latest strident statement from an Olbermann or a Moore. There’s no sport in it. It’s too easy for them to say, “Sure.” For Republicans, it’s tough.

    But maybe, after this latest outburst, a little less tough?

    TIME.com: Erica Christakis on why men are the missing element in the contraception debate

    Point 4: Most fundamentally, why the impulse to counter one outrageous stunt by rummaging through the archives in search of some supposedly offsetting outrageous stunt? Why not respond to an indecent act on its own terms, and then — if there’s another indecency later — react to that too, and on its own terms?

    Instead, public life is reduced to a revenge drama. Each offense is condoned by reference to some previous offense by some undefined “them” who supposedly once did something even worse, or anyway nearly as bad, at some point in the past.

    But this latest Limbaugh outburst is so “piggish,” to borrow a word from Peggy Noonan, as to overwhelm the revenge drama. (On Saturday, Limbaugh apologized “for the insulting word choices.”)

    It is the bottom of the barrel of shock talk.

    And the good news is that from the bottom of the barrel, there is nowhere to go but up.”

    http://edition.cnn.com/2012/03/05/opinion/frum-rush-limbaugh-fairness/index.html?c=&page=0

  145. Jewel on 7/07/12 at 10:23 am

    So what???
    So what if she’s 30yo instead of 23yo? So what if she decided to make this her issue?

  146. F.L. Speaking on 7/07/12 at 3:38 pm

    Kathy Kattenburg, in her comment at 105, says, “I answered that question/statement in my comment no. 40. You’re wrong, and although people can be wrong w/o being ignorant or stupid, in your case, you’re all three.” (“All three”?) For someone who contributes regularly to The Moderate Voice, Ms. Kattenburg sure[ly] does use an immoderate voice.

    I’m not sure what to call someone who can’t count to two, but the words “ignorant” and “stupid” do come to mind. Kattenburg’s grasp of the most basic arithmetic appears to be lacking. First we learn our numbers (by rote?), then we learn how to count. Later we learn how to add, subtract, multiply, divide, differentiate, integrate, etc. Eventually, we may get around to learning Peano’s Axioms — and even how to use them in mathematical proofs.

    Not only does Kattenburg appear not to know how to count, she also appears to need a dictionary. At 49, she answers the question of “What is a nicer word that you would deem acceptable for some[one] who receives monetary compensation for sexual acts?” with “A wife? A girlfriend? A fiancee?” Really? Why not husband, boyfriend, or fiance?

    I’ll tell you why not: wives, girlfriends, and fiancees and husbands, boyfriends, and fiances typically don’t get paid for having sex with each other. Getting paid for sex is what gigolos do. What prostitutes do. By the way, “prostitute” is a unisex term and applies equally to males and females.

    As for post 40, where’s the beef? Kattenburg was responding to DINORightMarie at 26. However, she seemed not to comprehend what DINO had said — that insurance companies wouldn’t dare refuse to pay for so-called birth control pills prescribed for medical needs. I thought she more or less repeated DINO’s argment.

    Then she wandered off into using sports as an analogy . . . and completely broke down. Her use of the sports analogy helps make her point only if insurance companies offer preventive health coverage specifically tailored for people who participate in active sports. In the very, very remote possibility that some company does offer such a policy, you can be certain the coverage doesn’t come free. When she gets back to what DINO said, she segues disingenuously from DINO’s “reproductive health” to “a woman’s health.”

    Other than those objections to what she wrote, I may not be all that far from agreeing with KK. My wife and I have had sex as a procreative act only a few times. When we decided to try to have a second child, she got pregnant almost immediately. Two of her three pregnancies were unintentional and happened despite the use of contraceptives. So, most of the time when we had sex, it was for pleasure. We never once considered what we did “recreational sex.”

    Nevertheless, I won’t dispute that “most sex is recreational.” Not for everyone, but for a large majority, I’d wager — throughout the world, regardless of color, race, religion, sex, or national origin. It’s a cinch that when people of the same sex have sex with each other, its purpose is not procreation. Can sex be unitive? Sure, but that’s not why most people have sex. (Gender? That’s a word that should be used only in English classes.)

    If KK had gotten around to saying that women should get “free” contraceptives — which I’d bet she thinks is a terrific idea — then I’d have another bone to pick with her. I can’t imagine her not supporting that facet of a pro-abortion feminist agenda.

  147. BDav on 8/08/12 at 1:22 am

    It makes no difference what her age is. Women who are students should have the right to contraception as part of their school’s health plan. She chose to go to Georgetown because it’s an amazing law school, and like she said, she didn’t want to “compromise [her] education.” If men had the weight of a possible pregnancy on their shoulders, you bet there would be universal birth control for them. This is not a religious issue, but a feminist issue, in which women’s rights are being witheld out of fear of change. What Fluke is doing is making a case for equality, something our country used to pride itself on. Now that once-great attribute is slipping away, because a handful of white men decided they can tell all American women what to do with their lives and their bodies. Calling Fluke a fake placed to advance the liberal agenda is even worse than calling her a prostitute, because it makes a mockery not only of the sexual rights and freedoms of women, but also of a strong woman’s ability to get up before her country and make her case for justice.

  148. Fontana on 8/08/12 at 11:58 am

    Fluke isn’t some victimized college co-ed. She’s a hard-core, reproductive rights activist who chose Georgetown expressly to attact their contraception policy.

    She’s such an extremist radical that she believes sex-change operations should also be paid for.

    AND, she’s a Pelosi-plant in this obvious bit of political theater.

    It was wrong for Rush to call he a slut. She’s not. She’s a manipulative, far-left operative. She’s a lying hack.

  149. F.L. Speaking on 9/09/12 at 9:43 am

    Teriffic and well-thought-out rebuttal, Marc on 8/08/12 at 5:03 am. Did it over-tax your brain to key in those 52 characters?

    BDav on 8/08/12 at 1:22 am — ah, yes, time to pull out the old “Women’s rights are being trampled” mantra. “Poor, poor us.” I wasn’t sure I was going to post the following, which I wrote for this thread. Now I’m sure.

    ERA again? For men this time?

    The National Partnership for Women & Families claims the HHS regulation on contraceptives can’t include a clause that allows religious employers to refuse to provide free contraceptives in their health coverage — because that would be contrary to Congress’s intent to provide them. Say what? In support of her argument, the writer went on to cite a section of the law clearly indicating that it applied to entities “receiving Federal financial assistance,” and not to all employers. Note: I have no problem at all with the following statement. “An Administrative Agency may not interpret a statute in a way that is contrary to the statutory text or congressional intent.” However, given that Congress wrote the Act such that preventive health measures would be determined later, I don’t see how the Congress’s-intent reasoning can withstand scrutiny.

    Next, she said, “It creates an unreasonable barrier for women seeking appropriate medical care by requiring those who work for certain religious employers to bear the substantial costs of contraceptive counseling and services.” Substantial costs? Contraceptives can be obtained for as little as $9 a month, or less. How much is the copay for a doctor’s visit if a prescription is required? Why can’t the counseling be part of the visit?

    Then: “This exemption compounds the discrimination against women who will be excluded from comprehensive health coverage under the Act.” The more I read about discrimination against women in healthcare, the more annoyed I get. If anyone is being discriminated against in healthcare, it’s men, not women.

    Ask yourself why the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act provides for the Health and Human Services Coordinating Committee on Women’s Health but makes no provision for a Health and Human Services Coordinating Committee on Men’s Health. How about a White House Council on Men and Boys corresponding to the White House Council on Women and Girls? Or a National Men’s Health Information Center to match the National Women’s Health Information Center? In additon, “there is no federal Office on Men’s Health although there is a federal Office on Women’s Health.” Then, of course, there’s an Office of Research on Women’s Health at the National Institue for Health but no Office of Research on Men’s Health. . . .

    Women have federal agencies that “facilitate the exchange of information regarding matters relating to health information, health promotion, preventive health services, research advances, and education in the appropriate use of health care.” Shouldn’t men get equal time? Women already live longer than men — is there a conspiracy to increase the disparity?

    A federal judge upheld an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission call in 2000 and ruled that it’s a violation “of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by discriminating against female employees” not to provide “contraception just like other drugs or devices in its health coverage.” If that’s the case, then surely it’s a violation to provide all this federal support for women’s health, but nothing comparable for men’s health. It’s obvious to me that there’s no one advocating effectively for men’s health at the federal level. We need a lobby at least one-tenth as effective as the pro-abortion women’s health and women’s rights crowd.

    Maybe it’s time for men to push for an Equal Rights Amendment. I’m sure the Equal Rights Organization didn’t have men in mind when it said this, “Governmental actions that treat males or females differently as a class would be subject to strict judicial scrutiny and would have to meet the highest level of justification -– a necessary relation to a compelling state interest -– in order to be upheld as constitutional.”

  150. F.L. Speaking on 9/09/12 at 9:48 am

    I might have held this back, too, but Marc’s insults at 8/08/12 rejuvenated my interest in posting it.

    Up front: I’m a conservative. But you already knew that, didn’t you? A cantankerous conservative, for damned sure not a compassionate conservative. But I’m none of the following: discontented, idiotic, ignorant, negative, sterile, stupid, uncivilized — or a boor.

    I’m not a Republican either. I gave up on party politics of any kind several years ago. My earlier change from being registered as an Independent to being registered as a Republican so I could get an extra vote in primaries turned out to be not worth the trouble. Given that I was in Iowa at the time, there was absolutely no chance that I was going to register as a Democrat and have to go to party caucuses to have any say. Talk about a terrible waste of time for someone as uncool as I am.

    I wrote this before I saw canusee’s or anyone else’s mention of numbers. The numbers bear repeating — along with some snark. Keep in mind what mark l. pointed out on 3/03/12 at 12:58 pm: Fluke did not testify before Congress — meaning she was not under threat of a charge of perjury.

    From Craig Bannister’s CNS article that led to the current Rush Limbaugh brouhaha: “‘Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during [three years of] law school,’ Fluke told the hearing.” Really? “Can” cost $3,000? Am I supposed to believe that? Birth control pills can readily be bought for $9 or less for a month’s supply. (That $9 adds up to $324 or less for three years, not including tax. Nowhere close to $3,000.

    The only plausible way a woman could be spending $1,000 a year for contraceptives would be if she was buying condoms — or using doubled or tripled or quadrupled condoms. What man’s going to do that for three years? I’ve heard of a guy using two condoms at once once, but never more than two. So let’s assume one condom per . . . coupling.

    Further assuming a cost of $1 per condom (considerably on the high side), that would translate to a woman’s having sex almost three times a day, just as Bannister and Limbaugh said. My wife thinks most women prefer not to have sex when they’re menstruating, so I’ll take that as another assumption. That reduces the days available for a female law student to have sex from ~365 to ~300, based on an average menstrual cycle of ~29 days and an average period of ~5 days.

    Making that adjustment leads to having sex >3 times a day in order to spend $1,000 a year on condoms. If you consider that 100 condoms can be bought in bulk online for ~$25 — that would lead to having sex ~12 times a day. Okey dokey, what woman is going to be having sex 12 times a day unless having sex is her job? The $1,000 a year for contraceptives certainly hints at being a prostitute. Or a slut.

    I’ve never run across a man who was up for having sex three times a day long-term, much less 12. Ergo, someone could quite reasonably infer from Fluke’s testimony that she was talking about a woman having sex with multiple partners. Who is it that has sex multiple times daily with multiple partners? You win the big, stuffed bear if you answered prostitute. Or slut.

    I’m not sure exactly what Limbaugh said about Fluke. Sometimes his mouth runs ahead of the half-a-brain he uses, since he so generously ties half his brain behind his back for it to be fair when he makes a point. When he tries to be entertaining, fair, and provocative, he sometimes goes over the top. After all, he’s winging it. He doesn’t read from a script — or a teleprompter. He does his show live, off the top of his head — some 500 hours a year. How many gaffes do you think obama might make if he spoke extemporaneously that much? Or anyone else, for that matter?

    If Limbaugh called Fluke a prostitute or a slut with or without qualifying words, he was wrong to do that. She might be both, of course, based on her own numbers, but we don’t know either to be a fact. There may be things that point to her being a slut, but nothing that would hold up in a court of law. So, it wasn’t right for Limbaugh to imply she’s a slut, not based on what he knew about her. Did he outright call Fluke a prostitute or slut? Somehow, I doubt that he did. I’ll locate a transcript and see what he said. . . .

    “Well, what would you call someone who wants us to pay for her to have sex? What would you call that woman? You’d call ‘em a slut, a prostitute or whatever.” If I ask a question and then suggest a possible answer, I haven’t called anyone a name. That’s exactly what Rush Limbaugh did, without even mentioning Fluke’s name. Are we arguing about a non-apology for a non-offense? Or are we starting with saying Limbaugh implied Fluke is a slut. Probably, but, again, not necessarily something that would hold up in a court of law in a slander suit. Never forget: Limbaugh’s cachet is going to extremes with absurdities — and he clearly saw Fluke’s $1,000 a year being spent for contraceptives as being absurd.

    The man might have gone relatively unscathed if he had called Fluke a lying, deceitful bitch or tool. If she manages to pass the bar exam and become a practicing lawyer, would it then be all right to refer to her as a lawyer whore? Isn’t that what all lawyers are, male as well as female?

    Have I called anyone a bitch or liar or a tool or a whore? No, I haven’t. . . . Well, not here.

    PS. Fluke quoted information from the Guttmacher Institute. I don’t trust anything that comes from that offshoot of Planned Parenthood.

    PPS. Maybe I should have posted this as Hamilton Burger. But that, of course, would be wasted on just about anyone who would see it here.

  151. Marc on 9/09/12 at 11:20 am

    @F.L. Speaking, I wasn’t actually insulting you, for the record. I was only clarifying Kathy’s counting for you, since you felt it necessary to insult HER for more than a paragraph based on your own erroneous counting.
    Also for the record, and concerning numbers, my wife has taken birth control pills since we married in 2004, and not for the reason you might think. She suffered premature menopause at the age of 22, and because of that was prescribed a specific pill which, given her condition actually served to preserve her remaining eggs, so that hopefully, we are able to have children when we are ready. Up until recently we didn’t have health insurance. So how much did those pills cost us? $120/month until 2007 or 2008 when a generic version of that pill went on the market. Since then $80/month. For three years either way, well over $3000. And that from Walgreens. I can’t know which pill Ms. Fluke or her friend were prescribed, but I’d say there’s at least a chance it wasn’t the $9/month Walmart version. To suggest that her math was about condoms only points out how little attention you paid to her actual argument, which was clearly about hormonal birth control.

  152. Tara on 9/09/12 at 11:30 am

    WHY can’t I find any links to any of the original articles that actually referred to her age? I am not here to debate, I am not taking sides, I am nearly done with this entire fiasco, but I cannot find the articles that refer to her age. I do not doubt they exist, but I can’t find them. Any links would be appreciated.

  153. F.L. Speaking on 10/10/12 at 2:14 pm

    Having misread something and lost credibility, as pointed out by Marc at 9/09/12 at 11:20 am, I don’t intend to post after this — even though I’ve written quite a bit. Good stuff, really, but too long to expect anyone to read it. Ah, well.

    Thank you. Thank you very much.

    Ken from Charlotte at 3/03/12 at 8:06 pm: Thumbs up.

    The Only Smart One Here at 3/03/12 at 9:51 pm:

    No, you’re not. Not even close. I’m reasonably certain the way you sign your posts is intended to be a joke. If you were even remotely smart, it might be funny. As it is, I can spot you 30+ smart point, take you on with half of what’s left of my brain after that behind my back, and bury you. So there.

    In my mode as a pedant, your use of so many exclamation points shows just how un-smart you are. Let your readers be the judge of whether or not what you write is worthy of a wow reaction.

  154. Alessandre on 12/12/12 at 3:44 pm

    I’m really having problems w/ Fluke’s statement about not compromising on her education for her health. There are many law schools, superior to Georgetown, that provide the bcp in their health plans. With her background, if she could get into Georgetown, she could get into one of them. It would be interesting to know to which schools Fluke actually applied & which accepted her. Just another statement that doesn’t make sense. There are too many statements of that sort in her story as if no one proofed her talking points/script.