Sandra Fluke is no fluke

[_beastie]

Let me get this straight, if this is understood to be within the realm of possibility: free birth control (tax subsidized birth control) would save me, the taxpayer who subsidizes that "free" birth control, money?

When women have babies they are not ready to care for or financially support, society pays for that in many ways. Do I really have to spell it out for you? Is it possible you are this genuinely naïve and/or misinformed? Are you an alien visiting from another planet that we need to instruct in the ways of human beings?

[_Droopy]

Of course every assertion in Droopy's first post is a lie. This isn't about lifestyle choices or taxation. It is about insurance companies providing necessary health care to those who pay into it. That's it. Period.

This horse**** about taxation to pay for sexual promiscuity is the great lie told by idiots like Rush Limbaugh, and of course this kind of anti-intellectualism resonates with the village idiots on all forums. Facts don't matter. That's why they stick to the extreme Right Wing blogosphere (i.e. Townhall!)

Get educated folks, avoid the indoctrination from the blowhard Right.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/03/15 ... out/184620

It is inevitable that, eventually, the most uneducated, unread, philosophically shallow, and temperamentally disagreeable individual in the entire LDS message board world always makes his way to any given thread and sends it crashing to the rocks below.

The wreck of the Kevin Fitzgerald just won't go all the way under. He adds nothing of intellectual substance to any discussion, but he is a bit entertaining, it must be admitted, at least in a dark, deranged kind of way.

[_Droopy]

You're as much of an idiot as Rush Limbaugh.

Out of intellectual ammo from the very outset I see? Well, that's been a longstanding problem you've been dealing with for many years and will probably be negotiating for sometime to come.

As if one can measure promiscuity by birth control pills.

Miss Fluke has publicly claimed that, typically, female law school students at Georgetown need some $3,000 of contraceptives per year. At an average cost of between $20 and $30 per month (Target sells it for as low as $9.00) either Miss Fluke has her phone number plastered across every bathroom stall on campus, or she's an unhinged and monstrously diseducated demagogue with an agenda.

Apparently they think the more sex you have, the more bc pills you need.

Perhaps the Georgetown sex kittens are buying Trojans for the boys? Who knows. Perhaps you can tell me why a single female would require $3,000 of contraceptives per year?

[Tator]

Miss Fluke has publicly claimed that, typically, female law school students at Georgetown need some $3,000 of contraceptives per year. At an average cost of between $20 and $30 per month (Target sells it for as low as $9.00) either Miss Fluke has her phone number plastered across every bathroom stall on campus, or she's an unhinged and monstrously diseducated demagogue with an agenda.

She was talking about the cost of bc pills for the three years of law school, not for one year. The cost depends upon the type of pills you require. The older type of bcpills are available at lower cost, but have many side effects. The newer, improved bc pills cannot be bought as that low price.

PHILADELPHIA (CBS) - The controversy over contraception being included in health insurance brings an interesting question to the forefront: How much does birth control really cost?

For Thomas Jefferson University Hospital OB GYN Dr. Katie Lackritz, this is a conversation she has with her patients every day and she says cost is the real decisive factor.

“Some of the best birth control we have are the I.U.D’s (intra uterine devices. ) To purchase the device and have it placed in the office if you have no insurance, over $1,000. The Mirena I.U.D. which is another great form of birth control, to purchase the device and have it placed in the office $1100. That is a ton of money.”

Lackritz says the price of the prescription limits often limits what a healthcare provider can prescribe.

“Some of the newer birth control pills can be expensive without insurance coverage — $50, $60, $75 a month and they are the ones that have been more researched and are better tolerated.”

Lackritz says bottom line, in her experience, those without insurance have fewer options or can’t afford to take the birth control properly and that results in unplanned pregnancies, which she says has a high cost too.

http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2012/0 ... insurance/

75$ x 36 = 2,700

And here's how bc pills work: it doesn't matter how many times you have sex during the course of a month, you still take the same number of pills as someone who has NO sex during the month and takes it for other reasons.

So what you and Limbaugh have done is misquote her, claiming she said it costs 3,000 a YEAR, and then ignore that she was talking about bc pills, not condoms, and then ignore the fact that there are different types of bc pills and the cheapest pills are the older forms that are not well tolerated.

Misquotes, ignorance, and distortion. What else is new.

or droopy's an unhinged and monstrously diseducated demagogue with an agenda

[_beastie]

by the way, here's the transcript from a "trusted" source, Foxnews:

SANDRA FLUKE: Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, 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, 40 percent of the female students at Georgetown Law reported to us that they struggled financially as a result of this policy.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/hannity/2 ... z2DbtZctNw

[_MeDotOrg]

This is what the major institutions of our culture have become and reflects clearly and explicitly upon the intellectual and moral level at which they perceive the world.

If Rosa Parks had been allowed to keep her seat, she would have remained an unknown seamstress. Sometimes history pushes ordinary people into the spotlight. They become symbols because of their actions once they get there.

It's important to understand WHY Sandra Fluke is in this position in the first place. She wouldn't be famous without a lot of help from the GOP. Deomocrats requested that Fluke be part of the committee to testify before the House Oversight Committee investigating Health Care reform regulations requiring religious organizations to provide health care plans with birth control for institutions they control (like hospitals) that do not primarily rely upon members of the faithful as employees. If Darryl Issa would have accepted her as the only female on a committee enpaneled by GOP controlled committee had enpaneled, her testimony would have been safely ensconced in the Congressional Record. (QUICK: Name another member appointed to that committee.)

But no, Congressman Issa decided that the committee would be better served by an all-male panel when it came to an issue involving women's reproductive choices. The House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee then convened a meeting to invite Fluke to speak. Her testimony did make ripples, but the real waves were made when Rush Limbaugh called her a slut and a prostitute because she wanted to be paid to have sex.

It was a that point that Sandra Fluke became a cause celebre. In order to become famous, Sandra Fluke needed foils. Darryl Issa and Rush Limbaugh were only to happy to accept the roles.

Given her chance in the public spotlight, Ms. Fluke has performed with class and style. Rush Limbaugh has performed like...well...Rush Limbaugh. Rush doubled down on his comments, until his sponsors started dropping like flies. Confronted with a choice between standing by his word and losing revenue, Limbaugh did the economically expedient, if not the honorable thing. He apologized.

As you said Droopy, the new world is not brave.

Sandra Fluke, however, has stood by what she said.

[_beastie]

bumping up so Droopy can apologize for distorting Ms. Fluke's statements, and using the distortion to impugn her character.

[_Droopy]

She was talking about the cost of bc pills for the three years of law school, not for one year.

Here is what she said:

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.

That's $1,000 dollars per year in contraceptives! Do you think this helps your argument? I give you that she didn't specifically say $3,000 per year, but I don't see how this helps you at all, given that bc pills run below $10 dollars at Wal-Mart and Target and has high as around $30 at other places.

What is very likely happening here is that Fluke (not a "co-ed" put a professional political activist from the exotic academic hothouse environment of women's studies) is either just making it up as she goes along for ideological allies she knows will never question her publicly, or she is including, but not stating, the cost of condoms purchased by her women's studies and critical legal theory sisters for the endless stream of horny young studs her testimony implies are barking at the dorm doors of these upscale, privileged university students on a continual basis.

The cost depends upon the type of pills you require. The older type of bcpills are available at lower cost, but have many side effects. The newer, improved bc pills cannot be bought as that low price.

Feeble, weak, intellectually vacuous excuse making. These woman are overwhelmingly children of privilege from upper income backgrounds. If they are having so much sex that they are consuming a grand in birth control pills in a given year, then the answer is clearly to have far less sex (or none at all, as the Lord requires of his daughters and sons if they are not bound by the covenants of marriage) and keep their own sexual lives out of my bank account. Free, government subsidized birth control for young, unmarried co-eds is not a right, not a necessity, and not found anywhere in the constitution.

To see, yet again, the real Gorgon head of the Left and the servile, Eloi mentality that is at its nucleus, take a look at this intellectually gaseous, serfish dreck from Fluke herself:

Forty percent of female students at Georgetown Law report struggling financially as a result of this policy. One told us of how embarrassed and powerless she felt when she was standing at the pharmacy counter, learning for the first time that contraception wasn’t covered, and had to walk away because she couldn’t afford it. Women like her have no choice but to go without contraception. Just last week, a married female student told me she had to stop using contraception because she couldn’t afford it any longer. Women employed in low wage jobs without contraceptive coverage face the same choice.

Forty percent of female students at Georgetown Law report struggling financially as a result of this policy.

Have less sex. You won't turn into a pumpkin at midnight.

One told us of how embarrassed and powerless she felt when she was standing at the pharmacy counter, learning for the first time that contraception wasn’t covered, and had to walk away because she couldn’t afford it.

Cry me an ocean. This is her problem, not mine, not my insurance company's, not a Mormon non-profit charity's, and not government's

Women like her have no choice but to go without contraception.

Then she goes without contraception, or buy that which you can afford. If you cannot afford it, deal with it, but don't ask me to pay for it through the insurance I pay into and support for my own use (or, if the owner of an insurance company, do not wish to provide contraceptives or convenience abortion services due to matters of conscience) or through the charities I support or work for (and let's not be coy about what this is all about: Fluke want's to thrust the mailed fist of the state right into private insurance companies and religious non-profits and force them to subsidize behavior that is contrary to their religious beliefs and violate conscience, and for upscale college students at a prestigious university no less (in-state tuition a Georgetown averages $43,000) That is the core of her present activism)

Just last week, a married female student told me she had to stop using contraception because she couldn’t afford it any longer.

Get the less expensive pills, or alter you sexual practices so that pregnancy does not result. How they handle this is their business, of course, and up to them, but don't ask me or any other taxpayer to subsidize your contraceptives. Its not my problem, its not my responsibility, and when Obamacare is fully implemented, and most Americans are forced out of private insurance, off their employer funded programs, and into the exchanges, the state will then be using general tax funds for contraceptives - as well as convenience abortion - as it sees fit.

The problem with most on the Left, and that which is at the core of the problems they post to themselves and the rest of society, is that they are, for a most part, a people trapped permanently in a state of adolescence, with the psychological and intellectual immaturity, sense of entitlement and idealistic narcissism this phase of human development often implies.

Those who grow beyond this state usually, sooner or later, become conservatives, either philosophically, in the manner in which they live their lives, or both. Those who do not, become "liberals" and come to see their personal predilections, desires, indulgences, and lifestyle choices as "rights" that must be fulfilled by their neighbors upon whom they believe they have a preemptive claim of time, labor, and property.

As we slouch toward Gomorrah, at least all will be fair, everyone will be equal, and with a chicken in every pot, there will be a Trojan in every purse.

[_Droopy]

bumping up so Droopy can apologize for distorting Ms. Fluke's statements, and using the distortion to impugn her character.

It was a misperception, not a willful distortion, for which I have already given ground. As mentioned, however, it changes nothing of the core argument and the problems her claims present.

[_Droopy]

So what you and Limbaugh have done is misquote her, claiming she said it costs 3,000 a YEAR, and then ignore that she was talking about bc pills, not condoms, and then ignore the fact that there are different types of bc pills and the cheapest pills are the older forms that are not well tolerated.

A typical socialist crying goo-goo tears for young woman from affluent families who need one thousand dollars per year in bc pills (and probably condoms, this has not been clarified yet) and want third parties, including third parties who, as a matter of conscience, may disagree strongly with young unmarried woman having sex, to pay to avoid the consequences the manner in which they use their free agency.

As is typical with the Left, individual freedom and personal responsibility must bow and give way before the radically free, autonomous self and its desires for consequence-free lifestyle choices. Once rational thought and moral realism bar one door, the typical liberal has always another wrenching, sobbing story of unendurable woe with which to flay the body politic:

PHILADELPHIA (CBS) - The controversy over contraception being included in health insurance brings an interesting question to the forefront: How much does birth control really cost?

For Thomas Jefferson University Hospital OB GYN Dr. Katie Lackritz, this is a conversation she has with her patients every day and she says cost is the real decisive factor.

“Some of the best birth control we have are the I.U.D’s (intra uterine devices. ) To purchase the device and have it placed in the office if you have no insurance, over $1,000. The Mirena I.U.D. which is another great form of birth control, to purchase the device and have it placed in the office $1100. That is a ton of money.”

Lackritz says the price of the prescription limits often limits what a healthcare provider can prescribe.

“Some of the newer birth control pills can be expensive without insurance coverage — $50, $60, $75 a month and they are the ones that have been more researched and are better tolerated.”

Lackritz says bottom line, in her experience, those without insurance have fewer options or can’t afford to take the birth control properly and that results in unplanned pregnancies, which she says has a high cost too.

So now, once cornered on the bc pills and condom question, this leftist retreats to $1,000 IUDs, which are now, of course, indispensable to the modern college Cosmo girl and her ever-increasing corpus of new sex positions and toe-curling "moves." My answer to this is the same conservative/libertarian answer to much of the rest of it: if you want it, pay for it yourself. If you can't afford it, use the bc pills (the most expensive, topping out at $75 would run the typical woman's studies vixen $900 per year. If she can't afford that, there are far less expensive pills that woman have been using since the 1960s. If you think there are health problems associated with those, be celibate, but don't ask me or anyone else to support your lifestyle choices. They are your choices, you bear responsibility for their consequences and costs, and there are always alternatives to them ).