A quick primer, Sandra Fluke sat before an "unofficial" congressional committee on 16-Feb-2012. She testified that she should have access to birth control and Georgetown University should "be forced by federal law to pay for her contraception of choice without regard to Georgetown's religious beliefs—and that somehow, Georgetown's current policy is a medieval infringement on her rights as a human being," as summed up in an article by the Daily Caller.
Last Wednesday, Rush Limbaugh, popular conservative talk show host, had some choice words for Sandra, which made the already hot story even hotter and more polarizing. Rush gave a rare apology, but the damage was done. He lost several sponsors. The sponsors that have hung in there have been listed in news stories and are most likely being bombarded with outraged activists.
Rush's comments were way over the top, and any valid points he may have had were lost in his ridiculous statement. He should have apologized, and he did. But why does anyone care what Rush says? It is overshadowing the debate.
Questions for Sandra Fluke
A recent article asks some interesting and hard questions for Sandra (in part):
- How and when did she conduct her survey of Georgetown Law students' alleged struggles with contraceptive costs? How many students participated in this survey? Was the survey conducted with a statistically valid sample? Can she describe her survey's methodology and provide us with the original questionnaires?
- How did she arrive at her $3,000 estimate of the cost of contraception? What types of contraceptives—condoms, diaphragms, pills, spermicidal foam—were included in these calculations?
- Was she aware that a monthly supply of birth-control pills could be obtained for as little as $9 a month?
Who Is Sandra Fluke?
Sandra, 30-year-old activist, apparently went to Georgetown specifically to challenge their contraception policy. She "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," according to the Washington Post.
It does not change the debate, but it does change the image of Sandra as a starving student co-ed who came wide-eyed into Georgetown with the impression that she would not have to pay for her birth control pills. She knew exactly what she was doing. And it worked.
In her testimony, Sandra gave an example of a woman who was denied coverage of the pill even though she had a medical condition that required her to use the pill.
However, "the Student Health Center and the Office of Student Insurance have consistently worked together to minimize administrative issues for students seeking insurance coverage for oral contraceptives prescribed for medical conditions," University spokeswoman Stacy Kerr said. "Students routinely are provided coverage when a medical condition is present that necessitates the use of such contraceptives." So, perhaps Sandra's example needs to have a bit of scrutiny. But she is really just a voice for those who think contraception is an entitlement.
Contraception Controversy at Georgetown Before Sandra
Groups have been pushing Georgetown for years to provide contraception to their students. Before Sandra, there was H*yas for choice. According to a piece in the Washington Post in 2010, the group,
"distributes free condoms on campus twice a week, and last semester handed out more than 4,500." The story continues: "The Saturday afternoon protest near the university's iconic front gates attracted about three dozen students, who chanted things such as, 'We want condoms' and 'Georgetown. Change. It's not too late.'...Someone else walking through campus yelled, 'Just go to CVS!'"
An article in thenation.com gives an impression of what the students believed (way back in 2010) regarding free contraception. It reports (speaking of "H*yas for choice"),
"Despite the group's optimism, many students see its goals as a waste of time, or even inappropriate, because Georgetown's policy does not allow university funds to contradict Catholic teachings. Just like the two required Christian theology classes that every student must take, some students feel it is a contradiction to demand contraception from a Catholic university that students knowingly choose to attend. Even the editors of the student newspaper The Hoya bashed the protestors, calling their demands "unrealistic and misguided" because "the university should not be expected to stray from Catholic doctrine to accommodate demands for the availability of on-campus contraceptives."
If one did a survey of the students today, would they be for or against changing the traditional stance the university has taken?
The Current State of Affairs
Sandra is an activist and so is Rush, they are both controversial and the ongoing debate about whether or not Rush was within his professional boundaries has been discussed ad nauseum, forcing this issue to be at the forefront when the discussion should be about more pressing matters.
Rush has his agenda, Sandra has hers, and the question SHOULD be about whether contraception should be covered even if it goes against an institution's religious beliefs.
Actually, this whole contraception issue seems to be timed in a way to take the attention away from the very real and urgent problems that the country and the world is facing right now. How convenient that the headlines are no longer scrutinizing the president's policies and accomplishments while he has been in office and instead, the mainstream media is focused on Obama's support of this activist.
The mainstream media is so focused on the fact that Rush Limbaugh called Sandra a slut, that they are not reporting on urgent issues, like the threat of a conflict between Israel and Iran, the very shaky developments in the middle-east post Arab-spring, the urgent and terrifying state of the economy in Europe and how it will impact the United States and the world, the persecution of Christians and journalists around the world, the rising costs of food, corruption in the government, academia and on Wall Street, the high unemployment, the budget that the president is proposing for 2013, etc.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 73
If the outrage was real then when Maddow snickered on her T.V. show at the TEA Party patriots being called "teabaggers" or when the President called citizens "teabaggers" they would have been outraged then, but they were not outrage they thought it funny...They got the joke.
This manufactured outrage is because we conservatives are questioning the President in his efforts to force religious organizations to go against their beliefs and make them cover "the pill"!
No, It's not. But it is what the left wants to talk about. "controlling the message" once again.
It's totally manufactured if we use 'their' otherwise very ... er ... "down to earth" humor when the object of the 'humor' is a Conservative.
Where did I first hear that? No matter. Seems to be a fact. And I'm glad Renee has covered it and you noted it.
Fluke chose that school specifically because they did NOT offer the kind of coverage she is now demanding. Typical.
How in Hell did she get such "Hearing?" I smell a PAID participant, here. Or, should I say, "tool."
We might have a care; this Story is designed to distract, and we shouldn't give it too much credence.
remember the lies about people that were denied health care?
total diversion - and the lie in this case was so blatant that it was caught instantly ........ they hate that lol
Mark-John, now that is a point of interest, I wonder, too, how she was able to get a hearing.
We can read about Rush Limbaugh calling an activist a slut! It is disheartening.
I cannot, however, stress enough...the Left is in an all-out, flat-out campaign to distract. As you have deftly pointed to with regard to Budget "Proposals," "Energy Initiatives," et al. Therefore, we should have a care...
Nahh... too simple. Too common sense. Too unrevolutionary. Too nonactivist. And just plain too free choice.
silly man.
Actually, Sandra is a plant a fake a deliberate agitator an interloper even (the way the gay activists were when they crash church services in California).
But Rush is no fake though he does enjoy agitatin' the left now and then.
That aside though and to your main point in this paragraph ... that's the point. To overwhelm not just the system but each of us personally with so much nastiness and interlopization (my own word- maybe I've had too much caffein this morning...) that we can't possibly address it all.
My first impression (when I didn't know she was a seasoned activist) was that it is not this girl's fault that she was brought up in an entitlement society, we should blame ourselves for not being a good example to her and teaching her about integrity and respecting faith. But, it turns out that I do not need to shield her, she is a big girl. And she wanted the spotlight.
Ugh, I was having drinks with friends this weekend and was with a 25-year-old friend who called her a "hero" and could I believe that "Rick Santorum wants to take contraception away?". It seems so obvious to me, but to others, she is this wide eyed girl thrust in the spotlight, standing up for women's "health-care".
I have a feeling she is. But if someone else is paying for it, why go for the low dollar product?
Like the difference between providing dinner for oneself (bologna and chips at home) or going out to dinner with someone else paying (steak and lobster with champagne and a little Noka Chocolate as dessert).
oh - sorry - thought you were taking orders!
But you are certainly free to add that to your menu of "needs" you'd like other people to pay for. :)
Really? Just the 'thought' does this to you? (laughs) Well, we certainly can't have you "under the table" at a time like this...later, perhaps ;)
the real story is, once again, no lie is too large for some of the progs to want to trot it out, to try to make an unmakeable point. and msm ignores that.
this issue, is right in line with many of those issues that this admin has promoted - a matter of control, taking away the right to choose, and ignoring the volntary choices some made.
so 'they' want to 'protect us' from our own decisions, by taking away the choice, and forcing others to conform to their whims!
she chose to attend, with full knowledge of the situation. she chose to have sex, period.
and from a close friend that handled claims for a national insurance company - unless it is a stupid person, with a stupid doctor, the insurance WILL pay for prescribed medication to treat physical ailments - no matter the 'other' uses for that med. ( i checked with her yesterday)
being pregnant, or avoiding it, are not 'ailments' .................
smoke and mirrors, and subtrofuge.
and THAT is the issue the msm is ignoring.
lolololololololol
ô ¿ ô
was a lot more fun the way i envisioned it roflmao!
But its OK for leftists like Mahr. Again, the double standard.
The second reason is that Santorum--who was, up until a little while ago, leading in the polls, had contraception as an issue (which, to be fair, was not entirely his doing--but he did not shy away from it or other related social issues when given the chance to).
As such, I don't think the discussion really /is/ 'hijacking' the conversation--I think it is, actually, part of the conversation. There is a framing that the GOP is negative on "women's issues"--and right or wrong Rush's comments (and some of Santorum's positions) play directly into that narrative.
It's a legitimate--if damaging--discussion to be having. Basically I don't think the focus is out of step considering the way the current never-ending-primary has been managed: these kinds of issues have repeatedly taken precedence over stuff like the economy or what to do about Iran (other than bombing them).
(see also)
http://politicalomnivore.blogspot.com/2012/03/rush-limbaugh-as-presidential-inkblot.html
See Rush Limbaugh as Presidential Inkblot Test for more reading (I'm the author).
Uh, Yes, there is:Number ONE, the Leftists hired a Leftist agitator who sought out Schools with these policies...and were well-prepared to cause this War when the time was right...
(a) A contraception battle was already taking place. Now, you can say that Obama planned this all out--but I don't think so. I think Obama was caught by surprise when his mandate sparked the fury it did from the Catholic church--and he quickly backpedaled (or "backpedaled" depending on your view of his 'correction').
Furthermore, at least originally, this was seen as a winning issue for the GOP--the electorate is strongly in favor of protecting religious freedoms. If they'd been able to control the narrative on this it would have been a winning issue. That looks a lot less likely now that Rush put his foot in his mouth.
(b) Rush Limbaugh, who is both experienced enough, and sufficiently important as a conservative voice that he ought to have known better, used language that was needlessly incendiary and personal against someone who most people didn't and don't see as any kind of national political figure.
Basically no one--left or right--could have predicted Rush would do that. If they'd just let her testify originally and no one had said anything this would have most likely drifted quietly away. I'm sure there are several people who are wishing they'd done exactly that.
(also: What Did We Learn From Super Tuesday?)
(a) A contraception battle was already taking place." -- ignorant
No! You don't say, ya say! *sigh*
That someone had or had not exposed her, and the Left, on this chicanery is irrelevant, and was the point of my comment ...it was a calculated move to bolster this administrations manipulation of the monstrosity that they call Health Care, and their DEMAND for further handouts for Women.
Remember when George Stephanopoulos asked Mitt Romney about contraception? It was ridiculous. Although it did not work and kind of blew up in their face here, unfortunately, eventually, they would have this issue be at the forefront.
But, really: anyone who claims that the current state of affairs was the original goal is kidding themselves. Contraception as an issue, by itself, would've gone over as well as it did in that debate. Romney is no master of debate jujitsu and even he shot down the question.
If, as I said, Fluke had just testified originally, she'd have made her points -- and likely that would be that.
The most likely result of this would've been (a) some low-level agitation around health care and (perhaps) the approval of the ObamaCare insurance plan until such a time as either the next administration or the courts shut it down (or not, if Obama wins again, of course) and (b) a minor campaign point (unless Santorum is the nominee and also doesn't shut up about it).
As it stands now, conspiracy theory or no, this worked beyond anyone's wildest dreams: Limbaugh's statements have managed to offend a much wider audience than I think could have been predicted and the candidates are now embroiled in what has been successfully framed as a women's health issue rather than religious freedom issue.
(blog link: Comparing the Obama Birth Certificate Issue to Global Warming)
Actually, this whole contraception issue seems to be timed in a way to take the attention away from the very real and urgent problems that the country and the world is facing right now. How convenient that the headlines are no longer scrutinizing the president's policies and accomplishments while he has been in office and instead, the mainstream media is focused on Obama's support of this activist.
Amen.
And....any time the left starts making an issue out of something that shouldn't be an issue, I wonder what they're pushing through in Washington that they don't want us to notice.
I'm trying to figure out why she's in law school now when she got her Bachelor's degree in 2003.
Have you seen this: http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/10/o%E2%80%99reilly-sandra-flukes-boyfriend-son-of-democratic-stalwart-william-mutterperl/