Jammie Wearing Fool via Gateway Pundit:
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.
You can go over there to see her in a video, talking about how awful it was the Issa found her an ‘inappropriate witness,’ and how by that decision the voices of women were silenced.
One Fine Jay:
Michelle Malkin: Fluke is a femme-agogue . . . um . . . tool.
Joy McCann on March 2, 2012 at 4:32 pm said:
The following was bowdlerized out of Dan’s entry because the Site Censor felt that it was going a bit far to equate people—even shrill people with poor arithmetic skills—with their genitals:
Dan Collins on March 2, 2012 at 4:36 pm said:
I can be a dick that way.
Joy McCann on March 2, 2012 at 5:07 pm said:
No, no–I was just acting like a cunt is all.
Starless on March 2, 2012 at 5:27 pm said:
Woah..pulled out the c-word. Kudos for ballsiness.
Joy McCann on March 2, 2012 at 6:12 pm said:
It was a moment of ovarian fortitude.
Starless on March 3, 2012 at 8:34 am said:
Egg-zactly.
Starless on March 2, 2012 at 5:31 pm said:
BTW, these are the sorts of incidents that made me eventually conclude that feminism has nothing to do with “equality” and everything to do with shuffling the deck chairs of power from one elite group to another, just like any other type of identity politicking.
Joy McCann on March 2, 2012 at 6:14 pm said:
Certainly the far-left variant does. As nearly everyone knows, I don’t want to abandon that word to their not-so-tender mercies.
John on March 2, 2012 at 9:41 pm said:
Someone seeing the word feminism for the first time, and not knowing about anything that any person styling herself/himself as a feminist stands for, would note the -ism suffix (which means supremacy) and conclude that feminism was not about equality, but about the supremacy of women. I am not saying that such a person would be correct, at least not on all cases, but the form of the word feminism does not suggest equality.
Joy McCann on March 2, 2012 at 11:55 pm said:
Well, this isn’t really a remedial reading class, is it?
Someday, if I can afford it, I’m going to buy dictionaries for the entire dextrosphere.
Rocketman on March 2, 2012 at 11:00 pm said:
It’s all performance art; Kabuki, if you wish. Seriously miss, go somewhere else if you want the collage to underwrite your extra-curricular activities.
And as for it being “preventive medicine”? Well, when did pregnancy become a disease? I mean, we know that there are sure-fire ways to prevent it that cost everybody nothing-literally…
Donald Bly on March 3, 2012 at 10:12 am said:
I didn’t have time to “Fluke” my way through college…. I was way too busy working a 50 hour a week job (to pay for school) and carrying a full class load to be spending much time “Fluking”
I suggest we recycle our used condoms and mail them to Sandra Fluke… along with a 2×4 and some rope, for her next “Fluck” buddy. Wouldn’t want to lose someone down there!
John on March 3, 2012 at 11:24 am said:
So once again we discover that a cause coming out of the left rests to some degree on a deliberate falsehood.
The fact that this does not set everyone against the perpetrators is an indictment of our society.
Susan on March 3, 2012 at 12:24 pm said:
Who cares if she is 30, not 23, or has been a advocate for women prior tom becoming a law student at Georgetown? Does this make it okay to call her a slut or prostitute on a national radio program, by a man, when the comments make not sense in relation to her testimony or her personal behaviors? The lie here is that she is “fluking” her way through law school – no evidence of that of course.
And since insurances cover Cialis, why not contraception? There are MANY reasons why women (and their male partners) do not want to risk pregnancy continually during the course of 30 child bearing years. What do you want married couples to do, just abstain, like we (unrealistically) expect teens to do?
Dan Collins on March 3, 2012 at 12:42 pm said:
She has no right to have a school pay for her birth control. It’s amazing how little liberals care about what’s actually enunciated in the First Amendment regarding religion, and yet discover ‘rights’ where they don’t exist in our charter.
The point about her identity is that it was lied about by the MSM in order to make her story more poignant. I’m sorry, but some of us really believe that the truth does matter. Many climate skeptics have become skeptics as a result of calculating that if the case for AGW were good, there would be no need for lying, fabrication and misrepresentation.
A month’s worth of the pill is $9.00 or less at Target. Wine in moderation is good for one’s heart. Should that be paid for, too? Lots of guys suffer from the condition of blue balls. Do they have a right to subidised sex?
When push comes to shove, though, I will care about your ‘rights’ just as much as you do mine. Frankly, I don’t see any reciprocity here.
Susan on March 3, 2012 at 2:22 pm said:
Wait a minute- inurances DO pay for prescriptions like Cialis for erectile dysfunction but our male dominated Congress and insurance industry does not want to do the same with contraception? How is that reciprocal?
To equate drinking wine with a prescription medication that can be used for several therapeutic purposes related to women’s health is completely nonsensical.
Dan Collins on March 3, 2012 at 2:27 pm said:
Do all insurances pay for Cialis? Was it a government mandate? Would you settle for subsidized birth control in cases of medical need?
I doubt it.
Sebelius says that there will be savings due to fewer births—births that the welfare state counts on to pay for their retirements. Catholic insurers seem to be willing to absorb those costs.
What’s nonsensical is that you say that the First Amendment is no longer valid, because . . . vagina.
Starless on March 3, 2012 at 3:01 pm said:
Dan, you must’ve missed the last White Male Oppressors Club meeting where we voted to tell congress to pass a boner medication mandate. It was then passed by congress in secret while the lady congresspeople were in the girls bathroom doing whatever it is they do in there.
Dan Collins on March 3, 2012 at 3:10 pm said:
Oh. Well, in that case, apologies to Susan, who is oppressed by the phallogocentrist conspiracy and lives in a non-ideal world where there is sadness.
Joy McCann on March 3, 2012 at 4:00 pm said:
“To equate drinking wine with a prescription medication that can be used for several therapeutic purposes related to women’s health is completely nonsensical.”
Not this shit again. For the tenth time, ladies: if your ‘birth control’ pills are prescribed for something other than contraception, they are no longer birth control pills from a spiritual perspective. So the Church will not advise you against taking them, and they will be covered for that alternate use under any health plan in the country (other than the “catastrophic-only” plans).
Furthermore, birth control pills are relatively inexpensive: they are less than $10 a month in many areas. Which means that Ms. Fluke was exaggerating her costs by up to a factor of ten. (I’ve heard some say $30 a month–or $360 a year, for a total of $1080 over a three-year law course. In which case Ms. Fluke would have only been tripling the real figure.) Most other forms of b/c are even cheaper: a diaphram is fitted once, and uses spermicidal jelly that’s relatively inexpensive. Condoms are cheap.
Birth control doesn’t approach the costs of such student necessities as food, lodging, clothing, textbooks, and transportation. Furthermore, almost all cities have reproductive health clinics that dispense or prescribe birth control for next to nothing.
Susan on March 3, 2012 at 5:22 pm said:
Yes Dan insurances do pay for cialis and NO it did not require a government mandate. Shall we speculate as to why?
And what’s with the speculation about a total stranger – I ” live in a world of sadness”? is that the only way you can debate, with tangential irrelevant made up stuff?
Lastly, I support the first amendment and Fluke’s right to voice her opinion with it being called a slut. but it’s such an easy argument to use against “liberals”.
Joy McCann on March 3, 2012 at 6:03 pm said:
Susan,
What is your opinion of Ed Schulz and Bill Mahar calling Sarah Palin a “cunt”?
What is your opinion of Ed Schulz calling Laura Ingraham a “slut”?
Lisa on March 3, 2012 at 6:42 pm said:
The point about her identity is that it was lied about by the MSM in order to make her story more poignant. I’m sorry, but some of us really believe that the truth does matter.
Could you please link to a MSM site identifying her as a 23-year-old?
She has no right to have a school pay for her birth control.
She is not asking for the school to pay for her birth control. According to Georgetown, the university does not subsidize the student insurance plan.
Dan Collins on March 3, 2012 at 7:23 pm said:
I’m sorry, it appears Dana Milbank wrote she was 24. My bad: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-witness-for-the-gop-gender-gap/2012/02/24/gIQAwpXsXR_story.html
As for the University not subsidizing health care, everyone who pays in to their plan subsidizes it. Some of those people may be Catholic. Students, faculty and staff can opt into another arrangement, if they like.
The First Amendment is clear that government cannot impose such demands on religious organizations. Teaching, hospitals and the like are all part of the core mission of the Catholic Church and have been for many centuries. The Bill of Rights is clear that the onus is on the government, and not religious institutions, to yield right of way. That birth control qua birth control isn’t covered is spelled out in the health care contract that a student either accepts or doesn’t, and Ms. Fluke knew this when she enrolled.
Joy McCann on March 3, 2012 at 7:47 pm said:
It is unconstitutional for the government to force a religious institution to place its imprimatur (small-i—that is to say, force its approval) upon birth control.
Furthermore, we have spent decades, as a society, making sure that nearly all forms of birth control are cheap, plentiful, and easy to find—so there’s not even a case to be made that the Bill of Rights should be bent here for humane reasons.
There is no legal, ethical, or constitutional justification for forcing something of this nature–any more than there would be an ethical or constituional justification for requiring, say, Whittier College (a Quaker institution) to allow gun shows on campus.
It’s just illogical nonsense, based on emotion and untruths.
Dan Collins on March 3, 2012 at 5:42 pm said:
Seems as though it’s a little simplistic to say Cialis is covered by insurance: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20101126135727AAeqRL2
Susan on March 3, 2012 at 7:44 pm said:
Well, less than 24 hours after spending his show defending his crude comments, Rush has apologized to the “feminazi” Fluke. Of course it has nothing to do with the five, and counting, advertisers who gave suspended their ads on his show.
Joy McCann on March 3, 2012 at 7:54 pm said:
It may, and it may not, have to do with that. The advertisers were within their rights, and if that is the reason that Limbaugh rethought what he said, good on him.
I’m more interested in the fact that gasoline prices are going through the roof again, and the average household is spending more than the real cost of birth control–and something more like Ms. Fluke’s inflated, made-up figures–in order to get to work, school, and the grocery store. With the President’s anti-energy agenda as a contributing factor, that’s a bit more important than getting hold of contraceptives.
Unless there are now clinics in most cities and rural areas that dispense cheap/free gasoline . . .
Dan Collins on March 3, 2012 at 8:00 pm said:
You’ve still not answered her questions about lefty commentators, and she could have added Olbermann’s characterization of Malkin as a “mashed up bag of meat with lipstick.” Now, if that’s not dehumanizing, I don’t know what is.
I’ll tell you what I’m going to do. I’m going to accept your observation as a challenge, and try to see to it that these guys are forced to apologize.
Rocketman on March 3, 2012 at 10:17 pm said:
I’m sure that we all realize that Ms Fluke’s desire to “hammer the anvil while the iron was hot” was not the least bit coincidental or serendipitous; but was part of the larger struggle between the O!ministration and the Catholic church over the HHS mandate.
I mean really, how frightfully convenient that she gets to whine about how “needy” law students at a toney DC law school, most of whom are employed BTW, can’t manage to afford a fraction of the cost of their monthly cellphone bills to pay for their elective medications at just the same time that ObaMao and his crew want to save them from their terrible dilemma…
If it was that important, they should have waited for slots at Harvard instead, or maybe Howard if they were sold on a DC school. I’m sure both of those places not only underwrite the birth control meds, but probably abortions as well, and perhaps the wine to grease the wheels-so to speak.
In short, I question the timing…
Dan Collins on March 3, 2012 at 10:21 pm said:
Gosh, you are cynical. O_o
Joy McCann on March 3, 2012 at 11:13 pm said:
Yes. But, again–the more this is framed as “birth control,” the more the other side has the chance to paint us as “Republicans want to limit access to contraceptives.” Low-information people will forget that it’s really about religious liberty.
So . . . he’s limiting religious liberties in an unconstitutional fashion. And, the employment level is lower now that it’s been since the Great Depression. And, do you know anyone who is better off now than they were four years ago? Anyone?
Rocketman on March 3, 2012 at 11:52 pm said:
You’re absolutely correct; both about the framing as well as Reagan’s famous question of the 1980 election campaign.
Which is why we have to point out the cynical propagandistic nature of the first proposition, that somehow there is an issue about access to BC as opposed to religious liberty, and end each and every discussion by posing the latter question…
Are you better off today than you were 4 years ago?
My guess is that a majority will say no…
Geeky Grandma on March 4, 2012 at 12:17 am said:
Rush Limbaugh missed a perfect opportunity to demand MEN step up to the plate and take personal responsibility. If he doesn’t want women bearing all the risk and insurance companies to beat the cost, then advocate that men use condoms or get clipped!
Joy McCann on March 4, 2012 at 12:49 am said:
Most couples share birth control costs, anyway.
plemmen on March 4, 2012 at 8:31 am said:
All part of the plan. See: http://wp.me/p27DAO-8C