My Photo

April 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30      

BlogStats


« Nevada County Scattershots – 3 March 2012 | Main | Major cash importers finally discovered (updated 6mar12) »

04 March 2012

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00e54f86f2ad88330167635f9609970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Sad Tale of Sandra Fluke (updated 6mar12):

Comments

Brad Croul

I was under the impression that it was birth control pills, not prophylactics, that were at issue. Condoms are available and easy to come by.

Preventative medicine is a good idea and should be supported by the insurance companies.

If your fire insurance costs go down with the implementation of fire alarms, sprinklers, etc., why wouldn't the costs associated with medical care go down with pregnancy prevention measures?

What is the cost of the pill for coeds compared to the costs associated with pregnancy, abortion or delivery, C- sections, complications, foster care, etc.?

To put an anti-religious/socialist/communist spin on this subject is really stretching it.

What's up with the logic of Viagra being provided to old men on Medicare, but young women who don't want to suffer for the rest of their lives because they got pregnant "accidentally" are barred from getting some pills as part of their college health plans? I believe there are fees paid during registration at schools for health plans.

Vasectomize all newborn boys when we circumcise them. You don't need semen to make a baby anymore. You just need some DNA. Problem solved.

Michael Kesti

I subscribe to several lefty email lists to see what they have to say. I recently received one from Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the Chairman of the Democratic National Committee. It opened with, “This isn't the 1950s, it's 2012. Why we're debating a woman's access to birth control is beyond me.”

What is beyond Wasserman, and apparently most liberals, is that it is not access to birth control that is being debated, but the notion that birth control is an entitlement.

Robert White

Bravo George! Now that is the way Rush should have said it. He must be getting lazy.

David King

Brad said:

"To put an anti-religious/socialist/communist spin on this subject is really stretching it."

Too late. :)

Douglas Keachie

"every child a wanted child." Society has a very strong interest this notion. The expense is minimal, in terms of results achieved. Trying to keep women barefoot and pregnant, has just destroyed any chances for the Repubbys in November, thanks for all your efforts!

George Rebane

BradC 952am - Prophylactics (i.e. preventatives) is the label for the semantic super-class under which birth control pills, condoms, IUDs, creams, diaphragms, ... are sub-class instantiations.

But in general, it appears that the point of my post and the concern that I'm trying to communicate is again behind a blindspot for progressives. Sort of like a one tune band that can't go beyond the immediate case presented.

Should Obamacare actually kick in in all of its destructive glory, I will be applying to have the rest of you help me pay for my running shoes, treadmill, healthy food component of my grocery bill, stress reducing music CDs, visits to/from my grandkids, ..., and divers other expenses all shown clinically to avoid morbidity and extend life. (Unless, of course, the death committees mandate that my time to depart has come.)

Todd Juvinall

How about this? I will gladly pay for her condoms if she signs a contract to not ask or have or ket the taxpayers pay any money if she has children.

billy T

Brad makes some valid points. STDs are a health issue and should remain under the health department, but we are taking about if you are going to play, you are going to pay. Yes, we give prisoners free Viagra to protect their constitutional rights of their pursuit of happiness, but most prisoners make little money and are charged with attempted escape if caught with greenbacks. The lady told Congress that it cost her 3k for contraceptives during law school. I guess Law Schools charge more on campus that buying them at Walmart or going to Planned Parenthood. I once bought some Viagra, but unfortunately ran out of Ginkgo Biloba and forgot why I bought the little blue pills. Whether the young lady is a slut or not I can't say from here but chances are she has seen more Patriot Missiles than there are in the New England locker room. Once Obamacare kicks in we all will be paying for maternity insurance whether we be male or female, whether we like it or not, whether the other party is a irresponsible nympho or not. I have known a few nymphomaniacs in my day. They are the ones that want it when I don't. At least the young law student bought contraception, albeit she was not too happy about that cost.

Russ Steele

Here are some thoughts from the Illegal Insurrection on the boycotts of Rush's advitisers:


Indeed, Carbonite still advertises on the show of Ed  Schultz, who makes unhinged attacks on the Tea Party and conservatives daily, and called conservative talk show host Laura Ingraham a slut (for which he later apologized).

In his initial press release, David Friend, the CEO of Carbonite, stated that he would be speaking personally with Rush next week to discuss the issue.

Then Saturday night, the CEO of Carbonite issued a statement withdrawing advertising from Rush’s show notwithstanding that earlier in the day Rush has issued an apology.  The text is in my prior post.

The reaction among my readers and others on Twitter has been fast and furious, focusing as much on Carbonite’s hypocrisy as well as the way in which Carbonite so publicly injected itself into the political fight.

Make no mistake, the fight is not over Rush’s words, for which he has apologized.

The post concludes:

It’s time to take a stand against those advertisers who succumb to the pressure.  We should not expect advertisers to take sides, and I would not want Carbonite to stop advertising on the Ed Schultz show.  Carbonite should return to its prior, politically neutral position.

We need to send a message that we will not acquiesce in the new left-wing tactic of trying to force conservatives off the air by targeting advertisers.

I was thinking about giving Carbonite a try, before fire season rolls around, but not any more.

Bonnie McGuire

The whole argument is stupid. We're already being taxed to death to pay for the unwanted babies by people who expect others to support them. A racket for some. I feel sorry for the children. Obviously, sex education can both prevent, or stimulate what comes naturally...but educators emphasize they can't moralize! What the heck? When I was a kid in school we earned special recognition for good citizenship. Does anyone know what a good citizen is? Sigmond Freud said individuals and nations reach greatness through self-discipline. We're seeing the opposite. Don't our personal choices have consequences that we learn from? We'll never learn anything if someone else picks up the tab for our "mistake." Especially if someone warned us and we wouldn't listen. It's the same with drug and alcohol addiction, but sex addiction creates unwanted human beings. Reminds me of the song lyrics "My mamma told me it would be like this" (but I wouldn't listen.)

Wade I

The health insurance provider for Georgetown University students (and frequent loser of price-gouging, fraudulent non-payment, and option backdating lawsuits) is UnitedHealth Group. NYSE: UNH.

This Minnesota-based corporation is, notably, not "the state." So, no, "we," the taxpayers aren't paying for anything in this case.

With that straw man out of the way, we are left simply clucking our tongues in disapproval over the thought that young women might be having [too much] sex. Which, of course, is what this whole "controversy" is about in the first place.

Russ Steele

Wade0339,

You are wrong, she can have all the sex she has time for, I just do not think that taxpayers should be paying for it. Let the guys she is having sex with pay for it, Oops that make her a. . . . If we agree to pay for sex what else, will be have to paid for as a preventive for some future health issues. Check this out f=rom Buffalo:

As thousands of teachers face layoffs across the country, teachers in Buffalo, New York are getting lipo? Yep. And nose jobs and whatever else they want. All on the taxpayers’ dime. How is this happening?…

The sweet deal that all the 3,400 teachers in Buffalo are eligible to get under one of their insurance plan options, they are billed nothing for any plastic surgery procedure, such as botox, liposuction, tummy tucks, and there is no deductible.

Linda Tokarz teaches second grade and says she gets regular treatments. She says, “I think its great for us. I wouldn’t want to see it taken away.”

Who is paying for all this? The taxpayers in New York, who pay the insurance company. With no deductible there is not sense of responsibility. If there is free contraception paid for by the tax payers , where is the need for responsibility?

George Rebane

WadeI 339pm - I agree with RussS that no one here on either side of the political divide cares about the intensity of her sex life, only about who pays for it. If it were a matter only between her and her insurance company, then congressional testimonies would not be needed. We understand that Ms Fluke wants her school to pay for her dalliance, which action must be mandated by the government. In the larger sense, the more entitlements the government forces insurance companies to bear, the higher the premiums for us all. An argument that there is not a direct feedback path from this activity is weak. And then we start talking about the 'creep to gallop' phenomenon.

(BTW, welcome back.)

Douglas Keachie

If I am not mistaken. condoms are freely provided to members of the military in war zones. How come we should be apying for them to have fun. Or is rape considered a means of war, and thus requiring of protective equipment??

Russ Steele

A little insight from Hot Air. If the left is in to boycotting Rush Limbaugh, the what about these dispeciable lefties, should they be bycotted as well:

“But if Limbaugh’s actions demand a boycott—and they do—then what about the army of swine on the left?…

“[T]he grand pooh-bah of media misogyny is without a doubt Bill Maher—who also happens to be a favorite of liberals—who has given $1 million to President Obama’s super PAC. Maher has called Palin a ‘dumb twat’ and dropped the C-word in describing the former Alaska governor. He called Palin and Congresswoman Bachmann ‘boobs’ and ‘two bimbos.’ He said of the former vice-presidential candidate, ‘She is not a mean girl. She is a crazy girl with mean ideas.’ He recently made a joke about Rick Santorum’s wife using a vibrator. Imagine now the same joke during the 2008 primary with Michelle Obama’s name in it, and tell me that he would still have a job. Maher said of a woman who was harassed while breast-feeding at an Applebee’s, ‘Don’t show me your tits!’ as though a woman feeding her child is trying to flash Maher. (Here’s a way to solve his problem: don’t stare at a strangers’ breasts). Then, his coup de grâce: ‘And by the way, there is a place where breasts and food do go together. It’s called Hooters!’…

“This is not to suggest that liberals—or feminists—never complain about misogyny. Many feminist blogs now document attacks on women on the left and the right, including Jezebel, Shakesville, and the Women’s Media Center (which was cofounded by Steinem). But when it comes to high-profile campaigns to hold these men accountable—such as that waged against Limbaugh—the real fury seems reserved only for conservatives, while the men on the left get a wink and a nod as long as they are carrying water for the liberal cause.

“After all, if Limbaugh’s outburst is part of the ‘war on women,’ then what is the routine misogyny of liberal media men?”

George Rebane

DougK 532pm - What are you saying? - a little more detailed explanation is required for this old brain.

billy T

The argument put forth by Ms. Fluke is both silly and also has grave consequences. Silly because exactly 3.2 miles from Georgetown is a Planned Parenthood that passes out free birth control. Silly because Fluke said 40% of the female law students struggled with the financial burden of birth control. Hello! A full time law student is known as a starving student. Guess the other 60% went to Planned Parenthood, did not worry about contraception, or are rich little Daddy's girls. It is silly that the Left is making Limbaugh's statement a rallying cry that the evil Right Wing is up to their old tricks again by putting women folk back into the Chastity Belt where they belong. The Neo-Cons are assaulting Mom, Womanhood, Apple Pie, and equal rights. Not to worry. The fair minded Left is here to save the day. We have come a long way. baby, and we aren't going back to the stone ages. Yep, the Left is sure to score political points on this one.

Russ Steele

Here is another point of view on Rush Limbaugh, contraception costs, and Sandra Fluke

by Luboš Motl Pilsen, Czech Republic

America is entertaining itself with Rush Limbaugh's reaction to the political discussion about contraception subsidies. All kinds of people are attacking Limbaugh – and he probably enjoys it because he depends on publicity.

However, I find these attacks weird and kind of scary because Limbaugh's basic logic seems bulletproof to me.

Read the whole post HERE.

Luboš concludes:

The spectrum of people who have attacked Limbaugh is so wide that I no longer think that the U.S. may be faithfully described as a free or Christian country. It's a country de facto controlled by feminists and their speech codes. I think that e.g. the people at Harvard who agree with Limbaugh – and most decent people should – must shut their mouth at this point because the harassment of such people by the left-wing media and those who serve them in the contemporary U.S. has become intense and constant.

billy T

The grave consequences are this. The government cannot tell a religious organization to discard its doctrines and beliefs and step in line. It is all about the 1st Amendment. The Supreme Court of the United States recently voted 9-0 to deny the grievances of a single pregnant teacher who was fired from her teaching job at a Catholic school. The government argued that the school was a free association of people no different from the Elk's Club or the Bird Watching Society. . The Supreme Court could not believe their ears and even hinted to the gov't lawyers that they must have skipped their classes on the 1st Amendment. A religious organization has a firewall forbidding the State's intrusion that is clearly spelled out in the 1st Amendment. Yes, I understand the points that it is cheaper to have unborn babies than born babies. Way cheaper. I also understand that many Catholic women discard the Church's teachings and use contraception. Those points avoid the real issue. Georgetown is a Catholic school that uses a Catholic insurance provider whose parent company is a Catholic Organization. Obama's end run around the Constitution is to have insurance providers "volunteer" to pass out free birth control. That's right. The big bleeding heart insurance companies are going to give something away and not make it up somewhere else? Scottie, beam me up. Perhaps a compromise can be reached and some store will pass out free plastic rain ponchos to solve the problem. Cheap and reusable and prevents sexually transmitted diseases. When was the last time the Supreme Court voted 9-zip? Restores my ebbing faith in the Court.

George Rebane

RussS 634pm - good find of a wider perspective. Thanks to your email of FUE's blog and comments, there the conservative discussants here are described as "sick puppies" and "insane" by the resident progressives. It continues to be noted that there is never any shred of debating or discussing the issue, only name calling. Talk about intellectual bankruptcy, and hence the hastening of the Great Divide.

Todd Juvinall

Looks like the troglodytes on the local leftwing blogs are out in force. Rush is safe, there are so many businesses that are in line to advertise it boggles the mind. The Truckee effete are really spewing.

Todd Juvinall

Oh and I emailed all the advertisers who are claiming they are pulling their ads from Limbaugh tonight. I said what is good for the goose! It really goes against my ideology but this is too important to to let the libnuts have their way. We grownups must fight fire with fire.

Paul Emery

George

Did you actually listen to Ms Fluke's testimony? Here it is. You should give it a listen before making such broad generalizations as:

"Here we have the case of a woman who admittedly screws so frequently with diverse partners that neither of them can be counted on, in the heat of the moment, to undertake their pleasures with proper preparation."

I've included this c span video to assist you in your research,

http://current.com/16hv4kc
Please show me where in her testimony you arrived at that conclusion.

By the way, this discussion continues the dream come true diversion from substantial issues that will insure Obama's reelection and possibly secure the Senate for the Dems.

David King

I think the left has achieved universal victim status; or at least the U.N. should declare them as such.

http://tinyurl.com/7dl7qxo

George Rebane

PaulE 825pm - first, let me thank you for that extremely revealing link to an hour's plus 'testimony' about 'women's health'. If you can sit through the opening propaganda salvos from Pelosi and friends, then you hear Ms Fluke deliver the biggest load of bovine scat about everyone else not paying for someone's sexual intercourse prophylactics ever stuffed under the umbrella of 'women's health'.

It is truly remarkable how differently our ideologies view what Fluke claims as some kind of unalienable women's health rights that have now been discovered under Obamacare. Her tales of tears about women turning away from pharmacy counters, unable to afford the most expensive prescription prophylactics, really had me choked up. And then I remembered rubbers and diaphragms and all kinds of other cheaper alternatives. It just takes wee bit of time to get the cheaper equipment strapped on or applied. It's not that long of a wait - really.

But that's not even the point. I and at least half the country don't want to pay for her (and yes, she said it's her) $3,000 cost of contraceptives while she's going to law school.

And regarding "substantial issues", the Repubs wanted to bury this one upon conception, it was the Dems who, along with their lamestream, have made this into a national issue. Congressman Issa was absolutely right not to bring her in front of his committee. But costwise it will become very substantial when the millions of women line up for their contraception fixes, and then the creep-to-gallop that I describe above occurs.

In sum, thanks a bunch for digging up this link. Everyone not convinced of the farce of this brand new entitlement ('women's health' my a$$) should definitely submit to Ms Fluke's testimony - seeing Pelosi straining to stay awake is well worth the price of admission. And stand by to pay for my new running shoes and treadmill.

Douglas Keachie

"What are you saying? - a little more detailed explanation is required for this old brain"

Double standard. It is OK for the government to subsidize "boys will be boys," but not OK for the government to subsidize women? Those condoms issued in war zones are not exactly going to be for lawful conjugal visits, you know.

Socialism is also OK for big business (oil depletion allowance, no severance taxes here in California, crop subsidies for Doug LaMalfa, etc) but not for Jane or John Doe? BTW, also actively boycotting Georgia Pacific paper products, all made by the Koch brothers, as well as anyone advertising on Savage, Rush, etc., and have no problems buying at Home Depot, others, when CABPRO lit is available at B&C, others. I do support KVMR sponsors, and shop SPD, groceries and saw.

You would think that the spread of aids would make any intelligent person conclude that probably as a preventative alone for spreading and eventually MUTATING that disease would be enough incentive to make contraceptives universally free, at least the barrier types.

Michael Anderson

Sorry guys, I'm going to have to go with Pelline, Frisch, and Emery on this one.

Gosh, it's as if you have no young people in your midst. They don't find you quaint. They find you dead. As in "when will these idiot dinosaurs pass away so we can get on with our lives."

Look, I'm an old guy too. I see the same look in their eyes when I say even moderate things. But you are so off the mark on this one you might as well get in a spaceship and find another planet to live on. How you framing this is completely wrong. And embarrassing.

This is a civil rights issue, and we are fighting over Selma all over again. Shame on all of you.

John Galt

Paul Emery, thanks for the link to Fluke's testimony:

I listed to Fluke's testimony and extracted the following quotes and notes from it:

Fluke is a 3rd year law student at [Catholic/Jesuit] Georgetown lawschool. She's also a past president of Georgetown Law Students for Reproductive Justice.

She said that Georgetown students faced "financial, emotional, and medical burdens as a result [of the failure of Georgetown's student medical plan to not provide contraceptive coverage.]"

She described contraceptive coverage as necessary to meet the "critical healthcare needs of so many women. "

"When I LOOK AROUND my campus, I SEE THE FACES of the women AFFECTED by this LACK of CONTRACEPTIVE COVERAGE and especially in the last week I have heard more and more of their STORIES on a daily basis .....and the tell me they have suffered FINANCIALLY, EMOTIONALLY, and MEDICALLY because of the lack of [contraceptive] coverage."


"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% of the female students at GEORGETOWN LAW reported to us that they STRUGLED FINANCIALLY as a RESULT of this policy [of not providing contraceptive insurance coverage.]"

"Women's health clinics are not able to meet the CRUSHING DEMAND [by women] for contraception care services."

"Women's health takes a back seat to a bureacracy focused on policing her body."

"In 65% of the cases at our school [Georgetown] our female students were INTERROGATED by insurance reprentatives and univerity medical staff about why they need prescriptions [for contraception]."


Question for Paul Emery, Steve Frish, and Michael Anderson: Do you believe Ms. Sanrad Fluke spoke the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in her testimony?

--John Galt

billy T

This topic has evolved to where it should be. Not focusing on the word slut, but rather, should rubbers be given out on demand to any person for free? Its this the new civil rights issue concerning voluntary behavior? If someone does not like rubbers, Walmart and Krogers sell generic birth control pills for $9 a month, sometimes as low as 4 bucks/month. Of course birth control pills do not prevent AIDS, the clamp, the drip, or a host of STDs flavors of the month. Mr. Anderson frames the issue as "This is a civil rights issue, and we are fighting over Selma all over again. Shame on all of you." Hmm, a Georgetown Law Student pays $23,400.00 per semester and we are taking about Selma and access to a drinking fountain? Bottom line, Ms Fluke is a useful tool for those who espouse the right of get free contraceptives on demand for life. Maybe The Donald's wife should whine about the cost of generic birth control. Nothing personal, but here is Ms. Fluke bio. It is pretty impressive and she just did not magically appear before Congress. Happy to see she graduated from Cornell in 2003. Smart lady. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/sandra-fluke-a-fake-victim-of-georgetowns-policy-on-contraceptives/

billy T

3k would buy about 7,500 rubbers, give or take. Since there are 365 days a year, that works out to be about 6-7 rubbers a day, 24/7, for 3 years. If she paid 30 bucks for BC pills/a month instead of driving the 3.2 miles to Planned Parenthood, that would be $1,080 for three years, including summers. If she paid 80 bucks a month, that would work out to be $2,880 for three years whether she had a summer break or not. She may be a bright lady, but like many highly intelligent people, she is being ripped off on her purchases. Maybe she could do some coupon clipping or drive the dreaded 3.2 miles to Planned Parenthood. We all gotta watch or pennies in fat times as well as lean times.

Paul Emery

George
So you admit to commenting on Ms Flukes character before hearing her testimony. Again can you show me her testimony that led to you characterization as a woman who screws frequently with multiple partners. Did I miss it or did you make it up. This is pretty disgusting George and it's frankly disappointing that you would lower yourself to that level of discussion when you so can strongly make your case without it.

Right now Rush Linbaugh is Obama,s biggest vote getter. It's unbelievable the self destruction of the Republican party.

Michael Anderson

Exactly Paul, it's positively mind-blowing. As a Baby Boomer I thought I was a dinosaur, but man oh man...the kids today think this discussion about contraception is being held by crazy people from outer space. Any one of you here espousing these ridiculous ideas, I challenge you to find someone under the age of 30 who agrees with you. Just one, that's all I ask.

"John Galt" wrote: "Question for Paul Emery, Steve Frisch, and Michael Anderson: Do you believe Ms. Sanra Fluke spoke the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in her testimony?"

Yes, I do. Look, it's none of your damn business why a woman needs birth control pills. IT'S MEDICINE. Birth control pills are sometimes used to control a heavy period flow, for example.

The policy we're talking about is whether or not we will allow an employer to make decisions about her health care. HER HEALTH CARE, HER INSURANCE COMPANY, HER MONEY!

It's civil rights, folks. Fifty years ago we told people with private businesses that they could not have separate lunch counters for black people and white people. This is the same thing! Private businesses, or religious organizations, cannot be allowed to have separate health care plans for men and women. They don't get to decide how health care is delivered.

Does a business owner get to decide if one of his workers driving to work in the morning has to drive on a gravel road, or gets to drive on a paved road, just because he's an employee of that business?

The reason this is suddenly an issue is because PPACA is straightening out our byzantine health care system and standards are being applied across the board. You guys don't like it because it's finally pulling us out of the 19th century, where you find things (at least socially) all cozy and warm.

Note to dinosaurs: Horse. Left. Barn. Already. But go ahead, keep digging. Knock yourselves out.

Todd Juvinall

If ever there was a issue with two sides this seems to be it. Rush has apologized so that under the liberal rules of the past means we are moving on. Regarding the ridiculous statements of MichaelA about dinosaurs and how the young hope everyone older should croak, I must say, how embarrassing he is.(you first MichaelA)
The real issues are not the concern they can't get a rubber. It is the gas prices and food prices. Nutballs on the left and their supporters change the subject and the left as exhibited by MA is hilarious.. I am glad it happened over the weekend and I am waiting for Rush to speak about it in a hour and a half. Michael A is why America is in the trouble it is. Rather than solving the real issues of the soccer moms, he is in their reproductive canals. MichaelA must not have any common sense if he thinks the electorate is even paying attention to this and they are far from holding anyone on the right to task. Fluke's testimony is a total embarrassment to women and their reproductive issues. I don't think any woman other than a few liberal women. sit around the campfire and wring their hands that Obamacare doesn't cover their rubbers.

Gregory

Generic birth control pills cost $9 a month at discount pharmacies. Ms. Fluke is lobbying for regulations requiring insurers to pay for $3,0000 a year contraceptive programs, without copays.

Checking the cost of name brand condoms at a leading big box store, one can have sex an average of once a day for $10 a month.

Let's get real... with managed single payer health care, you ain't going to get the $3K a year benefit if the single payer writing the checks has decided the $120 a year solution is all you are going to get. And they will make that decision.

Note to the Fantasylanders... there is no free naked lunch.

Todd Juvinall

I held my nose and read some comments on the leftwingnut blog and came away with a nauseating felling. Those people on the left are crying for a boycott of Rush and even KNCO. Here is why Ben Emery just doesn't get why he was rejected overwhelmingly by the people of the Congressional district. But I see why, he is a true "double standard" liberal. He cries that Rush is so mean to Ms. Fluke and should not call her names. Here is how Emery, Ben, describes Rush.

"Ben Emery, on March 4, 2012 at 10:10 pm said:

I seriously doubt this will be the end of king limbaugh of the gop unless he wants it to be. He has had issues like this over and over again. Right wing radio is an echo chamber and a bubble. He is in his 60′s with a drug problem, erectile problem, hearing problem, lives on what I have heard described as a compound in FL where he broadcasts his show, and his last contract was for $400 million dollars. Ego and addiction to power/ money are the only things keeping this man in the game."

The liberal brain has got to be missing some DNA strands. I just can't come up with a better answer to their hypocrisy.

Ben Emery

Why is it in America we attack the person when they bring an issue to light that we are uncomfortable? This isn't about Ms. Fluke sexual habits. This is where Rush made the mistake, he made it about Ms Fluke. What are the objections to preventative medicine for young women who aren't ready to start a family? As Brad C pointed out the most cost effective avenue would be through preventative medicine. Its called personal responsibility.

If we boil this down it seems to me like this is men trying to control reproductive rights of women once again. We are moving backwards in this country on so many fronts.

Todd Juvinall

BenE, then practice what you preach you hypocrite.

Gregory

"The policy we're talking about is whether or not we will allow an employer to make decisions about her health care. HER HEALTH CARE, HER INSURANCE COMPANY, HER MONEY!"

No, Ms. Fluke even now can choose the $3,000 a year contraceptive program over the 30 cent a day condom. Add it to her $60K a year law school bill.

During my late first wife's course of cancer treatments, we were once faced with the possibility that a somewhat experimental, off label use of a bleeding edge breast cancer chemotherapy against her ovarian cancer might not be covered. The insurer eventually OK'd it but in the end it wasn't indicated by additional testing of her cancer cells (the estimated cost for a year of Herceptin in those days). Had she been a candidate, and the insurer not covered it, we'd have been on the hook for $60K. People make these decisions every day.

Note to fantasylanders: if transportation is determined to be a fundamental right to be paid by your neighbors, you'll be riding the bus, not being given the keys to your own BMW. Or Chevy Volt.

THEMIKEYMCD

We practiced abstinence (I've a disdain for STD's, child support, drama, 'clingers', etc associated with sleeping around) until marriage. Then, get this, we used sex to make babies.

It isn't PC to call a slut (male or female) a slut.

Once again our nation discusses the color of the paint in the kitchen as the rest of the house burns to the ground. http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Paul Emery

Todd

Don't blame the Libs for making his an issue. On this blog George was the one who presented the topic.

Todd Juvinall

No PaulE, this was a diversion tactic by the liberals and they plastered it all over. Then they comment endlessly to overwhelm the news and try to convince America this is the issue. No, it was a political stunt and thank goodness the R's remembered the Clinton strategy about an issue being released on a weekend. So PaulE, what would you call or how would you describe a person, male or female, who claims they spend 3 grand a ears on contraceptives?

George Rebane

PaulE 710am - The only thing I admit to is the words I have written, and possibly the assessment that you continue to be, let's say, an inexact reader (else I would have to accuse you of baiting me, which I'm sure you don't do).

Nowhere have I commented on or judged Ms Fluke's character. For all I know, her sexual habits, whatever they may be, are the norm for her culture.

And yes Paul, absent commenting on her character, I and almost every other person in the world is free to and does comment, decide, and act on the basis of what they consider to be reliable secondary information sources. The world would come to a grinding stop if everyone demanded to have access to original sources in their prelude. Now that really may be news to some people, and here I do believe that you take a gratuitous slap at me with your characterization of my commentary as "disgusting" and "lowering ...".

But for the record, yes I did bring this topic up to discuss what I don't see as getting proper exposure - the ramifications of expanding entitlements. The function Ms Fluke seeks can be procured and/or provided at a pittance to the costs she cites. That is the topic that no one on the left (sadly, including MichaelA) wants to touch.

Ben Emery

Lets look at the situation.

Darrell Issa was chair of a committee discussing the contraception policies of the affordable care act. Rep Issa declined to allow any women to speak on the issue. So much so the female democratic representatives walked out on the hearing. He claimed that this was about religious freedom not about contraception. The democratic party decided to hold a separate forum on the issue to allow some of those most directly affected by the new legislation to appear and give their statements, Ms Fluke was one.

Rush jumped on this and attacked Ms Fluke for being a slut. What on earth does this have to do with Ms Fluke? She is by no means the only woman in America using birth control. Here is some information about "The Pill".
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/birth-control-pill/WO00098

Gregory

"What are the objections to preventative medicine for young women who aren't ready to start a family?"

Ben, at 30, Fluke is already past her reproductive prime, and there are no objections to her getting and using the contraceptives of her choice. Only objections are to the Dem's insistence that whatever a woman wants, insurance companies should pay for, with no copays or limits.

This sounds to me like more of the same, insurance company straitjackets designed to make private insurance so expensive that the "public option" looks good.

Gregory

Ben, if Ms. Fluke's is the sort of testimoany that Issa barred from the congressional committee, kudos to Issa.

It isn't about contraception. It is about who pays, and the Democrats presided over the demise of individual health insurance policies from WWII onward by allowing before tax dollars to pay for employee policies while individual policies are paid by after tax, including SS and Mediscare, dollars.

George Rebane

Gentlemen - and specifically those of you on the left, e.g. BenE's 809am and 919am - for the umpteenth time the issue of this post on Ms Fluke is the expansion of entitlements, this time through the door of state provided/subsidized/mandated supply of prophylactics to prevent unwanted births. The fact that Fluke framed the argument in terms of the most pricy kind of prophylaxis, her friend's poverty, and a matter "women's health" draws her into this discussion as a leftwing political activist with a long standing agenda.

That this woman enrolled in a Jesuit university with a well-known policy on 'birth control' (I despise that term) is itself an expose of the next battle the socialist secular humanists want to wage against religion in America. The connection to Obama's re-election campaign here is not coincidental. The rest - as witnessed here - is diversion.

John Galt

Michael 7:39am

How do you decide when someone is telling the Truth, the Whole Truth, and Nothing but the Truth?

Is it how they look, or how they vote?, or is it that if they speak on something you support, you believe them, if you don't support it, then you don't believe it.

It would be nice if everyone spoke the truth in their testimony, but that doesn't happen much in Washington. And for me, Fluke's testimony contains some dubious information....but I guess it all depends on what your definition of "is" is.

I personally don't believe insurance should be covering routine needs--for men or for women. And clearly at Georgetown--contraception is a VERY routine need.

--John Galt

Michael Anderson

Gregory wrote: "Note to fantasylanders: if transportation is determined to be a fundamental right to be paid by your neighbors, you'll be riding the bus, not being given the keys to your own BMW. Or Chevy Volt."

And George wrote as well: "The function Ms Fluke seeks can be procured and/or provided at a pittance to the costs she cites. That is the topic that no one on the left (sadly, including MichaelA) wants to touch."

This is not about the cost of birth control pills at Georgetown. I agree that $3K is a ridiculous and unnecessary amount of money for this health care line item. I also agree that the basic level of health care service can be analogized as a bus ride; once everyone has access to the bus, they are free to upgrade to a BMW on their own dime, any time that they choose.

George then wrote: "The fact that Fluke framed the argument in terms of the most pricy kind of prophylaxis, her friend's poverty, and a matter "women's health" draws her into this discussion as a leftwing political activist with a long standing agenda."

George, I don't want to talk about Sandra Fluke. She is basically irrelevant. I want to talk about whether a private employer has the right to build a whites-only lunch counter in his privately-owned building. I want to talk about why you think a private employer has the right to tell a medical insurance company who/what/when/how they can fund aspects of the delivery of health care between a doctor and her patient.

This is about freedom and liberty. As a lower-case libertarian, I am offended by employers who think they have the right to tell me how to live. They're my boss, not my master. For goodness sakes, it's as if you guys were promoting slavery!

Ben Emery

Greg,
What gives you any say when Ms Fluke is prime to start a family? The empowerment or suppression of women is the issue here and it scares many who fear all that challenges their belief of entitled power. This is true with the church, government, business, and society in general. I do not believe in second class human beings.

Todd Juvinall

George as you can read from the ridiculous comments of MichaelA he believes a condoms a civil right. Maybe the counter lady could offer women a strawberry malt and a rubber. What we have here from MA is a classic liberal endorsement by him of Obamacare and its mandate. Government has forced insurance companies to cover things under penalty of jail-time if they don't. Because of that, a condom deemed necessary by Ms. Fluke is 3 grand instead of one buck. A liberal in sheep's clothing like MA is always a liberal.

David King

“Gentlemen…”
“…for the umpteenth time the issue of this post on Ms Fluke is the expansion of entitlements, this time through the door of state…”

Sorry George, but this is too juicy to overlook!

“Carbonite is one of Rush Limbaugh’s advertisers that caved in to the left’s faux outrage over slutgate and dropped their advertising from his program. As it turns out, it looks like it may have been an easy decision for David Friend, the company’s CEO. Dan Riehl dug into Friend’s political donations and found that he’s not only a donor to Democrats, but also to the far-left group MoveOn that’s always wanted to silence conservatives like Rush Limbaugh.”

http://lonelyconservative.com/2012/03/i-would-never-trust-carbonite-to-back-up-my-computer/

Can you say hypocrite?

“This explains why Carbonite didn’t pull advertising from Ed Schultz’s show after he called Laura Ingraham a “right wing slut.””

Ed Shultz

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLeGQr9TK6g

Again, sorry George.

billy T

Yo, my dear readers of the left: Why do you think Obama and our H&HS Secretary dropped forcing this issue on Jesuit Universities? Why? Why did Obama announce that health insurance providers have volunteered to pass out free contraception to those whose policies do not cover the Pill, the Sponge, or purple prophylactics? Hmmmm? Got any clue? OK, once again. It is because the government cannot mandate that a religious organization violate its own doctrines and beliefs. It is called the First Amendment. It is not hate speech, not health issues, not humping like rabbits or breeding like rats. Nay, it is not left or right, neither Torry or Wig. It is called the Constitution of the United States of America. Perhaps someday eating pig will be found to be life saving. Can the government (any level of government) tell the Mosques in Dearborne, Michigan that they must eat pork? Can the government tell any Church they must violate their traditions? Darn those old white male dinosaurs that wrote the 1st Amendment. Darn them and their pesky Constitution.

Steven Frisch

I am breaking my New Years Resolution to say that perhaps you guys need to read the actual testimony once again, since George is a big stickler for reading comprehension, implying that anyone who does not agree with his comprehension must be intellectually challenged.

Ms. Fluke DID NOT say that birth control costs HER $3000 a year, she said, "Without insurance coverage, 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."

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/page/271051_Full_Transcript_of_Sandra_Fluk

She went on to say that many women could not afford appropriate medication, "Women employed in low wage jobs without contraceptive coverage face the same choice."

She also went on to make the case that the argument that many other choices are available is sometimes not true, and supported her case with a specific study:

"You might respond that contraception is accessible in lots of other ways. Unfortunately, that’s not true. Women’s health clinics provide vital medical services, but as the Guttmacher Institute has documented, clinics are unable to meet the crushing demand for these services. Clinics are closing and women are being forced to go without. How can Congress consider the Fortenberry, Rubio, and Blunt legislation that would allow even more employers and institutions to refuse contraceptive coverage and then respond that the non-profit clinics should step up to take care of the resulting medical crisis, particularly when so many legislators are attempting to defund those very same clinics?"

Then backed it up with a specific example, one not identifying the purpose of birth control pills being used for contraception, but to treat ovarian cysts:

"In the worst cases, women who need this medication for other medical reasons suffer dire consequences. A friend of mine, for example, has polycystic ovarian syndrome and has to take prescription birth control to stop cysts from growing on her ovaries."

And then specifically related it to the amendment being considered by the Republican controlled House:

".....under Senator Blunt’s amendment, Senator Rubio’s bill, or Representative Fortenberry’s bill, there’s no requirement that an exception be made for such medical needs. When they do exist, these exceptions don’t accomplish their well-intended goals because when you let university administrators or other employers, rather than women and their doctors, dictate whose medical needs are legitimate and whose aren’t, a woman’s health takes a back seat to a bureaucracy focused on policing her body."

And no where did Ms. Fluke say that contraception should be available with "no copay and no limits".

Correct me if I am wrong but is this not precisely the type of government interference with a decision of a doctor to treat a patient that conservatives have said they are against? Is this fear not the origin of the "death panel" claims made by some? So know you are supporting death panels if they suit your "....traditional cultural mores, especially as they are touted in the Judeo-Christian ethic".

Nothing could be less Christian, or for that matter more antithetical to the traditional American principle of equal protection, than supporting separate standards for health care coverage based on your personal cultural mores.

And as George points out, if Congress can deny coverage for birth control does that not also set the precedent for them denying coverage for statins if someone eats fatty food, Viagra because it is not necessary, insulin if someone eats sugary foods their entire life, chemotherapy if someone works in a filed where they are exposed to carcinogens?

In addition, Ms. Fluke does not mention her specific circumstances once in her testimony. No where does she talk about how she has sex, how often she has sex, with whom she has sex, whether she suffers from any similar circumstances where she may need to take birth control pills for a non-sexual health related reason.

And yet you guys rush to protect a man who describes an individual testifying in front of Congress as a "slut" and a "prostitute".

No where is there mention of "having the state pay for the prophylactics used in sexual intercourse", as George stated. No indication that "people like Ms Fluke will climb in bed with or without the proper contraception", as George stated.

George states this in his original post, "Here we have the case of a woman who admittedly screws so frequently with diverse partners that neither of them can be counted on, in the heat of the moment, to undertake their pleasures with proper preparation." There is absolutely no evidence in Ms. Fluke's testimony to support this statement, and if there were who's business is it anyway? Sex is a fact of life. It is clearly covered under "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Do you want the government passing judgement on how often you screw? Don't you all see how antithetical to your own stated conservative values this would be?

No where do the critics here acknowledge that this is about what private insurance companies are required to cover, they perpetuate the fiction that this is about what "the state will pay for". But the critics do put out a ton of false information, like the fiction that UnitedHealth Group, the private insurance company that covers Georgetown students, is "a Catholic insurance provider whose parent company is a Catholic Organization".

Amongst the most disturbing things here is how the regular posters allow false, misleading and intentionally defamatory content to stand.

George, you should be ashamed of yourself for jumping on this ridiculous bandwagon. Not only is there no evidence to support your statements, they are mean spirited and cruel, and clearly designed to support punishing this woman publicly for stating her opinion by invitation in an appropriate forum. If this is not intentional intimidation I don't know what is.

I hope all of your daughter weigh in on this one, perhaps over the next Thanksgiving dinner. But they will probably shake their heads and hold their tongues, electing to value family peace over speaking truth to intolerance. After all, they can't help it that their parents are out of touch with the world as it is rather than the world as they wish it to be.

Ben Emery

George,
It isn't about entitlements its about power/ authority. Our government is supposed to representing all people and "We The People" are the ones who determine the standards of the day through our government. Government is supposed to be us not a separate entity. The numbers on this issue are that eight out of ten Americans support birth control pill and the numbers on contraception in general are about the same. The stance you and many on RR are taking are a very small minority of the population. Keep this issue alive and your numbers will diminish even more.
Sunlight on the issues is the best disinfectant for those who hold anti-democratic views, the albatrosses around the necks of those who want to move forward.

I encourage you all to keep speaking up about this issue.

George Rebane

StevenF 1019am - Your message is still the same - excoriate the messenger. I beg to differ greatly with your interpretation of Fluke's testimony, the entire point of which was to bring government to bear on paying for the most expensive prophylactics for people, including herself, who could not avail themselves to cheaper means to fill the same function. Else she would have sued the university or insurance company for breach of contract.

Your moralizing is both inaccurate and rings hollow since you only join the cohort of fellow progressives who will not address my post's stated and reinforced issue (which is NOT Ms Fluke, her specific needs or manifest charms).

But no matter how brief your stay, welcome back.

John Galt

I never did think it was such a good idea to give some unknown company, remote access to my computer to backup my data--so thankfully I never did subscribe to Carbonite.

Besides, I figure if I just waited long enough, politicians in Washington DC would realize that I'm entitled to have my computer's health insured.

I do rely on my computer to conduct medical research, perform financial transactions, and to communication my emoitions. So it should be obvious that I am suffering FINANCIALLY, EMOTIONALLY, and MEDICALLY because of the lack of computer health coverage.

And when I look around my town, I see the faces of the women and men affected by this lack of computer health coverage, and especially in the last week I have heard more and more stories of people who tell me they have also suffered FINANCIALLY, EMOTIONALLY, and MEDICALLY because of the lack lack of coverage.


--John Galt

George Rebane

BenE 1028am - great illustration of the progressives' (your?) rationale in such discussions. Whatever does the notion or fact "that eight out of ten Americans support birth control pill and the numbers on contraception in general are about the same." have anything to do with Ms Fluke's testimony or the topic of my post??? We are here attempting to talk about the extension of government enforced/mandated/subsidized entitlements. The statistic about the public's support of contraception as a means of preventing unwanted births is a separate matter (semantically orthogonal), capice?

And I have no idea how your 'we the people' bit even comes close to the issue.

Steven Frisch

I don't see you taking Rush to task for "excoriate the messenger". Clearly your standards are different based on closeness to your philosophy.

If the case is not about Ms. Fluke perhaps you should not have posted this: "Here we have the case of a woman who admittedly screws so frequently with diverse partners that neither of them can be counted on, in the heat of the moment, to undertake their pleasures with proper preparation."

This statement is patently false, and cruel. It is a boldfaced lie.

I also note you did not address the hypocrisy of supporting government interference in the choice of a woman and her doctor while opposing government interference in other cases. But then not addressing the core issues, whilst claiming others are not, is kind of your normal modus operandi.

As far as the interpretation of Ms, Fluke's testimony, I will count on the lurkers to actually read the testimony, and your lies, and the lies of your friends and regular posters, will be clear as a bell.

My "stay" is over.

Douglas Keachie

Without insurance, the doctor's visits to get the prescriptions and annual checkups might well make $3,000. Frish did an elegant job. With the exception of McGuire, this is an all male forum. As a member of a an extended family with lots of females, trust me, birth control is a right, to be guaranteed by the government, and an inexpensive one to implement, when the gov says, "produce at cheap prices, or we buy overseas, in bulk, or make it ourselves."

billy T

Steven Frisch is correct about one thing. It is I, Billy T, that wrote has "a Catholic insurance provider whose parent company is a Catholic Organization". I was dead wrong on that one. Spent too many hours yesterday studying cases on this topic and confused the Catholic insurance provider whose parent organization is a Catholic Institution with the Georgetown case. Me bad, although I was delighted to be mentioned again on the Fat Boy's bloggie. My 15 minutes of fame, albeit on a lefty blog full of lefty politicians run out of office. Well, beggars can't be choosers. Right back at ya. The similarities between the Georgetown case and the other case all boil down to one thing. Separation of Church and State. Can't get around it, "can't pole vault over it, can't parachute behind it" or whatever the Wicked Witch of the West Queen Nancy was quoted about Obamacare is a'coming whether you like it or not. Well, Nancy, what about the first amendment. Hey, Georgetown U requires all student to have health insurance. Read their entire health care coverage yesterday and even the options for full time profs. Most of would die for that kind of coverage. 100 buck for ER, waived if you are admitted, etc. Thank you again Mr. Firsche for pointing out my grievous error. Remember the 1st Amendment as you delight in removing God from the public square. That is a two edged sword. People ask me where was God in these school shooting. The reply is simple: He got expelled.

Douglas Keachie

"The reply is simple: He got expelled. "

And who did the expelling? May I suggest the Quest for the All Mighty Shekel, at all levels has a lot to do with it?

Everyone wants as good and low a price as they can get for any item.
Every manufacturer wants to have a product that sells.
Every manufacturer wants to get as much for himself as he can.
Every manufacturer cuts costs by:
fighting any form of taxation, including schools, and fees for inspections, regulations, etc
lowering wages as much as possible
lowering taxes by gaming the system every which way, and paying lobbyists to set up a very tilted playing field

Thus employees are kept poor and stupid, and their kids come to school poorly equipped, attitude-wise, to learn anything. The kids who are able to learn, as a whole, come from the wealthier classes, who in part garner their wealth by hawking useless trinkets whose perceived value is enhanced by the steady drumbeat of advertising on the tv's, so many use as a drug to escape their poorly paid lives.

So who kicked God out of schools and allowed for school shootings? Just about everyone. Who has the power to change the situation the most? I'll let you decide.

Douglas Keachie

I wonder if whoever is paying Rush the $400,000,000 or so is now going to look to get out of the contract, and will be the number one supporter of Ms. Fluke’s legal retaliation team? Is slander a possible crime, more than just a civil offense, and thus punishable by jail time?

George Rebane

DougK 1126am - "birth control is a right, to be guaranteed by the government." Now you're talking on topic! Thank you.

That extreme position of assigning it to be a right sets a proper stake in the ground. And I presume it is a right established to serve the utilitarian sense I expressed in my 1131am above. (BTW, for semantic precision I understand 'rights and privileges' as defined here http://rebaneruminations.typepad.com/rebanes_ruminations/2010/03/rights-and-privileges.html )

So in that same utilitarian sense of extending our QoL at a lower cost, when may we begin adding the rights for being supplied accoutrements of similar function - e.g. my running shoes and treadmill and ... ?? Is there any end to the discovery of such new rights? If so, where or at what point are they to be circumscribed? We all know the obvious answer discovered in the USSR years ago - as soon as the other people's money runs out, you will not get your pills, rubbers, shoes, adequate food, ..., and most certainly, by that time your rights are already toast.

John Galt

Good grief Doug: You're seriously asking us to trust you as an expert on this topic based on the number of females in your extended family?


--John Galt

Douglas Keachie

You really support Rush?

"Limbaugh first blasted Fluke on Wednesday: "What does it say about the college co-ed Fluke 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? Makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex."

Limbaugh, an influential conservative commentator known for his take-no-prisoners style and shocking comments, is one of the most listened-to radio talk-show hosts in the country.

"If we are going to pay for your contraceptives, thus pay for you to have sex, we want something for it, and I'll tell you what it is: we want you to post the videos online so we can all watch," he added, repeating the slurs again on Thursday.

Fluke said Limbaugh's comments were meant to silence women who spoke out about their health care needs, but the attack had failed.

"It's clear from the voices that we've heard from all over the country that women and the men who support them are not going to be silenced on this issue," said Fluke, who plans to take the bar exam in California and continue her advocacy work for women after graduating from law school in May.

Fluke told lawmakers in a Democratic House hearing on February 23 that female students at Georgetown, the oldest Catholic and Jesuit university in the country, suffered financial hardship because contraception was not covered by their healthcare insurance and in some cases had stopped taking it because it cost too much money.

Georgetown University President John DeGioia said the debate over the contraceptives policy was a legitimate one, but he blasted the comments of Limbaugh and others as "behavior that can only be described as misogynistic, vitriolic, and a misrepresentation of the position of our student."

Fluke said she had not ruled out suing Limbaugh for slander, but was focused on the policy debate for now."

Douglas Keachie

John Galt, have yet to see female here supporting Rush. Good luck finding one. Unless maybe Bonnie McGuire really hasn't had a good look at Rush wife #4*, and is still holding onto sex addiction as if it was a common incurable disease. "but sex addiction creates unwanted human beings"

* http://the-reaction.blogspot.com/2012/03/i-am-rush-limbaughs-wife.html

What a gem! Reflects his values perfectly!

George Rebane

DougK 1225pm - it seems you're beginning to lose focus again. This is not a forum where the issue is men or women "supporting Rush", "taking Rush to task", "sex addiction", and other such niceties.

Michael Anderson

Dear "John Galt,"

Your clever comparison of computer health coverage with human health coverage is a false analogy. So, not even a nice try.

Dear Todd,

I won't respond to any of your comments if they contain non sequiturs, name-calling, misogyny, and/or childish taunts. You did bring up one point that I will address, however, and that is whether government should be allowed to regulate health care: Horse. Left. Barn. Already.

Look, if you really want to get rid of PPACA then you can't stop there. Medicare, VA Hospitals, Medi-Cal, and Medicaid--they ALL need to go.

If the Commerce Clause says we can regulate the Interstate Highway System, then for pete's sake we can sure enough regulate the health care industry. I'm willing to have a debate about how best to do that because it's a very complicated issue. But as for whether the federal gov't has any jurisdiction over national health care, we'll just have to wait for the Supreme Court to decide. And if they say no: They. Are. Wrong.

Michael A.

George Rebane

MichaelA 1236pm - "If the Commerce Clause says we can regulate the Interstate Highway System, then for pete's sake we can sure enough regulate the health care industry." Is that a bridge too far, or just to nowhere?

billy T

Well, Doug, I have to agree with Dr. Rebane that is good you finally came out and declared birth control is a right". Good , now that is cleared up. My question is birth control a right at a Jesuit University? Ms. Fluke, or any Georgetown U student/employee can go see a doctor with her insurance plan. The doctor can write a script for her after a pelvic exam and usually an venereal disease exam. Then she can go to a pharmacy. Her RX benefits do not cover the script, so she has to pay out of pocket. Are her rights violated? Poor women can get a script for birth control pills without even seeing a real Dr, usually by going to a clinic and seeing the Nurse Practitioner. Heck, my neighbor's daughter got some pills by going up to the Health Department or some low cost place without even using her Doc, who is down in Auburn. I understand well how young people get in such a hurry. But I digress. Is fire protection a right? Suppose the firetruck is delayed while the house is burning. Are your "rights" violated? The Supreme Court has ruled that a Catholic School or other religious group can fire folks for violating Church doctrine/long held religious beliefs and fair firing practices be damned. Remember that case in New Mexico when the State employee drug counselor was fired for being high? It was overturned and he got his job back. Why? Because his "religion" practiced smoking heavy doses of Peyote, thus the State crossed the time and violated his religious practices and discriminated against him. There is a special firewall between Church and State that supersedes the students "right" to birth control or even firing a drug counselor high on Peyote. Now, if you want to discuss rights in the public sector or the population at large, I am all ears. PS: still smarting over your dog and I hope you are OK. The news of your beloved dog struck me like a knife as we both love dogs.

Paul Emery

George you wrote this about Ms Fluke without any information that she indeed did "admittedly" say those things.

" a woman who admittedly screws so frequently with diverse partners that neither of them can be counted on, in the heat of the moment, to undertake their pleasures with proper preparation."

Later you wrote:

"Nowhere have I commented on or judged Ms Fluke's character....."

05 March 2012 at 08:59 AM

George, if accusing someone of admittedly "screwing" multiple partners with no information to justify that opinion isn't character assassination than I don't know what is. George, my friend, you are wrong on this one and you should fess up to it. It has nothing to do with your well expressed opinion about "entitlement creep" that from your campfires is a legitimate discussion.

billy T

Doug, about rights. For arguments sake, suppose I have a right to public education. But the school district wants me to pay a bit for the bus ride cause I live out in the boonies. Are my rights violated? I have a right to attend a Nevada City school, but do I have a right for free transportation to and from the school campus? What about Sierra College? Suppose the class I want is full. Are my rights violated? Suppose I want to go to UC Berkley or Davis, but the classes are full or enrollment is closed for this year. So, I look around and find the only campuses that will accept me are the new ones in Bakersfield or Channel Islands. But, I want to stay close to my Alamo. Are my rights violated? Suppose I want to attend Gonzaga U in Spokane on a basketball scholarship. I am given free room and board and tuition paid. But, the campus does not cover free rubbers for me or my sex partner. I can argue that an unplanned pregnancy would disrupt my life and that of my girlfriend's degree aspirations. I can argue that everybody is sleeping around and it cheaper to prevent a pregnancy. I can argue that all the nice Catholic co-eds use contraception. I can argue that people on Welfare get free/low cost birth control pills. I can argue and argue until the cows come home, but the place I choose to attend does not include birth control devices/pills in their RX plan. Are my rights violated? What are my rights? I know I have a right to free speech (with new limitations) and the right of free association and the right to worship as I please or not worship at all. There are other rights and restrictions such as commercial speech, which is not free speech at all.

Steven Frisch

This is ridiculous, the issue is not whether "birth control is a right", the question is whether health insurance, under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act should cover contraceptives at religious institutions engaged in non-religious functions, or whether Congress, through amendment, should allow limiting coverage for contraceptives.

That is what Ms. Fluke was testifying on.

No one has answered my question---is this not PRECISELY what conservatives critiqued the ACA on? Is this not the origin of the "death panel" nonsense? That some care would be denied based on political or unwarranted financial considerations?

Essentially, when the Catholic Church employs or serves non-Catholics and performs non-religious functions, it needs to offer all the same rights and protections that non-religious institutions are required to provide. That is the law. Being a student is a non-religious function. That's why Blunt and others are proposing to amend the law. They are proposing taking away an existing right.

If I am an employee, or student, at Georgetown, I am guaranteed the same rights under the law as any other American citizen, under the equal protection clause.

The rights of conscience of particular Catholics, and of the Catholic Church collectively to believe and worship as it wishes, should not extend to a right to encumber the free exercise of conscience of everyone who they employ for non-religious functions. This is intrusive and authoritarian. If I am not a Catholic I should be free to work at or go to school at a Catholic institution. I personally know many non-Catholics who went to Notre Dame, Marquette and DePaul. There are more than 200 Catholic colleges and universities in the United States. This law would affect hundreds of thousands (if not over a million) of students and employees. If the Roman Catholic Church (or any other church) wants its employees, or its students—even the non-Catholic ones—to honor its moral dictates then it should trust them to freely obey.

I suspect the whole thing is moot now anyway. Republicans have just totally lost the independent women's vote, and thus the Presidential election, due to their hubris, and consequently President Obama will get the next one or two Supreme Court appointments and this amendment, if passed, would be tested and tossed.

(By the way Paul, you are absolutely right, George smeared Ms. Fluke, and he should admit his un-Christian act and repent, just as Bill T did, to his credit, above).

P.S. My wife is going to kill me for posting here!

Paul Emery

Here's a good question to add to the conversation. Should a person who is a pacifist by religion be required to pay taxes that support war?

billy T

Got to love it. We all have different opinions coming from our various and sundry life experiences http://www.realfunpictures.com/hooters-girls-own-protesters-5014/

Gregory

"Greg,
What gives you any say when Ms Fluke is prime to start a family?"

It's not me, Ben, it's the calendar and human physiology; the biological clock is ticking. Early 30's sees a decline in fertility rate, with it running less than half of the rate in their 20's by around age 35. By 40 the odds are getting very steep.

At 30, she's young by my standards, but not by human reproductive biology.

Gregory

"P.S. My wife is going to kill me for posting here!"

I'll believe that when I read it in The Union.

"Essentially, when the Catholic Church employs or serves non-Catholics and performs non-religious functions, it needs to offer all the same rights and protections that non-religious institutions are required to provide."

I'm trying to find that enumerated "right" in the Constitution. Any hints?

George Rebane

PaulE 105pm - it is always a puzzle as to why a person of liberal leanings, who putatively does not attach a moral judgment to the frequency of sex, does readily accuse another (especially conservative) of doing so when they claim (correctly or incorrectly) that someone does have frequent sex. I concluded from reports of her not being served by more slowly applied prophylactics that her sexual activity was frequent. This was no character assassination to anyone of an open mind who does not equate character with screwing frequency. Apparently you do.

Now, you may argue that inference about such frequency from my secondary sources was erroneous, or my secondary sources were in error. That is another matter to which I would readily admit error, should that be shown. But I do sincerely believe that you may still harbor some latent puritanical attitudes about an adverse relationship of intercourse frequency to character. Such an interpretation, of course, is your right. But please don't accuse me of having made it in this post - it is you and your ideological fellow travelers here who have introduced that connection.

Re your 135pm - that is indeed a good question and there is large literature on it (just google 'pacifist paying for war'). But before leaping into it, I'd ask you to expand on its relationship to the current topic were the answer YES or NO (or even depending on some contingency). In other words, what conclusion would you draw to state mandates on prophylactics cost sharing to sharing the costs of war.

I do understand where you want to go with this, and I'd rather have the landscape laid out before heading into these woods where the shared cost of one thing in society will be argued by the collectivist (using analytical continuation) that therefore the cost of all conceivable things can and should be shared.

Gregory

"Doug, about rights. For arguments sake, suppose I have a right to public education. But the school district wants me to pay a bit for the bus ride cause I live out in the boonies. Are my rights violated? I have a right to attend a Nevada City school, but do I have a right for free transportation to and from the school campus? What about Sierra College? Suppose the class I want is full. Are my rights violated? Suppose I want to go to UC Berkley or Davis, but the classes are full or enrollment is closed for this year."

For argument's sake, if a school district fails, like the GVSD failed last year, to have more than ONE student out of 171 8th graders reported Advanced in 8th grade algebra and very few even Proficient, have all those student's rights been violated?

They will most likely never catch up, and will be behind if they even manage to get into college and want to attempt to major in a math intensive subject.

Gregory

""Essentially, when the Catholic Church employs or serves non-Catholics and performs non-religious functions, it needs to offer all the same rights and protections that non-religious institutions are required to provide."

Let's examine this one more closely... does Steven Frisch, CEO of the misnamed Sierra Business Council, claim that Mt.St.Mary's Academy in Grass Valley and Forest Lake Christian High should be forced to provide insurance coverage for birth control and abortions for all of their employees?

Steven Frisch

The power is enumerated in the constitution under both the general welfare and the equal protection clauses.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) passed Congress and was signed into law by President Obama. PPACA passed the Senate on December 24, 2009, by a vote of 60–39 with all Democrats and two Independents voting for, and all Republicans voting against. It passed the House of Representatives on March 21, 2010, by a vote of 219–212, with 34 Democrats and all 178 Republicans voting against the bill. When a law is passed in the United States it is in effect. Unless, or until, it is overturned by the Supreme Court of the United States, it is the law of the land. The PACA establishes the right to enforce the rules as defined by the law.

The Blunt amendment proposes to restrict that right:

http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/292318-s-1813-amendment.html#document/p5/a44791

...start reading at page 5 line 7-22.

The Blunt amendment failed to pass Congress and be signed into law by the President.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/birth-control-exemption-bill-the-blunt-amendment-killed-in-senate/2012/03/01/gIQA4tXjkR_story.html


You may disagree with it, but if you do, the process for challenging it is through the courts.

Consequently the PPACA is the law, and due to the point that it was passed under constitutional standards, it is constitutional, unless determined otherwise. It's really that simple.

Steven Frisch

Greg to keep things on the up and up perhaps you should refrain from mentioning my professional affiliation. When I post here I am doing so as an individual.

But the answer is, yes, if people are employed by these institutions (Mt.St.Mary's Academy in Grass Valley and Forest Lake Christian High), and insured by these institutions, and are employed in a non-religious function, they should be required to provide health insurance consistent with existing US law, just as any other employer would.

Steven Frisch

George Rebane: "Now, you may argue that inference about such frequency from my secondary sources was erroneous, or my secondary sources were in error. That is another matter to which I would readily admit error, should that be shown."

Now that is a Rush Limbaugh style apology if I have ever heard one. You are in essence saying, "I challenge you to prove the negative." It is not up to us to prove the negative. It is up to you to prove the positive.

Since the primary source material has no statement about frequency of sexual intercourse, it is up to you to admit your sin and repent!

I would say it is pretty clear that before you made your statements you did not read the primary source material. Why can't you just admit that and move on?

George Rebane

"... and are employed in a non-religious function" as determined by whom? That is where things start getting both fuzzy and slippery. The cited institutions, from a Christian perspective, are a religious ministry in toto. What bureaucrat would be qualified, other than by fiat, to come and dissect the enterprise into that which must be rendered to God and to Caesar?

Michael Anderson

George wrote: "Is that a bridge too far, or just to nowhere?"

George, you and I have been agreeing to disagree on this issue for almost a year now. I'm not going to change your mind and you're not going to change mine. We'll just have to wait for the Supreme Court to make its ruling.

If the Supreme Court allows the mandate, then we'll be done talking about this for a long, long time. Today's young American citizens, once they move into the electorate, will form a voting bloc that will prevent a revisiting of this issue for three generations. By then, universal health care will be so ingrained in our society that getting rid of it will be almost unthinkable.

If SCOTUS throws out the mandate, I can guarantee you it will come up for another vote within a decade. This incoming generation is radically inclusive and wildly intolerant of inequality, injustice, inefficient/broken-down systems.

George Rebane

SteveF 228pm - No apology yet intended - Limbaugh style or otherwise. I'm not asking anyone to "prove the negative". I've given the reasoning for my high frequency inference, and admitted to its potential error. However, no one has yet shown Ms Fluke's need for expensive 24/7 protection for reasons other than that the frequent bother of cheaper slower methods. Mind you, I'm not saying one does not exist, but dredging it up just places the explanation next to mine and allows the reader to judge the relative plausibility of each.

Steve, you're back here bashing me and others like me again. Try to contribute to the topic - it's not Ms Fluke's sex habits no matter how I may or not have characterized them. Aren't there loftier discussions on FUE's blog for the more high minded to partake?

Gregory

George, the right to life, liberty and the making of unlimited whoopee is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence.

Frisch, the general welfare clause doesn't fit this (the Feds forcing schools operated by churches to buy insurance for faculty and students that provides free contraceptives and abortions seems awfully specific, not general), nor does the equal protection clause (IIRC Bob Jones U can still . I think you're forgetting the real claim, which is the one size fits all Interstate Commerce clause.

IIRC the Feds successfully used the Equal Protection clause to revoke the tax advantage the racist Bob Jones University had as a charitable institution, but couldn't force BJU to stop their racist ways. So why do you think that clause can be used to force Catholic institutions to fund and perform abortions?

The legal challenges are just beginning, with that pesky and usually ignored 10th Amendment waiting in the background.

George Rebane

MichaelA 239pm - Right you are. And what is scarier is that your assessment of the "incoming generation" as being "radically inclusive and wildly intolerant of inequality, injustice, inefficient/broken-down systems" might be spot on, and doubled down on their inherent (through public education) inability to see solutions anywhere except pie-in-the-sky socialism.

The only error I see in your picture is that this "incoming generation" is so homogeneously ignorant, that it doesn't have a subset of minds that see other possibilities for fixing such "inefficient/broken-down systems." There I sincerely hope you are wrong. And that brings up the Great Divide question, will your new generation peaceably let go of the new generation in which I and mine place our hope?

Gregory 245pm - Agreed.

Gregory

Steven Frisch, CEO of the misnamed Sierra Business Council, I understand and accept your positions here are yours and not necessarily those of the Sierra Business Council.

I think it's on the up and up to mention your affiliation.

When the Congress passes an unconstitutional bill that is signed into law, it is the right and responsibility of the people to resist it. In the case of the regulations causing the chafing, iirc they aren't actually all in the original bill, not that anyone outside of a small circle of Nancy and Harry's friends got to read and pretend to understand that abomination before it passed. They're post facto regulations being promulgated by the executive branch as a result of the statute. Even better for disobedience. Agnostic dittos to the Catholic Church.

Steven Frisch

Re: George Rebane | 05 March 2012 at 02:30 PM

Under the Equal Employment Opportunity Act, if a persons position qualifies for a "Ministerial Exception" to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 they are considered employed in a religious function. A "Ministerial Exception" is defined in US lay by the case Alcazar v. The Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle.

http://slotelaw.com/education-law/articles/ministerial-exception-title-vii-protects-religious-institutions-when-they-hir

If they are not, they are considered employed in a non-religious function.

Otherwise, all those responsible for non-religious functions are covered under the "common rule".

These functions are laid out in Title IX of the Civil Rights Act as amended in 1972:

"Under the Title IX common rule, a recipient must not discriminate on the basis of sex in providing health and insurance benefits or services. Specifically, the provision of such benefits and services to students must meet the same requirements as outlined in the employee provisions of the common rule. 65 Fed. Reg. at 52873-52874. However, these provisions do not prohibit a recipient from providing any benefit or service that may be used by a different proportion of students of one sex than of the other, including family planning services. However, any recipient that provides full coverage health service must provide gynecological care. 65 Fed. Reg. at 52872."

http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/cor/coord/ixlegal.php#8.%C2%A0%20Health%20and%20insurance%20benefits%20and%20services%20%28%C2%A7%20.440%29

So, in short George, the definition is laid out in the law, and once again, want to change the law...do it!


Gregory

One of the time honored ways to change bad laws are to ignore them and dare the authorities to take action, giving you an right to challenge them in court.

How soon after one of their own gets into the Presidency does the Left forget the basics.

Steven Frisch

George, my posts have been equally as respectful as yours and fellow posters. I believe I have pretty effectively proved the "false, misleading and intentionally defamatory content" I referenced. I would challenge you to show me how I am 'bashing you and others like you again'. I think your just not used to reasoned, rational, sourced responses.

Gregory: health care (PPACA) fits under general welfare; extending health care to students equally and providing equal services is covered under equal protection. Definition of whom what services are extended to and at what standard are sourced above in my last post to George. Until the Catholic church protest (by the way they are not protesting anymore, they have reached an agreement with the President, it is politicians who are protesting by trying to pass the amendment, and they just LOST)is successful the law stands. If you want to make your point you may want to cite case law to make your point, otherwise its really just "he said, she said", and your my.....

Brad Croul

The phrases, "provide for the common defense", and "promote the general Welfare" in the Preamble to the Constitution are open to some interpretation.
When the Constitution was written, overpopulation and the cost of medical care was not an issue, but it is now. The Constitution gives us some guidelines, but times change. Does birth control fit in with "promoting the general Welfare"?
Could overpopulation actually be a national security issue? How do we clothe, feed, and house all these people, with more on the way due to lack of education and/or contraception availability/affordability, without the jobs now being lost to robotics and foreign outsourcing of jobs?

To the notion of where do you draw the line,
maybe we should also limit the level of government sponsored medical care for retirees to only that level of sophistication that was available when they reached the age of maturity and started contributing to Social Security, or joined the military. We could throw in antibiotics as a good will gesture for those born before they were widely available. But no more hip transplants, organ transplants, heart bypasses,dialysis, chemo, etc. through the VA or Medicare. Why should citizens who had no expectation of the medical advances we have seen over the last 50 years now be entitled to them at government expense?
Going forward, citizens would be given a menu with the Basic Plan (cheaper) good for infections, broken bones and everyday outpatient procedures. The Deluxe health plan would cost more but would include all the transplants, bypasses, etc. and a resuscitation clause.
Would our health care system then become sustainable and affordable again?

Steven Frisch

By the way George, is it considered respectful for Gregory to preface his comments to me with "the misnamed Sierra Business Council"?

Steven Frisch

Just to be clear, I am not referring to the General Welfare clause as it appears in the preamble, I am referring to the general Welfare clause as it appears in Article 1 Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution of the United States....

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;..."

Todd Juvinall

So I guess SteveF is on vacation since he is posting on a Monday during business hours? That $100,000 salary is calling you. Here is what Thomas Jefferson said about the General Welare Clause.

"Thomas Jefferson explained the latter general welfare clause for the United States: “[T]he laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They [Congress] are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose.”[7]"

The idea of the clause was to deal with the United States government, not the ability of the taxpayer to pay for condoms. What is fascinating to me as well is the 180 degree difference in how we see things and how wrong the liberal mind is.

I have actually seen polling and some features of the youth coming up that give me some hope. They are seeing how messed up the country has become with spendthrift government and over regulations of the liberal nanny state. Frisch is a prime example of the kinds of people taking the tax money and we never see it again. Things will change as soon as we stop making the employer be the tax collector and the bureaucracy then has to be the collector. As soon as the tax bill is due after no withholding all year, there will be a middle class taxpayer revolution.

Steven Frisch

Talk about changing the subject Todd, first you agree that we should interfere with a woman's body, now you think you have a right to question my time of work. So much for being a libertarian, eh?

Hey George, you gonna keep Todd, "on the topic"?

Michael Anderson

George asked: "And that brings up the Great Divide question--will your new generation peaceably let go of the new generation in which I and mine place our hope?"

"Your" generation and "my" generation? Don't you and I both place our hope in the same generation? Sorry if I'm being thick...


Todd, I agree that business should be the tax collector of last resort. But you will never get rid of withholding, that is a pipe dream. Similar to the pipe dream of taxpayers voting directly for how their tax dollars are spent.

George Rebane

SteveF 326pm - I think I'll just let this comment of yours answer your 'bashing' question - I couldn't give a more clear answer. Regarding your proof of the nature of my content, I believe it to be beyond redemption. We established long ago that our individual views of history and elements of proof are maximally incompatible. You're here to present your ideologically interpreted reality to the undecided readers, and snide remarks within reason, you have access to this forum.

Re Gregory's "misnamed Sierra Business Council" - he is being too kind. I have long and more correctly referred to SBC as being cynically named since by any and all measures I judge it to be a promoter of progressive causes and propaganda funded by the public and benefactors of similar mind. And I do resent the public funding component. But all that is another matter between you and Gregory, I have spoken my piece.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad