(Vanity) This is no Fluke, It's More Like a Hydra

By now, nearly the entire known universe has at least heard of the controversy over Sandra Fluke. However, a passing acquaintance based on sound-bytes and snippets is never the best basis for action, and is in fact fertile ground for the propaganda ministers of the left. This piece will give a brief recap of the situation, and then discuss the lay of the land. (Pun intended, if you like it.)

Back in the GOP primary debate on January 7, George Stephanopoulos asked Mitt Romney(RINO-Bain) whether he believed that states have the power to ban contraception. This puzzled Romney, and was widely regarded at the time as a “Win The Future” type question. However, the topic was not left alone for long, when it was revealed that the new Obamacare regulations would eliminate the freedom of conscience exception for Catholic organizations, requiring the Catholic employers (explicitly) to pay for abortion services for their employees. (This was neither a fluke (sorry!) nor an accident, by the way. Across the pond in Dhimmi Old England, a British Court has already ruled that Catholic midwives can be required to participate in abortions. More on this later.)

But Obama and his cadre of Marxist bulldyke controllers overplayed their hand: the long-slumbering Catholic Church woke up, and a firestorm ensued. After a few days, Obaama beat a hasty “retreat” : the regulations would be interpreted such that the the Catholic organizations would not have to pay for abortions and/or contraception directly, but their insurance would: forcing the Church organizations to act in loco infanticida, as it were.

As a result of this EPIC FAIL public relations disaster, and coupled with Obama’s realization that he needed to shore up core liberal constituencies in order to try to stave off his defeat in the upcoming Presidential elections, the spin teams in the Democratic Party (that is to say, the LameStream Media) decided to re-cast the entire debate from what it was, an attempted destruction of the Freedom of Religion clause in the Constitution, into an UNHoly Jihad for Womyn’s Health^TM ⁽¹⁾. In a liberal’s worldview, both contraception and abortion are functionally equivalent, the only difference being the cost and the convenience to the woman involved, since all moral considerations have already been thrown out the window.

Enter Sandra Fluke. (Yes, I know. Another pun.) She was heralded as a precocious 23-year old co-ed who had just entered Georgetown Law School, who selflessly gave of herself (no, not that way) (at least we hope not) to testify before Congress because of her very genuine distress over what religious extremists were trying to do to womyn’s health care in this country.

Her facade fell apart almost immediately, in part due to the excellent job Rush Limbaugh did at exposing her and making fun of her before a national audience: to be followed in short order by the entire right, and some of the non-committed, blogosphere.

2) I’m going to a $40,000/year Law School and I’m too cheap to buy the pill.

Of course, this fails on multiple levels. The first (and fatal mistake) was her attempt to be self-righteous over sin. Nobody was judging her UNTIL she put her face on national TV and demanded that other people pay for her sexual habits. And the second FAIL was to lie about the money. This is the Obama economy: and other people have got used to economizing, and were able to tell within minutes that there is no way in HELL that contraception costs $1000 / year: aside from the “free” clinics which her ilk had already agitated for, generic birth control pills are available at discount stores for $9 / month. Unless of course she was using condoms, in which case, based on retail prices, she would be having sex somewhere between three and seven times A DAY, every day, to incur these costs. (And even if she were, why can’t the guys who are doing her pay for it, speaking of disrespecting womyn?)

According to Gateway Pundit, and other sources, Sandra Fluke is a 30-year-old women’s rights activist and President of the “Law Students for Reproductive Justice” (whatever that is!) who decided to attend Georgetown for the express purpose of changing their policy on providing contraceptives.

In other words, in addition to being a whore in her personal life, per Limbaugh’s definition, she’s a political whore, too.

But Sandra Fluke’s personal life, purported public image, and scripted talking points are only a few of the heads on this hydra. Remember, the real movers behind this are committed Marxists, who don’t let a trivial thing like a few decades stand in their way.

Let’s look at quotes from some of the players in this game, and consider the ramifications of the provisions of Obamacare, in addition to past historical Marxist / Feminist practice, to get a feel for where this might be going.

First, Obama’s secretary of Health and Human Services, Darth Sibelius, going by the given name of Kathleen. Remember her? She’s the one who had ties to the Kansas abortionist George Tiller (see Human Events, and Real Clear Politics for more).

Oh, and by the way, she is also the one who had her nomination to the Cabinet pushed through on an emergency basis, ostensibly because of the dire threat of Swine Flu.

Did I just say Swine Flu? Cricket flu is more like it, because we haven’t heard another thing about it since then.

Look at the following exchange between Sibelius and Rep. Tim Murphy(Who?- PA), as reported on the *liberal* site thinkprogress.org:

MURPHY: So you’re saying by not having babies born, we’re going to save money on health care?

SEBELIUS: Providing contraception as a critical preventive health benefit for women and for their children reduces health care.

MURPHY: Not having babies born is a critical benefit? This is absolutely amazing to me.

Now, taken in isolation, this might not be so bad: pregnancy costs are in fact considerably more than contraception — even though in truth, some of the blame for that can be placed on Democrats such as former Democrat Vice Presidential Candidate John Edwards, who more or less claimed before a jury in a malpractice trial that he could hear a baby in the womb. (Even aside from Rielle Hunter — and by the way, why didn’t he push for *her* to have an abortion?), this proves that politics really does make for strange bedfellows!)

But we also have the government moving in to consolidate gains over family life in other areas, such as the recent case of an anonymous “inspector” confiscating a young child’s lunch of turkey and cheese on white whole wheat, chips, and apple juice in favor of...breaded chicken nuggets? The usurpation is bad enough (and did anyone check to see if the food service company had given contributions to the local Democrats?), but it reinforces the idea that the government knows best, when it comes to *having* children, to the *raising* of children...

Now combine this with the past practice and historical roots of the abortionists: Margaret Sanger, who gave an *invited* speech to the KKK, was a staunch advocate of eugenics. Nor indeed, were her ideas limited to the ineffectual kook fringe: one of her associates, Lothrop Stoddard, was a Harvard PhD who actually visited Nazi Germany and visited a German court which decided which people would be involuntarily sterilized. Far from being scandalized, he thought they were too conservative in their opinions: he said that the eugenics laws were “being administered with strict regard for its provisions and that, if anything, judgments were almost too conservative”, and that the law was “weeding out the worst strains in the Germanic stock in a scientific and truly humanitarian way”. (Yes, it’s from Wikipedia, but the quotes are linked to books from Oxford University Press and University of Vermont press, with ISBNs which check out. Incidentally, the photo of Stoddard on Wikipedia bears an uncanny resemblance to Snidely Whiplash.)

And if you don’t like Godwin’s Law, you can revisit Merrie Old England. In addition to the court ruling above requiring Catholic midwives to participate in abortion

“The nature of their duties does not in fact require them to provide treatment to terminate pregnancies directly,” she said.

“They are sufficiently removed from direct involvement as, it seems to me, to afford appropriate respect for and accommodation of their beliefs.”

parents should be allowed to have their newborn babies killed because they are “morally irrelevant” and ending their lives is no different to abortion.

Remember: Obaamacare is about containing costs; and the central contention of the government with regard to Obamacare, is that it’s just fine for the government to compel you to buy things against your will, for the greater good. It’s all about healthcare!

From that point, and combining with the idea that contraception is a “health-care right,” how long will it be before the chance to give birth is itself regulated? (”You don’t have the money to provide a happy home” to “you are ideologically unfit” to “one child per family — we have to save the planet, you stupid breeder!”)

They’re already doing this in China: and recall that many of the cognoscenti, from Valerie Jarret to Thomas Friedman, openly revere Mao and China.

(1)And yes, I chose “Jihad” over the more familiar “Crusade” because “Jihad” implies forceful domination, whereas Jesus said to the woman caught in adultery “Go and sin no more” as opposed to “Have some condoms, dear.”

Norma McCorvey LIED about being raped in Roe v. Wade.

Here's the beginning of Fluke's testimony:

Leader Pelosi, Members of Congress, good morning, and thank you for calling this hearing on women’s health and allowing me to testify on behalf of the women who will benefit from the Affordable Care Act contraceptive coverage regulation. Myname is Sandra Fluke, and I’m a third year student at Georgetown Law, a Jesuit school. I’m also a past president of Georgetown Law Students for Reproductive Justice or LSRJ. I’d like to acknowledge my fellow LSRJ members and allies and all of the student activists with us and thank them for being here today.

Who is the "Law Students for Reproductive Justice"?

WHO FUNDS THEM?

Georgetown LSRJ is here today because we’re so grateful that this regulation implements the nonpartisan, medical advice of the Institute of Medicine. I attend a Jesuit law school that does not provide contraception coverage in its student health plan. Just as we students have faced financial, emotional, and medical burdens as a result, employees at religiously affiliated hospitals and universities across the country have suffered similar burdens. We are all grateful for the new regulation that will meet the critical health care needs of so many women. Simultaneously, the recently announced adjustment addresses any potential conflict with the religious identity of Catholic and Jesuit institutions.

Bullshit. Georgetown already allows students to use OTHER insurance plans than Georgetown's own.

And contraception is NOT a critical health care need: either your boyfriend needs to stop being so cheap and buy his own damn condoms, or you need to learn to swallow.

When I look around my campus, I see the faces of the women affected, and I have heard more and more of their stories. . On a daily basis, I hear from yet another woman from Georgetown or other schools or who works for a religiously affiliated employer who has suffered financial, emotional, and medical burdens because of this lack of contraceptive coverage. And so, I am here to share their voices and I thank you for allowing them to be heard.

"Financial, emotional, and medical" -- classic propaganda technique of bundling similar things to inflate the numbers. Kind of like "those who walk or bike to work" to argue for bike paths.

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

FORTY percent because of THIS policy? Where's the survey; and if you're going to a $40k law school, condoms or the pill aren't breaking the budget.

The married student can go to a womyn's clinic and get free contraception: this is DC. And what's her husband do? If you can't even afford contraception, you won't be able to afford an abortion OR a child should it fail. It is not my responsibility to indemnify you against the consequences of YOUR poor life choices.

(And do we have to guarantee $75,000/year jobs for life for these womyn after they get out of Georgetown Law with a specialization in Butch Studies and can't get a REAL job?)

And a womyn in a low wage job "without contraception coverage" ? Refrain from sex: it's not MY job to pay for your boyfriend's thrills.

Cheers!

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.