Posted on 03/05/2012 10:38:29 AM PST by Scoutmaster
Her voluntary appearance with the specific intention of influencing public policy would I believe, qualify her as a public figure.
What’s the point of this thread? Is this like the third or fourth time you’ve posted this “analysis”?
bingo, and the appology essentially immunizes him from any litigation.
It also opens her entire life, not just this episode.
Also, it makes every democrat, phone record subject to discovery.
It also makes her school transcript history (ALL of it) subject to discovery.
Yeah? The blowhard Ms. Fluke didn't say it cost all women on the pill $1,000. She said the pill without insurance "can cost" over $1,000 per year (over $3,000 in three years).
That's a true statement, not Bravo Sierra. It's carefully written to shock, but it's true, isn't it?
And because Ms. Fluke's presentation was about women who allegedly needed the pill for specific medical conditions, I don't know that generic birth control pills work for the conditions she named.
Isn't it true that birth control pills can cost over $1,000 per year without a prescription if you have to have specific ones for a medical condition?
That's why this activist was asked to speak to Congress. To bring up this statistical outlier situations and present them as a crisis.
It would also be a vehicle to expose all her ties to the feminazi underground, which is how she was asked to testify in the first place. It would not be a good idea on her part to sue, she and the leftists are better off making as much hay as they can and then moving on to the next effort to destroy America.
Rush was discussing her testimony, not her personal life. He then asked the logical question about her testimony.
Fluke never specifically said who she was referring to. She was very dishonest about that. No one had authorized her to speak on their behalf. No other women were identified. Fluke said $3000 for contraception was as much as she herself made in one summer. She said women at Georgetown are suffering because they can not afford contraception. She did not specifically include or exclude herself from the women she said she was talking about.
Rush was commenting on her testimony, not the personal life of this 30 year old law student. The MSM coverage avoids all the specifics of Fluke’s testimony.
The point is Fluke’s testimony was dishonest and probably perjury. Rush commented on her testimony and it was taken out of context.
I want to be certain I have the facts straight. Can you tell me when and where she said that?
In her statement to Congress, she refers several times to doctors prescribing contraceptives for medical conditions - but insurers refusing to pay for them.
Fluke made several statements that were either falsehoods or mistakes.
Jury,,,,,Nullification
The problem with this is that the insurance at Georgetown does cover birth control pills for PCOS. Ms. Fluke stated that the policy says it covers bc for PCOS. She said that her friend said the insurance company refused to cover the pills because the insurance company claimed the pills were desired for birth control rather than PCOS treatment. Fluke claimed the friend is a lesbian. Fluke claimed that the friend purchased the pills herself until she could no longer afford them and ended up with a ruptured ovarian cyst that caused the loss of an ovary. The friend may want to have children one day and her chances are now greatly reduced. Actually, PCOS patients already are at a disadvantage when it comes to having babies. Their hormones are all messed up. Statistically, even with two ovaries, PCOS patients are much less likely to carry a baby beyond the first trimester. The Pill is a treatment that helps regulate the out of whack hormones. An insurance company that denies a claim for a necessary medication had better have medical documentation to support the denial. If the lesbian friend were telling the truth, she should be suing the mess out of the insurance company. If the friend is lying, that is another matter altogether. Alas, we do not know who the friend of Ms. Fluck is, so we don’t know if she made the story up or not.
Actually, she didn't. She didn't testify before Congress, at all. She couldn't get approved to testify before the Congressional Committee, so the Democrats set up a meeting later which was organized to look like a hearing, but wasn't and which provided a forum for her to give her statement with all of it's misstatements and red herrings.
“She co-founded the New York Statewide Coalition for Fair Access to Family Court, which successfully advocated for legislation granting access to civil orders of protection for unmarried victims of domestic violence, including LGBTQ victims and teens. Fluke was also a member of the Manhattan Borough President’s Taskforce on Domestic Violence and numerous other New York City and New York State coalitions that successfully advocated for policy improvements impacting victims of domestic violence.”
Leadership of such groups clearly makes her a public figure. And why are you so hot to carry the flag for her? You seem to believe that leaders in such advocacy groups, who testify in front of committees can walk around immune from response. Thats BS. And Rush was attacking her DIRECTLY on her testimany. Rush will be fine.
Her testimony was not under oath because it was not a real Congressional hearing. It was a “Mock” hearing staged by Pelosi.
There are many layers in an onion and peeling them all away would brings a lot of tears for the rats.
bookmark
No, it does not. I do not think you understand what the term 'public figure' means in U.S. v. Sullivan. A person must 'pervasively' be in the press and public to be a public figure. The fact that you and I know who this Fluke lady is today is . . . a fluke. She wasn't a public figure. Please stop playing lawyer.
For purposes of Suillivan, there is a category called a 'limited public figure." Have you performed the "particularized determination" required by the U.S. Supreme Court to see if Fluke's a limited public figure?
And why are you so hot to carry the flag for her?
I'm not carrying the flag for her. I think conservatives should stand for what is right. When Rush Limbaugh makes up a bunch of stuff and claims somebody said it in front of congress, and then calls her a slut based on what he falsely claims she said, that's wrong. Even though Rush Limbaugh is conservative.
It's wrong even though Rush Limbaugh is conservative.
Even though Rush Limbaugh is conservative.
And it's wrong that people keep repeating lies on FR about what she 'said.'
When we reach the point that there is no right and wrong - and that if a conservative does it, it's right no matter what . . . count me out.
Fluke may have made up the stories of all six women.
But Rush didn't talk about whether the stories of he six women were true. People on FR, except for a few people like you who paid attention, aren't interested in whether the medical stories are true.
Rush made up all of this stuff about Fluke's personal sex life and use of contraceptives. As did people on FR. And they're still doing it. I'm reading posts about how Fluke testified about the percentage of women at Georgetown who listed sex as a preferred recreational activity. You know, evidence that they are sluts.
Now, it doesn't matter that none of that is the truth. Instead of being interested in the truth, which is what I thought conservatives did (well, until all of the "Gibson Guitars' CEO is a Republican" posts), people just want to attack the lefty blowhard Sandra Fluke and are willing to make up any slander they can to demean her.
Just as if we were a bunch of . . . liberals.
The entire testimony is ridiculous.
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/page/271051_Full_Transcript_of_Sandra_FlukThe entire testimony is ridiculous.
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.