Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: All
Sandra Fluke: Birth Control is Just Like a Blood Transfusion...or Something
Townhall ^ | Katie Pavlich / FR Posted November 27, 2013 by Morgana

Infamous former Georgetown Law student and now social justice attorney Sandra Fluke is back in the news thanks to the Supreme Court agreeing to take up a case surrounding the employer contraception mandate in Obamacare.

In case you need a reminder, Fluke is the woman who testified before Congress in 2012 about how birth control should be paid for by someone else because it can cost a female student "$3,000 during law school."

Last night on MSNBC, Fluke argued that employers cannot be exempted from the contraception mandate in Obamacare because that would mean they could also opt. out of paying for insurance that covers blood transfusions.

This isn't the first time Fluke has compared contraception to life saving medical procedures that have nothing to do with religious beliefs. She once said that companies opposing the contraception mandate in Obamacare on religious grounds is the same thing as opposing Leukemia coverage.

VIDEO http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHYFmrkUvzQ&feature=player_embedded

============================================

PHONY AS A THREE DOLLAR BILL It was a laugh-a-thon b/c The Fluke obviously got a radical redo----wearing blush and lip gloss---and lots of jewelry---hoping to convince people she really slept w/ men (there were questions raised---cackle).

She was obviously coached by a public appearance specialist---nodding and smiling, looking left to right before she spoke.

This was a dramatic change from her past public appearances---drab-looking with no makeup--dressed like a schoolmarm---terror-stricken before the mic.

I hear she had a friend taking down names of sex-starved guys storming the station---dying to get her in the sack.

ROTFLOL.

17 posted on 01/04/2014 10:30:24 AM PST by Liz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Liz
Last night on MSNBC, Fluke argued that employers cannot be exempted from the contraception mandate in Obamacare because that would mean they could also opt. out of paying for insurance that covers blood transfusions.

This isn't the first time Fluke has compared contraception to life saving medical procedures that have nothing to do with religious beliefs.

I believe Christian Scientists object to blood transfusions on religious grounds.

18 posted on 01/04/2014 10:37:18 AM PST by okie01 (The Mainstream Media -- IGNORANCE ON PARADE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies ]

To: Liz

Obama vs. the Little Sisters

NRO January 7, 2014

http://www.nationalreview.com/node/367712/print

By the bizarre logic of the White House, the nuns are part of the “war on women.”

By Rich Lowry

It takes some doing to get embroiled in a court fight with nuns who provide hospice care for the indigent. Amazingly, the Obama administration has managed it.

Its legal battle with the Little Sisters of the Poor is the logical consequence of Obamacare’s conscience-trampling contraception mandate. The requirement went into effect January 1, but Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued a New Year’s Eve injunction against enforcing it on the Little Sisters.

They are Catholic nuns who follow the doctrinal teachings of the church and therefore oppose contraceptive and abortive drugs and sterilization, all of which Obamacare mandates that employers cover in their insurance plans.

Given the ongoing delays, waivers, and exemptions associated with the law, it would seem natural simply to let the Little Sisters go about their business of pouring out their hearts for the sick and dying.

But this is a fight the administration won’t walk away from. For this White House, it is a matter of principle. And the principle is that the state trumps the convictions of people with deep-held religious beliefs.

When the contraception mandate first caused an uproar, the administration contrived a so-called accommodation for religiously oriented groups (actual churches have always been exempt). But whoever crafted it had a sick sense of humor. The very same document by which a group registers its moral objection to contraceptives and abortifacients also authorizes the insurer to cover them for the group’s employees. What the accommodation gives with one hand, it takes away with the other.

The Little Sisters refuse to sign such a document. They happen to be in an unusual situation because they get their insurance from another religiously affiliated organization opposed to contraceptives and abortifacients, so it may be that these drugs don’t get covered no matter what. But the Little Sisters can’t be sure of this — the regulations are complicated and subject to change.

Regardless, they don’t want to sign. They want no part in authorizing coverage of contraceptive or abortive drugs. Enthusiasts for the mandate scoff. What the nuns are objecting to, they insist, is just a piece of paper.

Just a piece of paper? So is a mortgage. So is a wedding certificate. So is a will. How would the board of directors of NARAL react if the government forced them to sign a “piece of paper” tacitly condemning contraception or abortion? Would they shrug it off as a mere formality?

The Little Sisters deserve deference. Their religious sensibility is different from — and, one hazards to say, more finely tuned than — that of the mandarins of President Barack Obama’s administrative state. In a dispute over what their conscience tells them to do or not to do, the Little Sisters are better positioned to know than anyone else.

Besides, who is harmed if the Little Sisters don’t provide contraception coverage? They are a voluntary organization. They aren’t imposing their views on anyone. Who, for that matter, is harmed if a secular organization run by people with moral objections to contraceptives and abortifacients refuses to cover them? Employees are still free to go out on their own and get contraceptives, which are widely available. If this sounds like an outlandish imposition, it is what people managed to do throughout American history all the way up to last week.

The contraception mandate has always had a strong ideological impetus. Opponents of the mandate “want to roll back the last 50 years in progress women have made in comprehensive health care in America,” Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius notoriously declared in 2011. “We’ve come a long way in women’s health over the last few decades, but we are in a war.” By this bizarre way of thinking, a small congregation of nuns that cares for the most vulnerable is somehow complicit in a war on women’s health.

Instead of respecting the moral views of the Little Sisters, the administration hopes to grind them under foot by force of law. For shame.


22 posted on 01/07/2014 6:26:11 PM PST by Dqban22 (Oaqrt 1))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson