Skip to comments.Sandra Fluke on MSNBC Ed Schultz Show defending Obamacare before Rush's comments
Posted on 03/09/2012 8:16:15 AM PST by sickoflibs
SCHULTZ: Joining me tonight is Sandra Fluke , the woman Congressman Darrell Issa rejected as a witness today. Ms. Fluke is a law student at Georgetown University . Great to have you with us tonight, Sandra . Now, I understand that you already planned your testimony. You were going to cite examples of people who could have benefited from President Obama ‘s mandate for birth control coverage. Share with us what you would have told that committee today.
SANDRA FLUKE, GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY LAW STUDENT: That is what I was there to speak to the committee about. That's why I was so stunned when Chairman Issa made the decision to not allow me to speak on behalf of those women and to say that I was not an appropriate witness, that those women ‘s stories were not appropriate for this committee . I cannot think of who would be more appropriate for the committee to hear from than the women affected by this policies whose lives were affected. One of the women I wanted to talk about today is a close friend of mine.
But unfortunately when university administrators and employers and insurance companies get involved in deciding whose health needs are legitimate and whose aren't, what happens is that women ‘s health needs take a back seat to that type of ideology.
Full Video at : Feb 16, 2012 Schultz/Fluke interview
Full Transcript is below the video at the above link
(Excerpt) Read more at video.msnbc.msn.com ...
Here's more from her on Obama-care from that interview:
"We have been following these regulations ever since the Affordable Care Act was passed. And it's a fight we've been having for years, literally decades students have been struggling for this. So, this makes such an incredible difference in our lives, in the lives of so many women . And so, when we hear the regulations announced, when we hear updates on this situation, these policies, there is such jubilation, celebration on campus. People are so excited. They know I'm involved in this issue and they come and ask me questions about it and they are so excited about it. And they are so grateful -- "
She’s become a laughing stock - setting women back at least 40 years.
I just posted this to put to bed the claims made here by some that Fluke can sue Rush as a private figure.
If Fluke is a private figure, then so is Palin.
I guess she wasn’t offended by Ed’s ‘Laura Ingram is a slut’ comment, less than a year ago.
“there is such jubilation, celebration on campus. People are so excited”
‘Comrades!’ cried an eager youthful voice. ‘Attention, comrades! We have glorious news for you. All over Amerika this morning there were irrepressible spontaneous demonstrations when workers marched out of factories and offices and paraded through the streets with banners voicing their gratitude to Big Bro’ for the new, happy life which his wise leadership has bestowed upon us!
Said Miss Fluke, on one of her larks:
“Sex is more fun in bed than in parks;
..You feel more at ease
..Your ass doesn’t freeze,
And passers-by don’t make remarks.”
Pelosi knew of this wretch probably from seeing her on TV
msnbc? Didn’t know people still watch that station.
What do you call a women who sleeps with numerous men and sells herself to the higest bidder.
Whatever name you choose her real name is Sandra Fluke the clueless moron.
I can see it now, SON “Mom I want to meet the woman I want to marry.
Mother, “You mean the tramp who says that she has sleep with so many men she can’t afford birth control protection without the government assisting her? Boy you can really pick the cream of the crop.”
the woman Congressman Darrell Issa rejected as a witness today.
Seems to me Ed the red, left out an important point. What’s new there?
Miss 30 year old law student was a last minute witness change.
..and so, with no time to vet, she was rejected.
So, she made herself a public figure, several times over. So if she is not a common slut (doubtful) then she certainly is a political slut of easy political virtue.
What made me suspicious about this woman was this....
“anonymous friend who had suffered an ovarian cyst because she could not obtain the birth control pill from the Catholic university she attended”
I would say about 99% of the time, ovarian cysts are estrogen driven meaning....too much floating around and causing cysts......so using birth control made up of estrogen and a bit of progesterone....would have been something any KNOWLEDGEABLE MD would have said....um...no way should you be on it... (Although there are a few dumb asses out there that would have prescribed it......and then the woman would have ended up with a coujple operations before they ended up taking
all the works out. Have seen this more than enough times) Plus birth control heavily depletes folic acid...which helps make a baby....and consequently...get rid of extra estrogen....so you can see the issue here....
“In the middle of February, the House Oversight Committee held a hearing to hear expert testimony on Presidents Obama’s decision to force religious institutions to fund contraception for their employees. The hearing had actual experts on both sides of the issue but the meeting was about the Constitutional issue of freedom of religion, not so-called “reproductive rights”. Ms. Fluke’s inclusion as a speaker was denied because she was neither an expert on the Constitution, interested in religious freedom, nor is she an actual expert on the medical use of contraception. She was merely a left-wing activist with no pertinent expertise.” - Warner Houston March 3, 2012
It has became the Activism channel for libs since Republicans took the House. They report and cheer lead all the Dem protests, marches, walkouts, boycotts and support and defend Obama 100%.
I watch it regularly because I found that Republicans regularly don't know what Dems are really up to, yet think they do.
Just think of all the things Fluke and a crack ho have in common???? Except the crack ho will admit what she is doing.
These liberals are hypocritically, insanely stupid! It's like, "Well if America was dumb enough to elect Obama then..."
So, all this over Rush's comments and she won't accepts his apology, but yet doubles down on Schultz?
I think this is going to come back on liberals big time in the worst way!
That is the thing that makes going to work worthwhile, knowing that the jackasses in D.C. are spending my money wisely and are not just frittering it away on stupid and useless nonsense.
It is hard to imagine what America has become. A congress full of greedy worthless fools, and a population with the average IQ of a bovine. Oh well..C'est la vie...I guess
You know, if she’s going to offer herself up as a public figure, you would think she would have had the awareness to change her name first.
Heard Megyn Kelly’s (she’s a lawyer on FOX news) comments yesterday. Ms. Kelly says lawyers graduating from Georgetown makes as a starting salary $160,000 per year.
So that puts Ms. Fluke in the 1 percent!
Now, this 1 percenter wants the 99 percenters to pay for birth control?
We need to make a point of this.
Interesting comments. And of course Ms. Fluke trots out a story that is seemingly a genuine medical need, that the evil Catholic university and the insurance company simply ignored. Even if it’s legit to take birth control for stuff like endometriosis (sp?) I wonder what percentage of women on birth control use it for that reason (according to my wife it’s likely a small percentage).
I am not defending Rush using that word, he even admitted that it was in poor taste to use it and it made him look like Bill Marr.
My point is that she is not just some civic minded citizen who was forced into this political PUBLIC battle by Rush. Going on MSNBC with Ed Schultz to fight this battle shows her to be a political warrior public figure who cannot sue Rush as a private figure,.
What is your point? That she would sue as a private figure by pointing out that Schultzes ratings are not that great? She clearly went on the show to get the public to watch and believe her.
Is it just me, or does Ed Shultz look amazingly like Nikita Kruschev...???
Havin' a laugh at the expense of Ed and his dozens of viewers/family members?
He and Al Sharpton have the outraged act perfected.
“but yet doubles down on Schultz? “
My understanding of the article is she went on Ed’s show first. No double down. Instead, by going on Ed’s show, she sent the signal that the slut word didn’t seem to bother her.
I want an investigation to see if she is a woman. She looks a hell of alot like Maddow.
This is what happened....Somewhere, sometime in the past, Russian scientists took sperm samples from Kruschev...probably while he was passed out in a drunken, vodka-soaked coma...they secreted those li’l spermatozoas away until a future date when they could find a suitable donor to inject to create the NEW Komrade...
I’m almost certain this happened...it just so happens that a baboon in the Moscow zoo was bending over at EXACTLY the wrong time, one of the scientists was walking past, and of course HE was drunk too, and well...you see the results in the picture...
Well, IT could have happened...
Look at that — with Special Ed.
This interview is where I first saw her (Live) on MSNBC and I even posted a comment referencing it here.
I remember how she said that her college friends are joyous because they see free BC from obama-care as another Christmas day every-day. She said it’s their #1 issue, free BC.
How about her gay friends?
Absolutely correct. Her public statements and the public venue in which they were made does not allow her to claim the title of maligned private citizen.
I would think that if anyone wanted to sue her it would be the women of Georgetown U. since she has pretty much pinned a tag on them that reads “Georgetown Girls Are Easy”.
The real committee hearings - the ones that rejected her testifying - because she's NOT an expert on Church/State issues - probably didn't know that she also knew NOTHING about birth control.
Anyone who thinks it costs a thousand dollars a year for birth control is soooooo out of touch they might as well be walking around asking conservatives 'what they're afraid of'.
I'd like to know if her daddy has been footing the bill for her going to school the last 25 years. ( I assume she stated school at 5 ) and that that's why she's so clueless about what things cost. Maybe she thinks the average family spends $2,000 a week on groceries. I assume daddy pays for her apartment and puts money in her account for food...
Thank heavens she has that liberal attitude. Without that the MSM might not be able to buy her bullshit.
You should be aware of two tricky little catches in the law (and remember that she's a 'limited public figure').
You look at somebody at a point in time. If she brought a defamation lawsuit against Rush Limbaugh, then it wouldn't matter at all what her status is now. What would matter is what her status was at the precise moment Rush made his first allegedly defamatory comment.
The second is that Rush isn't given 'credit' for any of the fame she has as a result of his comments. If you've watched enough crime shows on TV, then you've heard the expression 'fruit of the poisonous tree.'
Rush would not be allowed to say she was a public figure based on any of the attention he drew to her by his comments, or by the attention that came from the liberal reaction to his comments. That's the law; it's not something I made up.
She gets to start with a clean slate.
I think she was a limited public figure for purposes of the topic of women's contraceptive rights the moment she testifies, under something called the Gertz test - and she may have been a limited public figure since she got media attention for protesting a pro-choice display at Cornell.
But none of this after-the-fact attention counts at all under the law, when it comes to considering whether she was a limited public figure when Rush spoke about her.
Caveat: I am by no means a legal expert.
Your comment makes sense, but this interview was on Feb. 16. (before Rush's comments AFAIK). A timeline would help, but then isn't it true that a court would have to decide to what extent this interview made her a "public figure?" I think that judgment would involve a generous degree of opinion. Yes, facts matter too, but I don't think there is an exact mathematical measure of how much of a public figure she was before Rush made the S-word comment.
OK, putting on my political hat now. I will repeat the suggestion that Fluke, acting as the agent of deep-pocketed Leftist entities, could file a lawsuit even if she knew that she would almost certainly lose in court, with the following goals:
1) Try to gain public sympathy, especially if private investigators investigated her private life (needless to say, we know which side the MSM would take). Obama could make public statements, while working behind the scenes to "encourage" feminists, disguised as salt-of-the-earth mothers and daughters, to organize rallies.
2) Go for an out-of-court settlement. Try to make the legal proceedings as expensive as possible for Rush, both to make him settle, and to hurt him financially.
One of the reasons I dug up this February 16 interview and posted it today is because Sm was making that exact same argument to me a few days ago. But at the time I remembered seeing this interview and specifically that it was made before Rush's comments, and even before Pelosi’s make believe hearing,
Her purpose for this interview as a activist was to gain the public's attention and to change the mind's of the viewing public,
This interview kills your case councilor.
And if Fluke sued him, Rush's lawyers would make that argument. But I don't know if that TV appearance, plus her appearance with congressional Dems, constitutes ironclad proof that she was legally some kind of "public figure." Before the Rush comments, I'll bet that nobody even thought of doing a poll to find out what % of people knew who she was. Maybe Fluke's lawyers could do a poll asking people what it was that made them aware of her.
I don't know the answer. I think it would be a somewhat subjective judgment, like whether somebody suffered sufficient "mental anguish" to win a legal jackpot.
On another thread I posted that Sandra Fluke may have been a limited public figure for the purpose of women's reproductive rights ever since she was interviewed by a newspaper as treasurer of treasurer of Students Acting for Gender Equality (SAGE), during a protest of a pro-life display. That would have been pre-2003.
It's still the law that Rush Limbaugh has to deal with her status before he made a comment.
There's no place in my comment where I said her status before Rush's comment was a private figure.
I was addressing a comment that Fluke was now a public figure because of all that was going on - I said that didn't help Limbaugh. It doesn't. I said what mattered was her status when Rush first spoke, because that's the law.
I never said what her status was before Rush spoke; I'm just clearing up some blatant misinterpretations of the law.
Geez, in all of my posts, I've never said a positive word about the activist Fluke.
But if you want to be lawyers - have at it. I'm no longer part of this discussion. I tried.
She wont sue. See that's easy.
Saying she could sue and win is like saying Palin could have won as a POTUS candidate. She won't run/
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.