A look back to Sandra Flukes’ spoken testimony – Transcript included

I realize some people continue to take stabs at Sandra Fluke personally and it is their right to do so, but let’s stick with the testimony she gave. Fluke mentioned prescriptions used for contraception can and are used for other reasons. Jim Vicevich mentioned this many times on his show this week.

I’ve already linked to her testimony, but I’m including it in full at the bottom of this post for reference. Let’s first point out 14 percent of women, about one in seven, rely on contraception (the pill) exclusively for non-contraceptive purposes. You may think I selectively picked out that article to find a low number, but in reality I went to the same Guttmacher Institute quoted by Fluke in her testimony. As noted, Jim’s mentioned other medical uses on the air and did you know – according to Fluke’s own testimony – Georgetown’s student health insurance covers the use of contraception for these purposes?

Read that again.

With that noted, wouldn’t Fluke think that would be a good compromise? Not at all, she demands coverage for all with no strings attached, and uses a couple examples of students being denied coverage, and some being interrogated. There should be, and quite certainly are, appeal methods in place for these situations. There is no appeal for religious institutions and Catholic employers once the government mandates the coverage.

If the use of the pill for non-contraceptive purposes was the primary problem for Fluke, why did she use the the words contraceptive or contraception 12 times in her testimony? She used the term 11 times before she got to her first example of using contraception for other purposes.

There is an obvious solution to this issue, an issue that has been exclusively caused by President Obama’s health insurance mandates, and legislation that required we pass it before we found out what’s in it. Get the federal government out of the mandate business that has resulted in hundreds of waivers and excruciating First Amendment issues. Getting the federal government completely out of the health care business all together would even be better.

The problem, as they say, is then solved. A perfect, real compromise would allow families and individuals to select the health insurance plan that meets their needs. If their employer does not provide health care insurance or provide specific coverage (birth control) they want, they are welcome to purchase a supplemental policy directly from an insurance company that provides the coverage they are looking for. Looking for birth control? Target offers Sprintec and Tri-Sprintec for $9 per month (28 days) without insurance. (Yes, I know there are “formulations” that may cost more.)

But that is not what Fluke, Obama and Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) want. They want mandated coverage for all, no matter what the reason, and paid for by someone else even though that coverage may diminish the rights of someone else.

True rights exist simultaneously between people, and exercising those rights can not diminish the rights of another. Read that last sentences again and commit it to memory. I’m working on a T-shirt since it won’t fit on a bumper sticker.

So there I proposed a compromise. I’ll still be called an idiot by some, and we have not even discussed the federal mandate to cover abortifacients which we won’t discuss here since Fluke never brought it up. Now let’s take a look at Flukes testimony, in full. In some areas I may add emphasis and comments.

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. My name 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.

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.

No, it does not. Even though the non-compromise compromise was announced, it was not written into the federal regulations that were published after Obama’s announcement. People keep claiming it’s in place, and that’s a total lie.

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.

On a daily basis she hears these tragic stories? I highly doubt it. But then she’s going out looking for these stories and this cause takes a significant number of her waking hours. She may be hearing daily stories, but my guess is they are from the same few women every other day.

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.

As noted before, if they really tried I’m sure they could spend more than $3,000, but why mention the absolute worst case senario you could find when a simple visit to Target’s website shows Sprintec and Tri-Sprintec for $9 per month (28 days) without insurance?

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?

She pays no attention to the true rights of other people and religious groups. She’s demanding other people – who may have a religious reason not to pay for someone’s contraception – pay for it.

On a side note, Obama wrote a letter to the Afghan president including an apology, and apparently promised disciplinary action, concerning the inadvertent burning of Qurans. Where is the letter of appology to the Catholics? Why does Obama treat radical Islamic fundamentalists with more reverence than American Catholics?

These denials of contraceptive coverage impact real people. 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. Her prescription is technically covered by Georgetown insurance because it’s not intended to prevent pregnancy.

That’s right, her prescription is covered by Georgetown since its use is not to prevent pregnancy, but to treat polycystic ovarian syndrome.

Under many religious institutions’ insurance plans, it wouldn’t be, and 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.

It’s simple Ms. Fluke, get the federal government out of the health care mandate business and you’ll be able to purchase a policy meeting your requirements. When the president mandates stuff, you’re going to get push-back and more legislation that may well make it even more difficult for you to find the coverage you need.

No more comments from me since everything else is covered at the beginning of my post.

In sixty-five percent of cases, our female students were interrogated by insurance representatives and university medical staff about why they needed these prescriptions and whether they were lying about their symptoms. For my friend, and 20% of women in her situation, she never got the insurance company to cover her prescription, despite verification of her illness from her doctor. Her claim was denied repeatedly on the assumption that she really wanted the birth control to prevent pregnancy. She’s gay, so clearly polycystic ovarian syndrome was a much more urgent concern than accidental pregnancy. After months of paying over $100 out of pocket, she just couldn’t afford her medication anymore and had to stop taking it. I learned about all of this when I walked out of a test and got a message from her that in the middle of her final exam period she’d been in the emergency room all night in excruciating pain. She wrote, “It was so painful, I woke up thinking I’d been shot.” Without her taking the birth control, a massive cyst the size of a tennis ball had grown on her ovary. She had to have surgery to remove her entire ovary. On the morning I was originally scheduled to give this testimony, she sat in a doctor’s office. Since last year’s surgery, she’s been experiencing night sweats, weight gain, and other symptoms of early menopause as a result of the removal of her ovary. She’s 32 years old. As she put it: “If my body indeed does enter early menopause, no fertility specialist in the world will be able to help me have my own children. I will have no chance at giving my mother her desperately desired grandbabies, simply because the insurance policy that I paid for totally unsubsidized by my school wouldn’t cover my prescription for birth control when I needed it.” Now, in addition to potentially facing the health complications that come with having menopause at an early age– increased risk of cancer, heart disease, and osteoporosis, she may never be able to conceive a child.

Perhaps you think my friend’s tragic story is rare. It’s not. One woman told us doctors believe she has endometriosis, but it can’t be proven without surgery, so the insurance hasn’t been willing to cover her medication. Recently, another friend of mine told me that she also has polycystic ovarian syndrome. She’s struggling to pay for her medication and is terrified to not have access to it. Due to the barriers erected by Georgetown’s policy, she hasn’t been reimbursed for her medication since last August. I sincerely pray that we don’t have to wait until she loses an ovary or is diagnosed with cancer before her needs and the needs of all of these women are taken seriously.

This is the message that not requiring coverage of contraception sends. A woman’s reproductive healthcare isn’t a necessity, isn’t a priority. One student told us that she knew birth control wasn’t covered, and she assumed that’s how Georgetown’s insurance handled all of women’s sexual healthcare, so when she was raped, she didn’t go to the doctor even to be examined or tested for sexually transmitted infections because she thought insurance wasn’t going to cover something like that, something that was related to a woman’s reproductive health. As one student put it, “this policy communicates to female students that our school doesn’t understand our needs.” These are not feelings that male fellow students experience. And they’re not burdens that male students must shoulder.

In the media lately, conservative Catholic organizations have been asking: what did we expect when we enrolled at a Catholic school? We can only answer that we expected women to be treated equally, to not have our school create untenable burdens that impede our academic success. We expected that our schools would live up to the Jesuit creed of cura personalis, to care for the whole person, by meeting all of our medical needs. We expected that when we told our universities of the problems this policy created for students, they would help us. We expected that when 94% of students opposed the policy, the university would respect our choices regarding insurance students pay for completely unsubsidized by the university. We did not expect that women would be told in the national media that if we wanted comprehensive insurance that met our needs, not just those of men, we should have gone to school elsewhere, even if that meant a less prestigious university. We refuse to pick between a quality education and our health, and weresent that, in the 21 st century, anyone thinks it’s acceptable to ask us to make this choice simply because we are women.

Many of the women whose stories I’ve shared are Catholic women, so ours is not a war against the church. It is a struggle for access to the healthcare we need. The President of the Association of Jesuit Colleges has shared that Jesuit colleges and universities appreciate the modification to the rule announced last week. Religious concerns are addressed and women get the healthcare they need. That is something we can all agree on. Thank you.

Posted in ,

Steve McGough

Steve's a part-time conservative blogger. Steve grew up in Connecticut and has lived in Washington, D.C. and the Bahamas. He resides in Connecticut, where he’s comfortable six months of the year.


  1. joe_m on March 4, 2012 at 10:18 am

    Didn’t she choose to go to Georgetown, a Catholic university? Guess she did not do her homework regarding campus life and university policy.

    If contraceptive pills was such a big concern, maybe she should have gone to school somewhere else.

    See, I’m pro-choice.

    • justmeinla on March 6, 2012 at 11:40 pm

      omg she is a moron. ?her whole testimony looks like b.s. ?her numbers make no sense. then ?look at the story of her “friend”, the gay 32 yr old law student who doesn’t have $100/mth to pay for the ?prescription that you can get for $9/mth at Target, and she texted Fluke (aptly named) a message (probably on her IPhone 4 w/ unlimited data), and ALL because the Catholic University didnt change their 2000 yr old positions to accomodate HER. ?What a crock. ?The sad thing is I’m sure Congress will eat it up as they are even dumber.

    • Steve M on March 7, 2012 at 9:01 am

      From someone who attended THE Catholic University for a couple of years, I want to point out Georgetown might be “a” Catholic university, but there is only one THE Catholic University of America. (Go Cards) 😉

  2. liz2012 on March 4, 2012 at 10:48 am

    This woman is quite ignorant of the basic issue at hand which is the violation of First Amendment rights.? Furthermore, aside from the 14% of women who are using birth control pills to treat medical conditions, the rest of the women should pay for their own preventative care – just like everyone else does.? For example, my Dad had a mild heart attack last year and he has recovered beautifully but not without preventative care that HIS INSURANCE DOES NOT COVER.? For example, he needs to take an aspirin a day which is an inexpensive OTC medication and he also needs to buy healthy foods – which tend to be more costly.? His insurance is not picking up the tab for his preventative care.? Nevertheless, this issue should be presented in the media for what it is — an attack on religious freedom.? As Father Jonathan Morris asked on FOX News this morning: Would Jewish people look favorably upon a mandate that would require them to work on the Sabbath?? This issue is really beyond simple and yet it is becoming so convoluted.?? I believe this is a strategy devised by the left and it appears to be working.? Instead of talking about First Amendment rights, everyone is talking about sex, birth control and Rush’s insensitive comments.? As I…

    • FloridaLiberal on March 6, 2012 at 2:47 am

      Actually she is very aware of the basic issue of freedom at stake in this case.? It is our freedom to determine our own health care in private consultation with our health care practitioners without external influence from the government, the church or our employers.?

      I don’ t want my boss knowing what goes on in the privacy of my doctor’s examination room.? That is nobody’s business but my own.? And if my doctor prescribes something my boss thinks is sinful, that is too bad.? It is none of his business.?

      I do not understand why Republicans always take the side of institutions and corporations against the rights of individual people.

    • crystal4 on March 6, 2012 at 5:28 am

      Was proscribed them when I was very young for medical reasons and had adverse reaction to many…MD kept switching me.

    • Steve M on March 6, 2012 at 8:18 am

      Yeah right. But screw the rights of the Catholic employer, their rights don’t count as much as your rights … that’s what you’re saying. I offered a true compromise in this post, one that is valid and will work. You offer nothing except the demand for Catholics to provide anything you and the doctor demand. That won’t get you far and it will be lose lose for everyone.

    • Dimsdale on March 6, 2012 at 10:08 am

      I don’t agree, Florida.? She is completely free to purchase all the contraceptives she likes, and her doctor is free to prescribe as many as he/she likes.? What is in question is whether a church has to pay for it in violation of its basic tenets and the rights guaranteed in the Constitution.
      And why do you think that the government knowing all of your private business will be any better than a corporation.? A corporation can’t arbitrarily raise your taxes to pay for its programs, and it can’t legally collude with other insurers or other institutions to either gain or share that knowledge as the government can and does.
      I don’t know why Democrats always take the side of government over individuals.

    • Alwaysthesameexcuse on March 6, 2012 at 5:58 pm

      We have a policy called Seperation of Church and State. No one’s personal beliefs belong in government; not mine, not yours. By allowing women acess to conterceptives the government saves money that they would have spend through medicare on painful and dangerous procedures. It saves lives. This isn’t about sex, it’s about healthcare.

    • Steve M on March 6, 2012 at 7:26 pm

      Again, nobody is restricting access to contraception for women. That premise is completely FALSE. It’s just that the Catholic church and many Catholic employers do not want to pay for access. Liberals and unions use the same reasoning when it comes to a family who wants to send their kids to a Catholic school. You “say” you’re not restricting access and they can pay for it themselves. Liberals want it both friggin’ ways. Total hypocrites.

    • ecgberht on March 9, 2012 at 2:53 pm

      FloridaLiberal said, “It is our freedom to determine our own health care in private consultation with our health care practitioners without external influence from the government, the church or our employers.?” you just want somebody else to PAY for your freedom, florida!? There NOTHING preventing you from “determining your own health care” today!

  3. liz2012 on March 4, 2012 at 10:55 am

    continued… (sorry so long)…As I mentioned in a tweet this weekend, Rush fell right into the liberal media trap.? I think the only reasonable solution to this media hype, is to speak to everyone you know about what it is that is actually going on.? As a social worker, mostly all of my colleagues are liberal but they can certainly respect the importance of personal and religious freedom as it is one of the basic principles of our professional ethics.

    • GdavidH on March 4, 2012 at 11:37 am

      Rush did not fall into the liberal media trap. His advertisers did.

      I?regret that he was forced to apologize for being entertaining while making a point.?

    • paol66 on March 5, 2012 at 1:46 pm

      You are so pathetic that you find his comments emtertaining.

    • GdavidH on March 5, 2012 at 5:09 pm

      I’m guessing paol66 is a fan of Bill Maher, or Ed Shultz.

  4. RoBrDona on March 4, 2012 at 10:57 am

    Thank you Steve. This is what I have been talking about. Sex and the pill are just another?Trojan horse example of smoke and mirrors?used by the D’s to trample on our 1st Amendment rights.

  5. Steve M on March 4, 2012 at 11:39 am

    Let’s leave Limbaugh’s comments completely out of this particular post shall we? I never mentioned him in this one so let’s stick to the topic.

    • liz2012 on March 4, 2012 at 11:54 am

      Sorry Steve…I only mentioned Rush to underscore the fact that people’s attention is being diverted away from the real issue at hand.? I certainly did not intend to incite more comments about Rush.?

  6. Dimsdale on March 4, 2012 at 12:27 pm

    This is precisely what I have been bringing up in the other posts on this topic.
    As in the case of illegal and legal immigration, where liberals try to merge and obscure the terms into a generic “immigration” issue, here, they are doing their level best, with the help of “useful idiots”, to merge and obscure the difference between reproductive health care and contraception.
    Add to that, with the help of unnamed talk show hosts, they circle the wagons around the pejorative terms of “slut” and “prostitute” to further deflect from the real issue, which is the conscience clause provision of legislation, which is an offshoot of the religious clauses of the First Amendment.
    Long term, if this is successful, this will set precedent to make public funding for abortions subject to the same legal end run.

    • Dimsdale on March 4, 2012 at 12:28 pm

      Excuse me, I meant “illegal end run” (around the Constitution).

    • Steve M on March 4, 2012 at 12:31 pm

      They do the same thing claiming the Catholic church is against stem cell research which is a total lie. They are in support of stem cell research, but draw the line at embryonic stem cell research.

    • GdavidH on March 4, 2012 at 4:14 pm

      They do the same thing with everything, and always to their agenda. Dimsdale’s point immediately reminded me of Clinton’s impeachment and how the dems rebranded the whole thing as being about infidelity instead of the crime of lying under oath.

      And the media always runs with it.?

  7. Lynn on March 4, 2012 at 5:38 pm

    As a former health insurance agent, I know healthcare reform is a necessity. Obamacare is Not a viable solution. I support Steve’s statement that the major flaw is the mandates. If the reform is done properly, there would be NO need for waivers.? Selecting? and purchasing a policy in a free? competitive market, that meets the personal needs of an individual and a family is the key to reform. Supplemental policies for specific health needs can contain costs. Think of life insurance policies where supplemental riders can be added for specific needs at a specified cost. Right on, Steve

  8. Lynn on March 4, 2012 at 5:50 pm

    Now, as for your quote for the T-shirt, it is way too long. There is not enough room to put all those words on a shirt for a short person. Are you discriminating against short people? P.S? It would take me too long to comment on Ms. Fluke’s testimony so I allocate my time to another.?

  9. SoundOffSister on March 4, 2012 at 5:50 pm

    I can only hope that Ms. Fluke hasn’t taken Constitutional Law yet.? If she has, as Jim would say, “we’re doomed”.

    • Dimsdale on March 5, 2012 at 9:08 am

      Or worse, she is taught it by a “scholar” like ?bama…

  10. SeeingRed on March 5, 2012 at 7:55 am

    It is somewhat amusing to me (if not so sad)?that the Dems called this ‘hearing’ in the first place.? You’d think there?were no?other items on thier plates as they ‘tirelessly work’ to make the lives of average Joe-six-pack better through increased regulation(s).? But contraception?? And calling a 3L, from a CATHOLIC law school to testify as an expert witness (she was, afterall, a past president of? LSRJ,?and puports to have a uterus as well)?? What a sham.

    I find the entire?episode as?bizarre.? Talk about out of touch.

    • FloridaLiberal on March 6, 2012 at 2:42 am

      Republicans called the hearing and denied anyone other than male right wing members of the clergy to speak.? Ms. Fluke was denied her right to speak.? So the Democrats held a mock hearing so that some women could be heard.

    • Steve M on March 6, 2012 at 8:33 am

      Ahh yes, that lie. Forget the fact that during the SAME hearing – later that day – two women, Dr. Allison Garrett of Oklahoma Christian University and Dr. Laura Champion of Calvin College Health Services testified. I guess the liberals were not around since they walked out and missed it. This hearing was not about women’s health even though Pelosi et al. tried to make it so, it was about RELIGIOUS FREEDOM and not woman’s reproductive rights.

    • Dimsdale on March 6, 2012 at 10:10 am

      Yeah, the Democrats would turn off the speakers and cameras in the room if the tables were turned!

  11. JBS on March 5, 2012 at 9:50 am

    Another totally contrived situation brought to you by the DNC, NannyP, and the (Not Ready for Much) Capital Hill gang. I’m surprised HarryR didn’t get his mug into the fray. It’s truly sad that NannyP and the gang used Fluke as a useful tool. This was a “show”. Worse that Limbaugh called the spade. (Which proves that just because you can do something, it doesn’t make it the best thing to do.)
    I would like to know just how (much) the Democrats are paying Fluke?
    The worst travesty is that conservatives have yet again been sand-bagged by the Left.
    So Pelosi’s Ploy worked!

    • Dimsdale on March 5, 2012 at 10:37 am

      Too bad for Pelosi and ?bama that fuel prices are about to go through the roof, which will make all of this moot.

  12. charliefreak on March 5, 2012 at 11:37 am

    “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.”?

    So healthcare decisions should be up to each individual patient and their doctor, and not some bureaucracy?? Obama will not be happy to hear this blasphemy.? How did one of the shock troops manage to get off message on this principle?? I guess it is nothing that a few more years in school won’t fix.?

    Oh yeah, one more thing.? I have always been a proud Georgetown Law alum, but this is embarassing.

    • Lynn on March 6, 2012 at 8:25 am

      Right on TARGET. Great point!

  13. jwhebert on March 5, 2012 at 3:47 pm

    Birth control is not the only option to treat?polycystic ovarian syndrome. There are other methods that her friend could have looked into and still been covered with her insurance plan. ??http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/polycystic-ovary-syndrome/DS00423/DSECTION=treatments-and-drugs

    • FloridaLiberal on March 6, 2012 at 2:40 am

      I see, so do you think that it is OK for the church to get between a woman and her doctor??? Should Theology and not Medicine prescribe medications now.? Or should we leave medical prescriptions up to employers, the church or the government.? I thought Republicans were supposed to be against anyone getting between a person and their doctor.? Wasn’t that the argument against the Affordable Care Act?

    • Steve M on March 6, 2012 at 8:26 am

      I think it’s perfectly appropriate for an employer to make selections as to what they are willing to cover and not cover when THEY are paying all or a portion of the premiums. IT’S NOT A BLANK CHECK. What say you about my solution? You’ll probably ignore what I’ve proposed, but at the same time you’re advocating letting the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT get between you and your doctor – and their will be no recourse for ya. Good luck with that!

    • Dimsdale on March 6, 2012 at 10:12 am

      Actually, the government is getting between the church and its Constitutional rights.? As I noted above, the doc can prescribe anything he/she wants, but the church should not be forced to pay for it.? She can get any doctor she wants, and work anywhere she wants.

  14. rjw918 on March 5, 2012 at 6:54 pm

    >> ?Where is the letter of appology to the Catholics???

    Good point – I guess any time a politician doesn’t follow the Catholic church’s teaching, that politician (or group) should apologize.

    ? The Roman Catholic church has promoted extension of unemployment benefits as a matter of conscience.?
    ? The GOP has waged war against those extensions.
    ? The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) opposes “enforcement only” immigration policies and supports comprehensive immigration reform.?
    ? The GOP has waged war on immigrants and comprehensive immigration reform.
    ? The Iraq war, said papal confidant Cardinal Roberto Tucci, that was “beyond all legality and all international legitimacy.”?
    ? The GOP still defends that war
    ? The Catholic bishops in the United States have been calling for an end to the use of the death penalty for more than twenty-five years.
    ? The GOP still fights to preserve the death penalty.
    ? The RC Church supports the right of collective bargaining -?
    ? The GOP works to defeat that right.
    ? Pope Benedict…

    • Dimsdale on March 6, 2012 at 10:17 am

      That is a complete straw man.? This is not about politicians following church teaching; it is about the Democrats following the supreme law of the land: the Constitution.? The church, like anyone else, including the GOP, can have all the opinion it wants.? Nobody if forced to follow them.? The ?bama administration and the Democrats, on the other hand, apparently feel that it can defy law, precedent and the Constitution at will.

  15. Lynn on March 5, 2012 at 8:59 pm

    ?Rjw918, Is that a new planet in the Solar System? Cuz the comments are not of this world.

  16. TryingToThink on March 5, 2012 at 9:46 pm

    You lied about the cost at Target… I followed the link and it shows $4.

    • TryingToThink on March 5, 2012 at 9:52 pm

      OK “lied” is a little to strong. ?I should say, your information does not appear to be accurate.

    • FloridaLiberal on March 6, 2012 at 2:36 am

      “Lied” is too strong?? How about completely wrong.? I guess you can’t follow a chart.? The Target chart shows Sprintec for $9 a month, not $4.? It is in the second column.? But if you search on Tri-lo Sprintec you will find that at $79/ month.? If you search on contraceptive prices in general you will find that they can vary quite a bit.? The most current drugs cost closer to $100/month.? Many women have to try different meds before finding one that works for them.? So, the cost estimate Sandra Fluke gave is accurate.? And the analysis given above is extremely deceptive and misleading.

    • Dimsdale on March 6, 2012 at 10:28 am

      No, your cost “analysis” (and Fluke’s) assumes that all women require the expensive, apparently name brand, drugs.? I just checked the Target Pharmacy site (http://sites.target.com/site/en/spot/page.jsp?title=pharmacy_generic_drugs_condition , the link Steve provides above) and see that Tri Lo Sprintec (under “Women’s Health”) is listed as $9 for a 30 day supply.?? What are you reading?? And again, let’s make sure we are separating actual medical vs. contraceptive use.

    • Steve M on March 6, 2012 at 11:56 am

      My post is perfectly accurate, and with respect, your reading the chart wrong. The columns indicate pricing. Column 1 – 30 days at $4, Column 2 – 90 days at $10, Column 3 = 30 days at $9, and Column 4 – 90 days at $24.
      There are no $4 or $10 options for in the Women’s Health category. The numbers in the third and fourth column indicate the number of pills you get. Birth control comes in 28 pill packs, not 30. You pay $9 for a 28-day supply of Sprintec or Tri-Sprintec.
      I have no idea what FloridaLiberal is reading, but first, I never said anything about $4 per month, and there is NO REFERENCE at all to “Tri-lo Sprintec” on the chart.
      I can’t believe I’m taking the time to explain this…?

    • TryingToThink on March 6, 2012 at 9:35 pm

      Well boy aren’t I an idiot… Stupid columns. ?;-)

  17. ChicagoXile on March 6, 2012 at 12:14 am

    I’ve spent way too much time on this, but as I do, the dishonesty starts to become more apparent. There are two versions of her testimony. ABC has both versions, one at?http://abcn.ws/zAoqyn?and the other one at?http://abcn.ws/yLqXDR?.
    <span style="font-size: 12px;…

  18. ChicagoXile on March 6, 2012 at 12:21 am

    (2nd attempt)

    I’ve spent way too much time on this, but as I do, the dishonesty starts to become more apparent. There are two versions of her testimony. ABC has both versions, one at http://abcn.ws/zAoqyn and the other one at http://abcn.ws/yLqXDR .
    The major difference between the versions are these passages that occur in the first transcript:
    “You see, Georgetown does not cover contraceptives in its student insurance, although it does cover contraceptives for faculty and staff.”
    “…, especially when the university already provides contraceptive coverage for faculty and staff.”
    The testimony she actually read in Congress excludes both passages. The second ABC transcript link above shows that first passage to have been rather clumsily removed. Maybe she meant to include that text but removed it (or it was removed for her) before she delivered it. The missing text changes the argument of the testimony a bit. The version of her testimony with the included text makes the argument more against Georgetown’s inconsistent policy, with the…

    • FloridaLiberal on March 6, 2012 at 2:31 am

      One is the transcript of the testimony she was planning to give to Congress but the Republican leadership would not allow her or any women to speak.? The second is her testimony as she gave it a few days later at an unofficial Democratic mock hearing.

      The Republicans would not allow her to speak.? They tried to censor her.? When she got her chance a few days later some things had changed so she updated her speech.

      The only ones being dishonest here are the Republicans, like the guy who wrote the blog post above.

    • ChicagoXile on March 6, 2012 at 10:06 am

      “When she got her chance a few days later some things had changed…”

      What changed? Georgetown was no longer offering contraceptive coverage in employee health plans? There was no reason to exclude the original text other than to deceive. The result of the deception is that the public thinks Georgetown is some uber-strict Catholic institution that is either 1) repressing women or 2) that Obama is trying to force to violate its “conscience.” Ha! What a laugh.

    • ChicagoXile on March 6, 2012 at 10:10 am

      “…but the Republican leadership would not allow her or any women to speak.”

      You’ve either really bought into this “where are the women?” meme or are being dishonest. ?There were two women who were “allowed” to speak.?http://www.getreligion.org/2012/02/media-shirk-debate-on-religious-liberty/

  19. ChicagoXile on March 6, 2012 at 12:22 am

    …remedy being universal inclusion of contraceptives. The official version of the transcript with the the excluded text makes the argument for universal contraceptives access in order to protect women from those evil Republicans and their backward-thinking Catholic Bishop allies who won’t allow contraceptive access for anyone. Anyone see Pelosi’s hand in this? Or maybe it was Fluke’s decision to alter the originally intended testimony.
    Another link to the transcript of the testimony she read is http://bit.ly/xRO4Tv

  20. FloridaLiberal on March 6, 2012 at 2:27 am

    A friend posted this link to my Facebook page.?

    As usual I am finding this Republican dismissal to consist of simple misrepresentations and outright lies.

    He says that only 14% of women use contraceptives exclusively for non-birth control reasons. But this is a deception. He includes the link that clearly says while 14% use them *exclusively* for non-birth control reasons, 58% in total use them for non-birth control reasons.? So, even if they were not having sex, they would still need them. This guy cited the article, and gave the link, but went ahead and misrepresented the facts anyway. He correctly figured that few of his readers would check his references. You didn’t. I did. He lied.

    He then says that her friend with the ovarian cyst problem was covered for contraceptives as a medically necessary exemption, but again he misrepresents the true story . She should have been covered at Georgetown, but she was not. And many institutions do not provide that exemption. But in reality:

    “For my friend, and 20% of women in her situation, she never got the insurance company to cover her prescription, despite verification of her illness from her doctor. Her claim was…

    • Dimsdale on March 6, 2012 at 10:46 am

      Hmm.? And at least 42% use them for contraception exclusively, the people in question here.
      “Non birth control reasons” may be covered by policies the church approves of, but it is up to them to decide, since they are paying for it.? Things like clearing up acne, regulating or reducing the frequency of menstrual periods, ameliorating cramping and treatment of endometriois? Medical, yes.? Vital, possibly.? Tell your friend to be specific, and relate this to the true issue: whether the church should be forced to pay for this coverage *for contraceptive use* in that 42% group.
      Fluke could have gone to a nice secular law school, like Harvard or Yale, and gotten all the contraceptive medications she wanted.? For what it is worth, a quick look at Harvard Univ. Student Health care (http://hushp.harvard.edu/medco-prescription-drug) finds that prescription drug coverage falls under a three tier copay system, with copays ranging from $12 to $50.? It is not indicated if contraceptives are “free” or not, but if they fall under the aegis of this tiered plan, they would be more expensive than just jaunting off to Target or Walmart to grab some.?? And I know that there is a Target about 2 miles from the Harvard…

    • FloridaLiberal on March 6, 2012 at 1:14 pm

      But, of course Steve M only mentioned the 14% who exclusively use them for non-contraceptive purposes.? He did not mention the 42% at all.? That leaves 6/10 women who have other needs for these medications.? So Steve M lied by omission.

      And the church does not have to pay extra for contraceptive coverage.? When contraceptives are covered with no co-pay the net benefit is improved health and lower costs, so what we have here is the church wanting to pay extra to deny the benefit.

      Again, why should employers get to decide what kind of care their employees get?? Wasn’t slavery ended in 1865??

      This issue is entirely about Freedom and once again the “conservatives” oppose it.

    • AthensArcher on March 6, 2012 at 1:35 pm

      FloridaLiberal – I don’t think he lied at all. Did you just suggest employers who don’t cover everything you want covered are treating their employees as slaves? That’s nuts.

      Maybe since the employer is PAYING the premiums, they have a right to select what coverage they want to provide?

      You want single payer, socialized medicine provided by the government and funded with taxes right? That’s what you want right?

      Then you have the guts to claim this is about Freedom … demanding someone else pay for something (anything) is freedom? That’s nuts too. Don’t wrap yourself in “freedom” you socialist fool.

    • Dimsdale on March 6, 2012 at 11:33 pm

      The 14% are what Fluke used to back her story, and ones that the church backed hospitals are most likely to cover.? The 46% are the ones that the church is being forced to pay for.? Employers get to decide because they are the ones paying.? This is called “looking the gift horse in the mouth”.?? When single payer puts the gov’t in the position of deciding what care its “employees” get, do you really think you will be better off, given the gov’t’s track record on just about everything?
      Where is the freedom in a government monopoly?

  21. dennis on March 6, 2012 at 2:05 pm

    She is asking to be paid for having sex to prevent pregnancy. Simple. She doesn’t care why you want the contrceptive she wants the taxpayer to pay for any woman having protected sex. Simple. Who gets paid for having SEX? That has already been answered. Do liberals ever read or listen to waht they say? If they did they might want to read what Mark Twian said about speaking up and removing all doubt.

    • crystal4 on March 6, 2012 at 2:34 pm

      Oh, give it up…no one is listening to the “paid to have sex” lie anymore. Certainly not?? 26 of his advertisers (total that dropped Mr. Viagra as of this afternoon).

    • crystal4 on March 6, 2012 at 4:11 pm

      Ooops, 30 now. #fluked

    • Dimsdale on March 8, 2012 at 8:13 am

      Paying for contraceptives (for purely contraceptive, recreational use) is like paying for raincoats and boots.

  22. djam45 on March 6, 2012 at 3:25 pm

    If you circumvent the Constitution and invalidate what it stands for eventually you can justify all the previous years of laws that were passed by congress and the president (lower case on purpose) to show that the Constitution is out of date and doesn’t apply anymore.? Once that happens we don’t have any rights.? The government becoming intrusive into private business is not listed anywhere I can see.? This woman is a “pawn” pure and simple.? No private institution, small business, large business, religious institution, nor educational institution should be forced to pay for anyone’s privileges.? To me that includes health care.? Isn’t their room for Amendments that says the federal government rules over all people and all business in the United States?? I never read that anywhere.? Where are states rights weighing in here?? If all this is true then I shouldn’t have to take a test to prove I can drive a car.? And if my employer wants me to work then the government should force my employer to buy me a car if I can’t afford it. ?
    This is insane. ? Once it all comes crashing down the Constitution won’t be used as a suggestive guideline, as it is today, it will be torn down and burned in a fit of anger by those…

  23. djam45 on March 6, 2012 at 3:29 pm

    (too long) like this young lady who don’t understand what others sacrificed so she can have the freedom to argue a ridiculous notion like this.? I want…..So you must be forced to pay.? Sad what the next generation believes.

  24. dennis on March 8, 2012 at 9:52 am

    As I stated Crystal, the Twain quote was reinforced by you 3 times in 2 posts.?


The website's content and articles were migrated to a new framework in October 2023. You may see [shortcodes in brackets] that do not make any sense. Please ignore that stuff. We may fix it at some point, but we do not have the time now.

You'll also note comments migrated over may have misplaced question marks and missing spaces. All comments were migrated, but trackbacks may not show.

The site is not broken.