Monday, March 5, 2012 - 7:35pm
Sandra Fluke is being sold by the left as something she's not. Namely a random co-Ed from Georgetown law who found herself mixed up in the latest front of the culture war who was simply looking to make sure needy women had access to birth control. That, of course, is not the case.
As many have already uncovered Sandra Fluke she is, in reality, a 30 year old long time liberal activist who enrolled at Georgetown with the express purpose of fighting for the school to pay for students' birth control. She has been pushing for mandated coverage of contraceptives at Georgetown for at least three years according to the Washington Post.
However, as I (Stephen Gutowski) discovered today, birth control is not all that Ms. Fluke believes private health insurance must cover. She also, apparently, believes that it is discrimination deserving of legal action if "gender reassignment" surgeries are not covered by employer provided health insurance. She makes these views clear in an article she co-edited with Karen Hu in the Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law.
The title of the article, which can be purchased in full here, is Employment Discrimination Against LGBTQ Persons and was published in the Journal's 2011 Annual Review. I have posted a transcript of the section I will be quoting from here. In a subsection of the article entitled "Employment Discrimination in Provision of Employment Benefits" starting on page 635 of the review Sandra Fluke and her co-editor describe two forms of discrimination in benefits they believe LGBTQ individuals face in the work place:
"Discrimination typically takes two forms: first, direct discrimination limiting access to benefits specifically needed by LGBTQ persons, and secondly, the unavailability of family-related benefits to LGBTQ families."
Their "prime example" of the first form of discrimination? Not covering sex change operations:
"A prime example of direct discrimination is denying insurance coverage for medical needs of transgender persons physically transitioning to the other gender."
This so called "prime example" of discrimination is expounded on in a subsection titled "Gender Reassignment Medical Services" starting on page 636:
"Transgender persons wishing to undergo the gender reassignment process frequently face heterosexist employer health insurance policies that label the surgery as cosmetic or medically unnecessary and therefore uncovered."
To be clear, the argument here is that employers are engaging in discrimination against their employees who want them to pay for their sex changes because their "heterosexist" health insurance policies don't believe sex changes are medically necessary.
Additionally Sandra Fluke and her co-editor have an answer for why exactly these "heterosexist" insurance policies, and the courts that side with them, deem sex changes as medically unnecessary:
"In Mario v. P & C Food Markets, Inc., an employee who was denied such coverage brought claims under the federal Employee Retirement Income Security (ERISA) and Title VII. The court rejected the ERISA claim, finding the plaintiff's mastectomy and hormone therapy were not medically necessary. The court's ruling was based upon controversy within the medical community regarding that treatment plan. Much of that controversy has been linked to ignorance and bias against transgender persons, and the American Medical Association has declared the lack of coverage to be discrimination."
You see, all opposition to the determination that sex changes are medically necessary, and therefor must be covered by private employer provided health insurance, is based on "ignorance and bias against transgender persons".
The section on discrimination against those seeking gender reassignment ends with Sandra Fluke and her co-editor wondering why more lawsuits aren't filed against private employers on these grounds. Especially in comparison to the frequency with which these types of cases are filed against Medicare, Medicaid, and even the prison system:
"The reason for this lack of cases is unclear. Private employee insurance plans do not more frequently cover this need, so it may be a sign that transgender employees do not see the courts as likely to provide any assistance against private employers."
The argument made in this article edited by Sandra Fluke and Karen Hu is quite clear. "Gender reassignment" is a medically necessary set of procedures that must be covered under employee provided health insurance policies. If it is not covered by those policies that is tantamount to discrimination and legal action should be taken against the employer.
So, as you can see, Sandra Fluke is not what she is being sold as. Instead she is a liberal activist pushing some rather radical ideas. Keep that in mind as the left holds her up in the spotlight.
Z: By the way, what kind of birth control costs any woman the $3000 Fluke said it did? You're right...no way. This is all agenda, not helping women. Women can get help at any clinic nearby. This is about sanctioning the creepiest things around. How do they DO this? How do they find radical leftists making no sense, standing up for lies and exaggeration, AND WIN the debate?
THE MEDIA.
HERE, by the way, is an excellent adjunct article to the information above........by a female graduate of Georgetown. Important.
THE MEDIA.
HERE, by the way, is an excellent adjunct article to the information above........by a female graduate of Georgetown. Important.
thanks, Mustang.
34 comments:
Please read THIS. Excerpt:
Some Thoughts On Sandra Fluke's Claim That A Woman's Contraception Can Cost $3000 Over 3 Years
Her numbers were no fluke. I do not believe Sandra Fluke just made her numbers up. She is a long time activist. She knows how to represent her cause. The podium she has been given here is too big and important for her to just be winging it.
The ONLY way that contraception could add up to $3000 per year is if one has used expensive services repeatedly.
The pill at $9 a year is NOT expensive. Dr. visits and Pap Smears are not that expensive. Not $1000 a year expensive, anyway.
The services which are expensive are...
I think that Pastorius is right! Do the math.
BTW, Z, I just linked to your post.
The fact that a reporter misreported her age is not relevant to the issue.
The fact that she is activist is also not relevant unless the right thinks it's our duty to sit and eat whatever gets put on the plate.
The fact that the health policies for staff and faculty at the major Jesuit universities in the East cover contraception is quite relevant to matter. The whining about values is a right wing media creation.
Also, students are forced to obtain health coverage from the university. They have no option to obtain contraception coverage. Does seem a restriction of freedom and we know that the right always supports freedom (Note: the irony sign is up).
Ducky’s tedium may be typical, but it is important to observe his inherent dishonesty. No one said there is anything wrong with activism, but note that Ducky and his ilk applaud leftist activism, while demeaning Tea Party activists. How tiresome. My problem with Sandra Fluke is that she misrepresents who she is. She went to Georgetown University with an agenda, so she is hardly the “victim law school student”. My problem with Sandra Fluke, and Ducky, and 99.9% of everyone on the left, is that they are dishonest and morally bankrupt. Ducky also asserts that people have the freedom to obtain contraception devices at other people’s expense. I must have missed that in the Constitution or Bill of Rights. But at least the left is consistent; they typically demean the notion of having personal and social values —they realize that if you destroy American values, you destroy America. It fits very nicely with destroying America’s history vis-à-vis the Zinn model.
Notice you didn't address the issue, Sam.
You got decked again.
Its a private university duhkky which means they decide the terms of anything. You can choose not to use the colleges insurance. That's what we did with my son. The colleges coverage was more expensive anyway. All you have to do is show that you have a different provider then you're exempted. Plus she can purchase contraceptives, no one is stopping her.
Also, students are forced to obtain health coverage from the university.
BS! Students are not required to buy the university's health care coverage. Those under a certain age can be covered by their parents, and other can go buy their own.
Also, there are numerous articles breaking down the cost of contraception, to include the pill, which can be obtained from most Walmarts for less than $20 per month.
The left also commits the lying propaganda trick of equating the refusal to cover something with denying someone the right to use something.
Your argument is bogus, Ducky! Go pedal it to your softheaded progressive friends who lap up such illogical twaddle and regurgitate it on command.
Sam nailed you, Ducky. Sorry, but read it again.
Nobody said getting her age wrong is a problem (who cares?, we have important work to do here)...and being an activist is not a bad thing unless it's a LYING activist...Which she is.
Please read AOW's link, Sam's comment, Elbro's information and Silverfiddle.
and I deleted you again. Stop your ridiculous 'fringe right thing'...please start adding the numbers on the primary results and tell me how 'fringe' that part of America which sees we need to have good people back in office again are.
http://news.yahoo.com/liberal-congressman-kucinich-defeated-ohio-053838958.html
Kucinich went down...
methinks the times, they MIGHT be chaning'
I believe this entire debacle was contrived by the White House . Unfortunately Rush had to give the left even more fuel to make them simultaneously combust.
Obama purposely brought up this issue now to declare his "War on Women" for the election year.
Fluke was going to testify with or with out Rush.
It's the community organizer organizing the whole country.
He needs us fighting with each other like every other 3rd world leader does.
Obama is no leader but is sure is shrewd pretending to be everything to everyone.
This is what the democrats have done for years. Divide us up into groups,Gays,Black,Women,middle class,poor,rich,immigrants.
By the time they are done they have mostly everyone promising them everything, of course all paid for by those rich, successful, hard working racist white people who don't want to help give everything to everyone.
But hey, she is a role model for Obama's kids. Maybe they willturn out to be just like the Kennedy clan and spawn a generation of wacko's for the Congress.
Pretty much all the college campuses I have visited have free condoms in their respective health service offices. Georgetown University furnishes many health services for students, but probably doesn't furnish free condoms because of the following declaration.
The Church cannot approve contraceptive interventions that
“either in anticipation of the marital act, or in its accomplishment or in the development of its
natural consequences, have the purpose, whether as an end or a means, to render procreation
impossible.” Link, here.
To any enterprising panty chaser, availability of birth control methods is no problem. It should be no problem to the panty owner, either. Fluke is just setting up a straw man argument.
Free stuff is available out there for everyone. Just go to the county health office and they will take care of you. What Fluke wants is free operations for trans-sexuals, and free everything else.
As Z's article states, this is not about the cost of birth control. It is all about an agenda the left wants to cram down someone's throat. That broad knew what she was doing. No principles, just agendas.
Link did not work in previous comment. Try this one.
Ethical And Religious Dirctives For Catholis Health Care Services
There's not a dime's difference between Sandra Fluck and Valerie Plame, same MO.
And both are flakes.
How do they find them? They're spawning them right in those academic environments.
This is such a bogus issue, trumped up to get the women's vote, and to accuse conservatives of being sexist.
So Ducky can take his talking points somewhere else, they won't play here.
Furthermore, I thought women were so capable of taking care of themselves. Isn't that what the women's movement was all about? Now we're supposed to believe they can't? Good grief!
Sandra Fluke is a student. Editor of the law review at a top law school. She is by all appearances a decent committed person.
Somehow three days of calling her a whore and a slut doesn't contribute to coarsening the culture.
Just blame the victim. Strange people these conservatives. They are the source of the very problems the complain of.
Yeah right Ducky blame the victims
Right...Duhkkky lurks at conservative blogs like a predator...drops grenades and runs yet we're the ones destroying the national discourse....
bwahahahahaha!!!!!!
and ignore the fact that duhkkky makes anyone, much less Obamam look like Ronald Reagan...quite the comedian today duhkkkster
Pris the first thing you must realize that duhkkkky isn't a fan of strong women...he's a misogynist
so a woman who's smart enough for law school but too dumb to figure out how to slip a few quarters in the machine in the bathroom is very attractive to him
Ducky, obviously, I had to delete your comments. I've asked for no more stupid nicknames that insult as badly as yours do.
And, by the way...why can't you stick to the important points of our posts? Who cares what age Fluke is? And you zero in on THAT complaint? See what I mean? Is it because it's easier to slam the writer than address the immoral nothing who would go to congress and beg for free contraception?
By the way, As we've seen with Obama, Editor of the Law Review doesn't give anybody morals, good values, or decency. You should know that.
Smart women know how afford contraceptives on their own. The smartest ones know the word "no"
Liberalman...you dope. SOrry to my other commenters, but I'm just so tired of this creep.
Um...Libdude, did you hear Ed Schultz call Laura Ingraham a slut?
Does it bother you that Maher calls women the C words, sluts, bitches, etc.,? Oh, and the TW word....or is that okay because they don't agree with his politics.
I won't wait for a response. You're too dumb to even get it.
Elbro, great comment. amen to that, bro
Thanks for posting this Z.
not surprising. you know, rosa parks was not a case of happenstance either. she, too, was a part of a larger planned political strategy, too.
my point is not to compare the political causes themselves. my point is this: unless we're talking crime, a la rodney king, "tookie", etc., the center of attention is often more than "just some guy or girl". "creating situations" to further one's agenda is normal in politics, throughout the spectrum.
as far as limbaugh goes, he will continue to flourish, simply b/c he has a huge dedicated audience. just like howard stern, snoop dogg, ice-t & coco, the kardashians, etc. integrity and decency has nothing to do with popularity nor financial success.
If she can't afford birth control, she should keep her legs closed and encourage her friends to do so too.
But that goes against everything liberals believe it. It means taking responsibility for your actions and paying for them. Neither of which liberals are mature enough to handle.
Post a Comment