So far, every defense of Sandra Fluke, likewise the attacks on Rush's response, has overlooked certain facts about Ms. Fluke and the specifics of her “testimony.” It isn't “nit-picking.” These are relevant details that significantly shape the meaning of what was said on both sides.
Let's begin with some background. Ms. Fluke is a health-care control activist. Even the fact of her attendance at Georgetown centered around this. Elsewhere she stated she selected Georgetown as a way to change its policies. We'll bring-up the relevance of her health-care control activism as we go through her speech. This is just one problem with her statement, as you will see.
- “ . . . women who will benefit from the Affordable Care Act contraceptive coverage regulation.” In fact, it is that very regulation she attacks. ACA expressly exempts religious institutions like Georgetown from the very thing she demands they be forced into.
- “ . . . non-partisan medical advice of the Institute of Medicine.” IOM is roughly as non-partisan as the D.N.C.
- “I attend a Jesuit law school that does not provide contraceptive coverage . . . “ We forthwith dismiss the multitude of assurance this is not about contraception.
- “financial, emotional, and medical burdens as a result . . . “ All of these burdens were expected and yes widely predicted consequences of your health-care control activist agenda. Your demands are why these things are tied to anyone's employment and other third-party payers at all. You do not get to complain about the results you deliberately caused and indeed still demand.
- “ . . . the new regulation that will meet the critical health care needs of so many women.” No, it won't. It's about contraception. You said so, and will say so again.
- “ . . . the recently announced adjustment addresses any potential conflict with the religious identity of Catholic or Jesuit institutions.” Another blatant lie. Virtually no such institution is satisfied with “change nothing but lie about who pays.” Relevant? Certainly. It goes to her credibility – she clearly has none. Not even a little.
- “ . . . I have heard more and more of their stories . . . and they tell me that they have suffered financially and emotionally and medically because of this lack of coverage.” And yet none of them cared enough to present any such stories in a way you can actually cite. Add-in your proved lack of credibility and I call BS. Anyway, you caused it (see point 4) so you are cordially invited to STFU about it instead of demanding more force against those who tried to prevent the very thing you're complaining about.
- “Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school.” Maybe – somewhere. Not near Georgetown. A brief survey of potential outlets near there found pharmacies where with a prescription you can buy it outright without insurance for about 1/10 that amount. Ms Fluke seems to know she cannot make her point without lying.
- “Women like her have no choice but to go without contraception.” a) This is obviously false. She DOES have options. b) It's you health-care control activists who seek to remove those options.
- “ . . . couldn’t fit it into their budget anymore.” Another predicted result of your health-care control activist demands.
- “In the worst cases, women who need these medications for other medical conditions . . . “ Utterly irrelevant, as your testimony says. Even at Georgetown, it IS covered for these purposes. YOU said so. Again, according to YOU, this is about contraception itself, not “other medical uses” for contraceptive drugs.
- “When this exception does exist . . university administrators or other employers rather than women and their doctors dictate whose medical needs are legitimate . . “ which is the expressed demand of heath-care control activists like you. Once again, you're not allowed to bitch about what YOU DEMAND.
- “ . . . when she was raped, she didn’t go to the doctor, . . . “ That's so irrelevant and so certainly a lie on the first place that this one bit of your testimony justifies any and all insults against you that anyone might ever conceive. Even assuming it's true, this victim's concern was over the expected consequence third-party involvement that YOU personally demand more of.
- “ . . . insurance students pay for – completely unsubsidized by the university.” So why is the university involved AT ALL? Say it with me . . because as a health-care control activist, YOU DEMAND IT.
I now refer you to – well – all of the other points. Where she isn't outright lying, she is crying about having already gotten what she (as a health-care control activist) demands, blaming others for it, and demanding those others give her even more of the same.
The fact is, even going well outside of the “contraceptive issue,” NO ONE has yet citied even one systemic problem with our “health care” that was not an expected and predicted result of health-care control activists' demands being fulfilled.
Bottom line. “We” all used to go to the provider or OUR choice because WE thought it was necessary or appropriate. WE paid the bill and WE could afford it. “Health care” costs were simply never an issue until Fluke's ideological fore-bearers chose to make it so. Nowhere is there any evidence that suggests she has even a little regret over these past health-care control actions. To the degree she's in any position to do anything about it, she supports it – all of it.
Ladies and gentlemen, I submit to you that each and every “heath care” complaint you have – cost or otherwise – is Sandra Fluke's fault. Not all by herself, but she's done as much as she can to further the known cause of your problems and she continues to do so. Don't forget, she also proved herself as dishonest as the day is long. Also, can I remind you that roughly 8 out of 8 of her political allies have proved they find policy disagreement a perfectly justified reason to call a woman “slut” and worse?
NO ONE called her or any other woman ANYTHING for having sex or using contraception. She is being attacked for using the planned outcome of her own demands to "justify" fulfilling more of them, certainly knowing this will make matters worse for pretty-much all of us. To do this she LIED and invoked irrelevant anecdotes in a plea for LAW to compel payment for sex. Yes, that IS what it's about. She said so as we've shown above.
Go ahead. Call her ANY unsavory name you wish. No one on “her side” has any legitimate grounds to object and all of them at the core of this "controversy" know it. Even if you approve, you have to acknowledge she did in fact advocate third-party payment for sex. She is a whore. That's not a matter of opinion – it's just correct usage.