Addressing Ms. Fluke

prolife

I recently had a chance to take a careful look at the testimony of Sandra Fluke before the House Democrats. What I saw disturbed me greatly, and not simply because I am a Catholic who strenuously opposes Obama’s assault on religious liberty. There are a number of other assumptions at work in the thinking of Ms. Fluke and all who share her worldview that cannot go unaddressed. Some of them might be identified by pointing out that this is not, as was initially reported, a relatively innocent 23-year old female law student, but rather a 30 year-old hardened feminist activist who enrolled at Georgetown with a mission to challenge its contraception coverage policies. Others are more subtle.

The first assumption is that Obamacare itself is irrevocably settled law. The only acceptable debate parameters are the specific provisions and applications of the law, while the question of its inherent validity, legality or practicality is now resolved. It causes one to wonder if the contraception mandate itself, which was audacious and perhaps irrational from the standpoint of electoral politics, was a calculated ploy to shift the debate. Once we begin debating the specific applications of Obamacare, we have implicitly accepted Obamacare. The resistance to the general idea is dulled and weakened, if not entirely forgotten.

If that weren’t bad enough, however, it also becomes clear through Ms. Fluke’s testimony that we live in different moral universes that appear to be entirely incompatible. To read the first part of her testimony, much of which focuses on the hardships allegedly endured due to a lack of contraception coverage, you would think someone abducted her and these women from their homes, put them in shackles, and shipped them to Georgetown in crates against their will. Or that a cruel society forced them, to use her words, “to pick between a quality education and our health.”

That her words might be seen as such was anticipated by Ms. Fluke, the prepared and professional activist. In response to the crazy notion that she and other women ought to have expected that a Catholic university did not cover contraception, she replies near the end of her testimony that “we expected women to be treated equally, to not have our school create untenable burdens that impede our academic success.”  One may easily reply that women are treated equally: men don’t have access to contraception coverage at Georgetown either. Georgetown will not pay for a vasectomy or a year’s supply of condoms for a male student, and so it isn’t reasonable to expect it to pay for a female student’s birth control pills. Since when were women they only people who might want to use contraception?

It seems tiresome to point out that a privately-run institution has absolutely no obligation to provide specific goods and services to anyone, and that there are countless alternatives for those who want to attend a university that provides them with the specific coverage they would like. If, as Ms. Fluke contends, 94% of the students disagree with the Georgetown policy, then eventually the forces of supply and demand would determine the fate of the university; most people would simply choose a different school, and Georgetown would either change its policy or close its doors. Faced with a plethora of choices, options, freedoms, and liberties laid out like a buffet before them as no people in the history of human civilization have ever enjoyed, however, Mrs. Fluke portrays these women as the helpless victims of injustice. It is quite simply an outrageous lie.

Ms. Fluke actually presented a rather long list of what she and her cohorts did and did not expect, and they all amount to this: we expected to be given exactly what we demanded, immediately, without reservations and without any consideration whatsoever for the consciences or concerns of anyone else.

We are all caught up in the legal aspects of this controversy, but if we consider the implications of these aggressive demands, something more disconcerting emerges.

The law, contrary to some opinions, is not the foundation of society. On the contrary, the law exists to patch up the areas of society that have become more or less dysfunctional. Friends have no need to invoke their rights or the law in order to enforce a claim; people who generally tolerate, if not respect one another should only sparingly need recourse to the law. Moreover in a free society, there ought to be many extra-legal remedies available for the vast majority of disputes. Case in point: if you don’t like one school’s insurance policy, you can easily go to another one.  Every aggressive demand for a new right, or to compel a person or an institution to provide a good or perform a service that they don’t want to provide or perform is in reality another crack in the social structure.

Not only was Ms. Fluke’s testimony devoid of any semblance of respect for the Catholic conscience (she blithely assumes that the “recently announced adjustment” addresses all possible religious objections), but it indicated an unwillingness to even consider it. Beyond that, her mission is not really to obtain free access to contraception coverage, which she or anyone else could obtain at any number of prestigious schools, but rather to score a public political and ideological victory over the Church by forcing it to partake in practices it finds immoral and unconscionable. This is the new social activism, which by-passes any attempt at mutual dialogue and marches straight to the officials, authorities and bureaucracies to compel others to give them what they want.

Catholics have become accustom to a much different operating principle than that of Ms. Fluke.  For the past two centuries she has been accommodating the forces of liberalism and modernity, to the point at which it appears to some that there is almost nothing left to give without sacrificing something essential, something without which the Church would cease to be the Church. Pope Leo XIII, in his encyclical Libertas, argued that the Church and the state could and ought to tolerate certain evils for the sake of a greater social good, though we can never call something that is evil “good”, even if we do tolerate it. What is a principle for Catholics, however, is for our avowed enemies a mere tactic to be employed as long as they do not have the power to push beyond tolerance into aggression and compulsion. Now it appears they have this power, or at least believe that they do.

In such contests, reason is of no avail. Ms. Fluke declares that “we resent that in the 21st century, anyone thinks it’s acceptable to ask us to make this choice [between education and contraception] simply because we are women.” Think of how utterly at odds with reality this statement is: absolutely no one asked her to do anything, nor are female students at Georgetown denied contraception coverage “simply because they are women”, a completely false suggestion. Moreover, it is she who is asking that Catholics violate their own consciences and beliefs to accommodate her own without the slightest indication that she understands or cares in the least about them. Is it right, at any time – never mind what century it is – to ask people to choose between obedience to God and marginalization or even outright oppression by the state?

It would almost be easier and even more welcome to a certain extent, if Ms. Fluke, President Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Kathleen Sibelius would simply say to orthodox Catholics, “can you please cease to exist, can you just go away?”

Here is the proper response.

  • Brianagrzy

    TAKE THAT FEMI-NAZIS!

  • guest

    39 years ago I was told by a boston obstetrician it was not feasible to go thru my pregnancy due to a small problem, I walked out of the office, changed doctors and delivered a beautiful baby by who is now 38 years young with a wonderful pregnancy and never a problem. Thanks to my mother an extremely religious woman I carried thru refused to listen to the one doctor who made a terrible mistake but he was not a man of religion. I am not a Catholic but a woman of faith. If I had listened to this doctor my life would have been empty as  my life has been fulfilled with a son, his wife and a grandchild. People who decided the fate of others are not always correct, one must make their own decisions. the woman of today listen to people like Fluke who can destroy the life. Europe has followed the idea of no children but life must go on regardless as life with out children is not a life .Sex is fleeting as one ages, but a child if properly raised and loved is always with you. To give a body to anyone is a sin in my mind without love sex is useless. 

  • msmischief

    Ms. Fluke believes in slavery, to put it plainly.

    And given that noncompliance is the leading cause of contraceptive failure, one would think that removing an incentive to actually take the pills — the knowledge that you spent money on them — might actually increase their failure rate.  So that it can do the opposite of what they claim, even taking it on their own grounds.

  • publiusnj

    There is nothing the Leftists want more than to turn this election into a referendum on the continuing legality of contraception.  We should not be acquiescing in that gambit, as the priest in the video seems to be doing. Rather, we should be defining the issue in front of the Nation this Year very narrowly: Obama is trying to force the Catholic Church to pay for contraceptive services in violation of its conscience and therefore in violation of the First Amendment. That is the issue that we should be focused on like a laser. Bravado of the sort the priest espouses (Muhammad Ali as a model for the Catholic Church?) is just the type of stuff we do not need.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Tony-Esolen/1184164082 Tony Esolen

    There’s a strange contradiction in feminism, which nobody wants to point out.  We are supposed to forget that women seek security; that it was women, not men, who primarily insisted upon binding the man’s hankering for risk, and his aggression, to the good of his family.  But now that they are “free” of men, they seek to replace one bulwark with another.  This other one is the welfare state and all its security nets.  They want “freedom,” which for Ms. Fluke seems to mean a certain leeway of action within a secured area, the security provided by government at all levels.  Genuine personal liberty is frightening, because it implies the possibility of real and personal failure.

    • AnnaMarie53

       As a real live woman, I couldn’t agree with you more, Tony.  As I use to say a lot in my younger days (and still do on occasion), “PLEASE don’t help me any more, Ms. Steinham!”  I realized early on that I needed a father for my children, NOT a partner.  I want, and never did, want the “help” of any group that encourage hatred for men.  Becoming equal in equal pay for equal work never did have anything to do with what the femi-nazis have turned it into.

      • William

        Always the feminist prism? Contraception is valued as much by men as by women. What man wants to have a baby every single time he has sex? What young unmarried man would be unaffected by an unplanned pregnancy? And if there’s any man here who has never had premarital sex, congratulations! Please stand up and introduce yourself. How many married man can be good fathers to 10 children? I admire men who are, but for my part I’m a much better dad to three than I could be to 12. Limiting numbers of children sensibly, without using abortion, is part of a whole health and wellness approach — for men, women, and children. I think the public is figuring that out, which is why Blunt, Rubio, and Boehner are retreating on this issue. 

        • Deacon Ed Peitler

          How can you say for sure that you would be a better father for three than for ten? Aren’t you discounting grace?

        • Patrick

          “Please stand up and introduce yourself.”
          Hi William. 

          “What man wants to have a baby every single time he has sex?”

          A man who thinks before he acts.

  • AnnaMarie53

    Wow!  These comments and this video rock!  Probably needless to say, I have not been this moved by anything in a very long time.  Usually, our response as Catholics is almost apologetic for just BEING Catholic!  Perhaps I am overly sensitive to this way of being because I live in a part of the country that is predominantly Baptist.  We are used to being pretty much hammered as soon as we “own up” to being Catholic, so we have become pretty quiet and try to be almost invisible.  I see now what I really knew all along…this is SO wrong.  We need to speak up and defend Holy Mother Church even as She nurtures us, and defend the unborn without asking our Protestant brothers and sisters if it is okay if we join with them.  To long the Enemy has been behaving as if he has already won the war just because he has so many obnoxious loud-mouths on his team.  Time for us to get serious and tell the world!

  • guest

    Yes, of course, people regularly enroll in law school to change student health insurance policies, don’t they? Especially people willing to go into ivy league debt who also meet the stringent admissions requirements, right? After all, why would someone interested in political action go into law? That never happens, right?

  • Pingback: Robert Yates on the Sandra Fluke “controversy” « Patriactionary

  • Robert Cheeks

    Mr. Yates’s analysis is spot in differentiating those forces at work in modernity. On the one side we see the secular-progressivists who live in a derailed/deformed condition that places the individual in a state of alienation. A consciousness that is not only unable to discern truth, but one that can not move beyond a corrupted immanent-world reality.

  • Pargontwin

    I must be seriously out of touch; since when do universities provide health-care coverage for their students?  Staff, yes; students, no.  Except, of course, for the campus nurse and/or doctor who provide the same services as they do in grade schools and high schools.  And I certainly never heard of a campus medical facility providing any medications beyond aspirin and its over-the-counter substitutes.  So unless something has radically changed since my own college days, contgraceptive coverage for students should be a non-issue.

    • Troy

      I don’t think it is available for undergraduates. But when you are in a professional or doctoral program, you essentially become an employee of the school as an adjunct, teaching classes and taking on other roles that a faculty member would. And so naturally this would bring up the question of coverage for the student/employee. Universities have to provide such things to remain competitive. But they don’t have to provide coverage for everything – at least until this draconian law goes into effect. 

    • Flan

      I’m afraid you are out of touch.  Most large colleges and universities offer students health insurance; that’s because until the Affordable Care Act, most were ineligible to be covered under their parents’ plans after age 19 or 21 or around there somewhere.  (Now they can be covered under their parents’ plans through age 26.)  Anyway, law students Fluke’s age still depend on their college plans.  This just happens to be the way we do health care in America.  Usually you need an employer to get coverage, but — thank God, most would say — college students have been able to do so through their schools.  After all, most could never afford it otherwise.

    • LC1967

      My daughter had the option of paying health insurance through college.  I think I remember having the same option when I was in college as well.

  • Flan

    For having the “nerve” to offer to speak before Congress about an issue sometimes overlooked in the debate over contraception coverage, Sandra Fluke has been unfairly misrepresented by politicians, radio shock jocks and commentators, and now the religious press.  As the mother of a daughter that age who would have had a very similar message to give Congress if she’d been able to testify, I am appalled at how she’s been treated.  Limbaugh didn’t just call her names, he said she was sexually insatiable and wanted everybody to pay for her sexual exploits and that he wanted his money’s worth — i.e., that she should make a videotape of herself having sex and send it to him and his friends.   And do you know what Sandra Fluke really had to say?

    She wasn’t talking about herself.  She certainly wasn’t talking about sex.  She wasn’t even talking about contraception.  She wanted to address Congress to explain that contraceptive medications are used for real medical purposes, and that a friend of hers needs those pills to treat polycystic ovarian disease, a painful condition that requires her to take these meds, and that since her insurance through her Catholic university won’t cover them, she is left with mounting medical bills that are very difficult to pay on a student income.  My daughter who suffers from endometriosis has the same problem.

    This is a problem a citizen has a right to testify about when Congress is considering a health care regulation that addresses it.  It doesn’t matter what anybody thinks about the regulation, nobody has a right to vilify the young woman for talking up.  It is especially shameful to mischaracterize her, whether the way Limbaugh did it or the way it’s done here.  

    • Brian A. Cook

       You do bring up very serious questions. 

    • J huntley

      Please do not lecture us about Ms Fluke’s “speaking before congress”.    It was not before congress.   It was a Pelosi arranged “Photo-op”.    Nothing more.  

      There are better treatments for PCO and endometriosis than hormonal contraceptives.  Hormonal contraceptives simply mask the problems.   They are palatives that allow the underlying condition to continue to damage the woman so “treated.”    Do your daughter a favor and search on “NaPro Technology”.     Please also look at the “black box warnings attached to these “necessary medications called oral contraceptives.   Truly scary. 

    • Cord_Hamrick

      Flan:

      Is it in fact the case that Sandra Fluke is a 30-year-old feminist activist? Or is she actually a 23-year-old college student with no prior political experience?

      Also, is it not true that the medications that she testified as costing thousands of dollars a year are available, with a little footwork, for between $15 and $50 per month, and sometimes less?

      The picture painted by Miss Fluke’s testimony is that of a college campus where contraception is normally so difficult to come by as to require the state to violate the religious liberty of the institution. But that is absurd: Contraception is simply thick on the ground in America, and thanks to the taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood, it is already government-subsidized. Condoms in particular are like grab-bag party favors on college campuses, if one knows where to look.

      So, that any other person should be compelled to pay for your contraception, when the lack of it is not life-threatening and it’s so readily available without employing the compulsory power of the state, really is to regard those other persons as your slaves, working to subsidize your (not even critical!) needs. It is an affront to human dignity.

      What about the “slut” remark?

      Well, if Miss Fluke had testified that she needed thousands of dollars of contraceptives per year in order to live licentiously on campus, then as an unmarried woman she could accurately be called “slut”…as could any man under the same circumstances — fornication not being a gender-specific sin.

      In fact I should think applying that harsh label to men is far more morally acceptable than to women, these days, given how the rules of the sexual marketplace have changed.

      But apparently it was all about endometriosis or ovarian cysts and a friend’s problems with a recalcitrant insurer?

      That changes things. In that case one cannot deduce “sluttiness” from mere use of birth control pills by an unmarried woman. It is true that many college women who are on the pill are doing so to enable themselves to behave in a slutty way, sadly. But for sufficient evidence to actually call a woman’s behavior “slutty”; one would have to know about the person’s actual sexual history. We can’t assume facts not in evidence. Limbaugh was wrong.

      And if it really was all about one friend’s endometriosis or cysts,  why, in that case one also must conclude that there’s no plausible case for overriding the liberties of the college through state compulsion. Some kind of court-ordered reworking of  the appeals-process of the insurance provider is the right fix for the problem.

      So while Sandra Fluke’s testimony was without value in a hearing about religious liberty, and while her friend’s problem was not really topical, and while her own desired solution for her friend’s problem is draconian and unconstitutional, nevertheless, I hope for her friend’s sake that the publicity made it easier to work out things with the insurer.

      • Brian A. Cook

         Many people use “slut” as a word to attack women. 

        • Cord_Hamrick

           Well, sure they do; just like many people use the word “fascist” as a word to attack people with traditionalist political or cultural opinions, or the word “anarchist” to attack people who prefer the power of government to be limited or to retract from it some of its existing power, or the word “idolater” for Catholics when they ask the saints for intercession.

          But these words have precise definitions and it is the use of them to describe a person who doesn’t meet that definition which constitutes an unjust “attack.” Using these words accurately to describe persons who fit them to a “T” is not an unjust attack, and may not even be an attack on the person, but only on the behavior. One’s words being true is always an absolute defense against an accusation of slander.

          So that’s why I tried to carefully ask about the facts of the case. Had Miss Fluke, as some reports made it out to be, been an unmarried woman who wanted to buy and use a thousand dollars’ worth of condoms per year during her education (which would average out to two or three per day, or so I have been told), I think the word “slut” would have been a pretty close match for the implied behaviors. (Although even then, one must consider the possibility, however unlikely, that the sex partner of someone using so many condoms could have been the same man throughout, or that she might have two or three long-term and exclusive sexual relationships in that term. In that case “slut” would have been less defensible.)

          But it seems that Miss Fluke’s own sexual predilections are not a matter of public record as of yet. In that case Limbaugh really did go too far, and there are two possibilities:

          (1.) He hadn’t thought it through or gotten all the facts (or, all the correct ones), and merely did the math (unmarried woman, $3000 of contraception over three years) and concluded “slut” without realizing the other possible explanations; or,

          (2.) He had no interest in thinking it through or being accurate, but was merely using words as weapons in utter disregard for their actual definitions.

          In either case he owed an apology; although (2.) is worse than (1.) because it betrays an amoral attitude and a tendency to poison the wells of political discourse.

          Moreover, it seems from the information I have at the moment that the insurer really is guilty of failure to render services paid for, in the form of providing the necessary medication to the friend with the ovarian cysts. That that medication can also be used for contraceptive purposes makes no difference if the student really has a medical need.

          One criticism of Miss Fluke which remains entirely valid, though, is that she wants the government to act in a totalitarian fashion, using state compulsion to override the conscience of those in authority over the institution.

          The persons who run and fund that institution are not Miss Fluke’s indentured servants. They have no obligation to work their jobs for her in order to fund her supply of contraceptives; indeed, they have an explicit unalienable right not to do so.

          I hope our government will continue to defend that unalienable right, along with the other unalienable rights with which our Creator has endowed us. But recent government activity has been less than hope-inspiring.

          I, for one, do not welcome our new anti-baby overlords.

        • Bob

          We’re now in a society that celebrates the mortal sin of fornication, but yet our feelings are hurt by the being correctly called the word “slut.” quite frankly, if you’re single and having promiscuous sex, aren’t you a slut? If you’re cheating on your taxes, aren’t you a “thief?” If you end the life of an innocent person, aren’t you a “killer?”

          • Bob

            ……..and if you are president of the United States and you promise to bishops of the Catholic Church that you will respect their right of conscience, and you go back on that promise, you are therefore……A LIAR!!!!

    • Ja

      She ended up looking like a fool because she lied to Congress.  Did she think no one would fact check her $3000 cost of contraceptive claim?  No she lied about that and she probably lied about her “friend” with PCOS, too.  This hearing was a joke, and so is the SF.

    • tttt

      Really????   
      Sandra Fluke graduated from Cornell University in 2003 and spent five years working for Sanctuary for Families. Sandra Fluke is a Public Interest Law Scholar at Georgetown Law, due to graduate in 2012.[6] While at Georgetown University Law Center,[7][8]she authored a paper in The Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law titled “Employment Discrimination Against LGBTQ Persons”, where human rightshe argues that free gender reassignment is a universal right. She is development editor of that Journal for 2011–2012.[10][6] Fluke was also active in campus protests at Georgetown University demanding the University do away with its moral objection to contraception coverage.[11] 

      A 30 year old liberal activist is crying for the University to pay for her friend’s contraceptives…excuse me, medication????   Exactly how expensive is this “pill” that it’s lack jeopardizes her friend’s entire scholarly career?  And unless her friend is an employee of the University, why the heck do they cover her with any insurance at all?
      What a crock!!!

  • Flan

    Fluke could say women aren’t treated equally in this situation because men use contraceptives only for contraception.   When insurance doesn’t cover contraception for men, their health is not affected. But in the case of women, to deny coverage of contraceptives can cause hardship in obtaining necessary medical treatment for a number of medical conditions — including ovarian and endometrial cancer — and, more remotely, may end in health problems due to pregnancy.    As an opponent of contraception myself, I wouldn’t argue that contraceptives are *required* to ward off pregnancy — although I do admit serious health issues may result from pregnancy — but contraceptive medications definitely are the treatment of choice for many real medical conditions, ironically some that would result in infertility were it not for “the Pill.”

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Tony-Esolen/1184164082 Tony Esolen

    Estrogen treatment is not denied for any legitimate medical purpose.  That’s a non-issue.

    Another great article on this subject has just been written by the incomparable Mark Steyn.  Someone may be a-preachin’ to Mr. Steyn; he clearly knows more about Catholicism than does everyone working at ABC, CBS, and NBC put together.  One of his head-slapping points: A nation that is trillions of dollars in debt, and that is actually worried about free provision of fornication kits, is not to be taken seriously.  It’s a bad joke.  Stick a fork in us.

  • riolve

    The line has been drawn.  Time to decide if you are on the side of the lambs or the goats.

  • Arenotamso

    Do you think Sandra Fluke acting on behalf of  Obama and his agenda? Well, ask yourself this: what do you call the tail of the Leviathan? Is it not the fluke? I tell ya, you just can’t make this stuff up.

  • Bob

    Solution: Our Catholic schools/universities should only employ people who are Catholic, enroll only students that are Catholic. Show your baptismal certificate at the door. We already know our Catholic education is far better than the secular world, so there will be a high application rate by young Catholics. There will be probably less Catholic universities, but the quality will be high. We’ll do the same with Catholic hospitals. It’s time to start openly showing the joy of our Catholicism on our sleeves. The secular world will notice how we are so joyful and they are so miserable.

    • Christina Burtis

       Rather, make sure the leaders and teachers of Catholic institutions are affirming Catholics. We have a moral obligation to evangelize.

      • Bob

        Agreed, Christine. Make the campus unabashedly, unapologetically Catholic. Show the joy in Catholic teaching, Eucharistic adoration, daily Mass. All Catholic colleges should be like Franciscan college, Thomas Aquianas college in California, Ave Maria in Florida. Actually say to non-Catholics on the college web-sites “come to our college……let us show you the joy and Truth of the only faith started by Jesus Christ, you won’t regret it!” enthusiastically evangelize.

    • Deacon Ed Peitler

      Bravo, Bob.  We’re among the few who understand that working for the Church – being employed by the Church – means that we are participating in the mission of the Church.  If you’re not Catholic, it’s hard to understand how and why you would want to particpate in her mission.  If you did, then you’d become Catholic.   The problem is that most people who work for the Church, or are educated in her schools have little or no affiliation with the Church.

      I made the mistake when I went to work for my diocese thinking that others who also did so were likely to be Catholic.  I asked my new secretary what parish she belonged to.  She let me know immediately that she was not Catholic.  Surprise, surprise, surprise. 

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Bok-Choy/100001227699111 Bok Choy

        Dear Deacon,  Probably even a “Catholic” secretary instructed in the faith via a weekly one or 2 hours by unqualified instructors during decades of very shallow or even incorrect teaching while Catholic Schools were declining at a rapid pace.   Many of our bishops educated in ultra liberal seminaries in their formation simply became “free thinking in their philosophies.   This was truly a tragic period in our Church.  Much is being reversed now by our current pope

    • fuelrod

      I thought that “catholic” meant all-embracing or inclusive.  Do you really think an inwardly-turned focus is what Jesus intended?

      • Bob

        “Catholic” means universal. Everyone’s invited to follow the teaching of the Truth of Christ found in the Church. Through free will, many say “no.” Christ in John 6 said “you must eat my flesh and drink my blood”, and thousands walked away from Him not choosing to follow this teaching. Christ did not try to be “all-embracing or inclusive” by yelling to them as they walked away “Wait…., that’s not what I meant! Come back and I’ll let it mean whatever you want, so that everyone feels included and welcome!” He said what He meant, and meant what He said. The thousands that walked away were the ones that decided to be inwardly focused, not Christo-focused.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Bok-Choy/100001227699111 Bok Choy

      Just remember Bob, you’re talking about a big time (formerly) Catholic Institution run by the Jesuit order of priest.  They to, are one of the most liberal, arrogant orders of the Church and have always had a degree of autonomy built right  in.  They scandalize the teachings of the Church and eventuallly will have the name “Catholic” erased which is at least honest for both sides of this  constant battle..  Among tjese are ,,,many good faithful Jesuits.    

  • Ja

    At a press conference, CNS News asked Nancy Pelosi:

    “Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke–she told Congress that contraception can cost over $3,000 for a woman during her time in law school. Yet the Target store 3 miles away sells a supply of birth control pills for $9 a month to women who do not have health insurance. Was her testimony accurate?”

    Nancy Pelosi replied:

    “I have a great deal of respect for the testimony that Sandra Fluke presented to Congress. She was factual, she was courageous and she made a difference in the debate and in the country, and we were honored by her presentation.”

  • Brian A. Cook
    • Brian A. Cook

       Oh, I am terribly sorry!  I didn’t mean to double-post!

    • Ja

      She lied about the cost of contraceptives by a factor of 9 (her cost $3000, actual cost $324).  If she cannot afford $9/month or $324/3 years in law school, maybe she should refrain from sexual activity.
      She presents herself as an innocent student when in fact she is a 30-year-old left-wing activist.
      She speaks for her “friends” but where are they?  Is a congressional hearing allowed to take hearsay evidence?  Did she provide any supporting evidence for the things she claimed?  We know she lied about the cost, what else did she lie about?
      She constructed a straw-man argument.  For Catholics, there is no moral problem using oral contraceptives to treat a disease such as PCOS.  Her “friend’s” insurance would pay for it as long as the physician wrote the diagnosis on the prescription.  However, 95%+ of the time contraceptives are not used to treat a disease.
      She did not address real issue– religious liberty.  Can the government demand that a Catholic pay for something he/she believes is intrinsically evil?  Especially when this is a well known, established belief that has been held for 2000 years of Christian history.

  • Brian A. Cook

    I also just found this.  Can you address the allegations?  I’m serious.  Can you?

    http://www.alternet.org/visions/154466/15_ways_the_bible_is_used_by_christians_and_the_gop_to_control_and_malign_women

    • Mark Rutledge

      What do you find compelling therein, Brian?     I cannot think of a single Protestant denomination which teaches the OT ritual law still in effect.

    • Ja

      You have to look at these things in context—in ancient times life was no bed of roses for men either.  But as to your point, no one is trying to bring back these ancient  customs, so what’s your point?  In the cultural context of their times, Jewish and Christian women have always been treated with more dignity than the cultures surrounding them.  Roman women in the 100’s AD were not living in a feminist utopia.  Christians stood at the forefront in educating women and promoting monogamy.  The left-wing feminist movement  has lead to more problems for women than Christianity ever did.  And feminists don’t speak for the majority of women as this letter shows:  http://womenspeakforthemselves.com/

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Bok-Choy/100001227699111 Bok Choy

    Not only has this arrogant self absorbed ditzy fallen right in with the radical women’s cess pool sponsored by O’Bama and carried out by another enemy of women, Sibelius, close friend of super butcher abortionist Tiller, killed in church of all places!!!!!     It turns out that this naieve little blushing flower isn’t 23 but nothing but a hard core activist.   In addition to free pills to feed her proclivities, she is demanding very expensive sex change procedures be covered completely to cover their demands “to be me!!!!”   Quite a different picture, no?   She can’t afford anything although she goes to a prestigious
    $45,000 per year and up Catholic institution.?  

  • Deacondan

    i enjoyed the fact that nancy pelosi cannot even do a quick calculation in her head. $9 x 12 months X 3 years of law school is $324 , so says my 5th grader.  Maybe he needs to balance the congressional budget and define accuracy

  • Pingback: Convert Journal – Elsewhere: testimony for free contraception

  • schmenz

    Frankly, I have not the slightest interest in anything Mizzzz Fluke has to say on any subject, at any time.  There are far more important things to do in life than listen to misguided souls like her.

  • Wgregge

    Why isn’t the background information on Ms. Fluke being shared with every diocese in the US?  The info should be read at every Mass, not just on Sundays, but for a full week to inform as many people as possible about this provocateur.

  • samharker

       “we expected women to be treated equally, to not have our school create untenable burdens that impede our academic success.” 

       Is celibacy an “untenable burden”? Except as a Catholic educational institution with concern for her immortal soul, why would Georgetown University have any interest in the sex life of its graduate students?

       This woman is 30 years old. Can’t she take care of herself?

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_KV2ABCAJRAHVLFDBPQKUFFKOQY brad

    Found out. As I posted on another web site the day this story broke. Sandra Fluke is most likely a lesbian. Why? An analysis. How she has her hair, this is typical of the community. Her face and facial expressions. Her dress, she is wearing a dark pant suit, typical of the community, most wear drab style clotheing, unless they are in the San Francisco gay parade. More telling what she said, more specifically what she did not say. She never mentioned about a boyfriend, never. Strange during a contraceptive discussion, I thought contraceptive had to involve two (2) people, a man and a woman. Sex can involve two of anyone or thing. She talked about the cost of “contraceptives”, not “condoms” in the third generic person? She did not say it cost her $3000 for three years, she made a general statement. Sandra may have had sex, but she had no need for contarceptives.

  • momflock

    Wow.  Powerful.  If all faithful would offer prayer and sacrifice to fight abortion, “to have a say,” we could do all things.  Please pray.  And not “to beat PP, Obama, Sebelius….”, but rather for pure truth in God’s will.  

MENU