Sandra Fluke and Monica Lewinsky
Posted by Benjamin Martin in Blog, Featured, Politics on March 4, 2012 10:24 pm / 16 comments
This week’s token leftist paraded her message of vast depression and oppression on behalf of seemingly every woman in the U.S., but Sandra Fluke, a Georgetown Law student, didn’t just receive the mandatory time slots on bastions of credible news sources like The Ed Show on MSNBC and NBC’s “Today” show, she was granted a unique platform in front of which to spew her venom for personal responsibility: a congressional committee.
Her claim that it costs many of her fellow law students up to $1,000 a year for birth control is either blatantly false, or outlandishly ridiculous. As Jimmie Bise tweeted, “either her argument is crap or she’s having sex with anything that can’t outrun her.” Condoms are $7 a box, pills can be bought for $20 a month. The amount of sex that Sandra Fluke must be having to necessitate $1,000 a year in contraception makes one wonder how she manages to actually attend law school. Either Fluke and her fellow students are, er, indulging themselves five times a day every day of the year, or she’s lying. The smart money is on the latter.
That’s all well and good. Fluke is an entitled liberal, which is both emblematically typical and essentially required for one to be a liberal in today’s American political landscape. The real problem is that the cost and affordability of birth control is utterly irrelevant to the discussion about who should pay for it.
Fluke attempted to create a narrative of emotional anguish for her distraught peers in law school who simply cannot afford adequate birth control for their apparent ceaseless sex-capades. “I’ve seen the pain in the faces of my classmates around campus because they can’t afford birth control” she cried before the House committee whilst reaching for false emotion and fake tears. A hack, obviously.
But this isn’t about Sandra Fluke. It’s about the mindset she represents.
The smoke has yet to clear on the accusation from many on the right whether Fluke is a paid liberal activist, a “plant”, or not. It doesn’t really matter. Her talking points represent a very real attitude quickly manifesting itself into mainstream American thought process: that a person literally deserves the resources of another.
This, of course, is the entitlement and dependency culture on which the Democratic Party has rallied around, encouraged, campaigned, and insisted. President Obama has long since completely given (albeit only paper thin) charade of individual responsibility and personal conscientiousness as a staple of anything save individually filling out government assistance forms and personally voting for Democratic activism.
Fluke is not the torchbearer of health care “rights” and women’s plight, but rather she is this generation’s Monica Lewinsky; wishing her sexual activity to be supplied by the government, and thus necessarily the taxpaying citizens.
As is the case with every leftist demand on government, Fluke and the faction of blindly socialist-groveling adherents want what they want, and they want it for “free.” They call it a women’s health issue and subsequently accuse any who oppose monetarily supplying condoms or contraception for the entire western hemisphere to be waging war on women.
The outrage over Rush Limbaugh’s comments regarding Fluke are 1) largely fake and manufactured and 2) entirely selective. For proof of the first, Google “slut walk” and see that the very name Rush used to describe Fluke is flaunted proudly by those claiming to be offended. For proof of the second, read Tommy’s post on the very convenient fit the left is throwing over this whole overblown thing.
This is not hard to follow. The left wants something – something they want others to pay for. If you don’t want to pay for their every inkling? Then you’re a hate-monger, misogynist and racist just for fun.
This isn’t health care, but subsidized sex. Not sincere activism, but contrived disingenuous deception. Not a fight for essential rights, but rather to decrease the rights of others. It was probably Astroturf, evidenced by an apology call from the President of the United States based on something said on talk radio.
It was Occupy Wall Street in front of a congressional committee.
Monica Lewinsky got her literal sex from the government, free of charge. Sandra Fluke and those who pull her puppet strings want the same thing. We can’t let them have it.
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe by RSS
Rachael: Maybe they are waiting on the IG report....
Les Hardie: Why believe anything adm. officials say? Why believe White House counsel found o...
Caleb: pretty close onto the mark I'd say.salute ....
capt lou: When Obama and Holder move their lips--- It is another God Damned LIE coming out...
william: Nixon a republican was honorable he resigned other governors and senators resign...
16 Comments
This is actually nothing more than the Obama administration trying to change the subject. It’s a manufactured social issue to detract from no jobs, bad economy, bad housing market, high gas prices, war with Iran, etc. They must change the subject in order to deflect their failures. Fluke’s an insider. An operative. A manufactured “victim.” Wag The Dog-Obama style.
I can’t even begin to tell you how absolutely wrong you are, Mr. Cremeens. You are so wrong on so many levels it boggles my mind. But nothing you or any of your coherts surprises or shocks me anymore although it does tend to make me sick to my stomach. I totatally understand; you’ve lost your say-anything-and get-away-with-it mouthpiece. Poor you. Here’s the thing, Brady, you will never understand anything about this issue, it’s clear. You’ve been brainwashed and that’s a damn shame. If you believe, for one second, this has anything to do with anything other than a woman’s rights ( or lack thereof), you should actually talk to one. Yes. Go have a real conversation about this issue with a woman friend–if you can find one. You’re a big fool, Brady, and I feel nothing but pity for fools like you.
Good one Brady. Right on. The fact that POTUS apologized makes me think he had something to do with getting Fluke up there. He didn’t apologize when Dr. Laura used the N word.
Great read Brady. It’s a shame the left is getting away with misleading people into believing this has anything to do with women’s rights. Also on a side note, no form of contraceptive is 100% effective. If you can’t afford birth control, you probably don’t need to be having sex because you damn sure can’t afford a child!
Great piece! I’m hoping that more people realize that this is a totally manufactured controversy to distract from Obama’s many failures. This is not about a woman’s rights. No one is depriving women their right to have access to birth control. Having a right to something does not mean that you must have it for free. I’m appalled that this woman is trying to make this seem like some kind of national trajedy. Has she actually researched the REAL cost of birth control? You can get it really cheap at Wal-Mart! You can get it from the county health department. She could make her boyfriend/one-night-stand provide a condom. You can get birth control everywhere. In the end, it’s up to the people who CHOOSE to have sex to take the responsibility to provide birth control for themselves. This problem is easily solved if they really can’t afford it: DON’T HAVE SEX!
There is nonsense of the kind you spew here, and then there are facts:
http://j.mp/z6VdCI
I thought Brady’s article was well written, accurate and on point. Jessie Quinn’s response I found peculiar. Matthew 5:22 is quite clear on calling someone a “fool.” Make your argument Jessie. I’m interested in the opposing point of view. You make it clear that Brady is wrong numerous times but you don’t tell us where he is wrong. What kind of argument is that? You tell us it is all about a “woman’s rights” or “lack thereof.” Are you saying that every sexually active woman has a “right” to “free” birth control devices? First of all nothing is “free.” Someone manufactured those birth control devices and in order for them to continue to make birth control devices, someone has to pay for them. Since you think the sexually active woman shouldn’t, who should? I’m old and perhaps naive but it appears to me that a truly liberated woman wouldn’t want someone else to have to pay because she wants to have sex. What’s liberated about that? You seem very concerned about “women’s rights” and I respect that. How do you feel about “my” rights? Why should I have to pay because some woman wants to have sex and not conceive a child? You would probably argue that it’s the “government” that should pay for the birth control devices not me. The problem is the “government” gets their operating capital from tax payers and the “government” is broke because they don’t know how to budget their money. If Fluke and her friends can’t afford birth control devices it stands to reason they shouldn’t have sex. It’s called self-control. We aren’t talking about rabbits, we are talking about humans for crying out loud. To try and force the government to provide sexually active college students with birth control devices should be an embarrassment to every mature adult in the country. It is a sad commentary about the state of our society that something like this is even an issue.
(1) “The government” is not being mandated to provide free birth control. This is a requirement for preventive care for private insurers. Why private insurers? Because Americans can’t agree to do what every other developed country, including such socialist hellholes like Germany, Norway, France and Japan have managed, namely providing universal healthcare.
(2) “The government” already funds medicine for sexual activity: Viagra is covered by Medicare.
The message here is that government mandated support for sex is OK if it funds randy old guys, but not if it pays for preventive care for young women. (The other message is that it’s OK for one of those randy old guys – 4 times married RL – to call an outspoken young woman a slut and a prostitute.)
I’m surprised at the level of ignorance portrayed by this article and many of the comments that follow. Bottom-line, this controversy is about saving lives. We have long known in this country that contraception prevents unwanted pregnancies and abortions – its common sense. In fact, there is so much data available from prior studies over the years since birth control became mainstream, that its efficacy is no longer questioned even by hardened opponents. It also saves money. Big money to the tune of more than billion dollars every year. That’s why insurance companies are okay with it. They make up the cost many times over in unwanted pregnancies and abortions that don’t happen. They consider it an investment in future profits. Net savings were estimated at $1.5 billion per year in 2006 by the Guttmacher Institute on sexual and reproductive health. Its even more now as the population of the poor has increased faster than the overall population. Eighty percent of unwanted pregnancies and abortions occur to women below the poverty level who can’t afford birth control. That’s the bottom line and all this right-wing talk and smearing by folks like Rush Limbaugh, etc. totally misses this point. We can dramatically reduce unwanted pregnancies and abortions by simply making birth control readily available to the poorest women in our society. Think about it – those of you that are opposing this benefit for poor women, are in effect contributing to unwanted pregnancies and abortions that would otherwise not happen. And its not just a few – there are 1.3 million unwanted pregnancies in our country of which 650,000 end up in abortion every year. That’s 1 million unwanted pregnancies and 520,000 abortions happening to women mired in poverty. That’s where the problem is. It’s not with middle and upper class women, or college students, or leftists, or the political aspirations of Barack Obama, or with self-righteous religious leaders. Pro-lifers should really take notice here. If you are opposing this, you are missing a grand opportunity to support a program that will in reality reduce unwanted pregnancies and abortions. And those of you that have been saying “I don’t want my tax dollars paying for other people to have sex” get a grip! This program pays for itself, reduces healthcare costs, and taxes that go for healthcare costs so there will be less out of your pocket. Think for yourself, folks, instead of listening to people like the author of this article.
Mr. West, it does not surprise me you found my post “peculiar” and it’s quite obvious you have no good intentions on listening to an opposing view. I thought I made myself perfectly clear there Mr. Clemeens is so wrong, on so many levels, it would take volumes to respond to each.
First of all, why is it appropriate for insurers to cover Viagra and vasectomies while women’s medicine regarding similar medical needs are not?
If you are sincerely interested in considering an opposing view, Mr. West, I’d like to tell you the story of one little girl. She was born in 1975 and looked alike a China doll. She had hair so white and shiny it looked like spun gold. Her skin was lumnious, like porcelan, and she always had a giant smile for everybody. When this little girl was 11 years old, she began menstruating. She was so young, but nature has the say in all of this and there was little to do but contend with it. But it wasn’t just regular periods; the young lady would bleed profusely. Some months she bled so heavily she became anemic. She would lose so much blood, her pale skin tirned gray. She was so weak from the loss of blood, it was difficult for her to attend school. The cramping was miserable and she’d lay in bed for days, unable to partcipate in her own life. The doctors could do little for her.
When she turned 20, this beautiful young woman Started getting huge boils on her face. Some of the swollen, leaking mounds of skin actually distorted her face. The doctors gave her injections of antibiotics to destroy the infection in her blood that was ravaging her face. Sometimes they worked but most times they did not. The boils were diagnosed as Adult Acne. Her once beautiful and flawless face was becomming unrecognizable. Her personality changed. With every new scar she became more withdrawn and depressed. The boils left deep gashes in her cheeks and she the injections left “scatter shot” holes in her forehead, cheeks and chin.
Humiliated and depressed, she often thought about suicide. Her classmates made fun of her and called her “pizza face”. She lost her smile somewhere along the way.
One day, at a doctor appointment for yet more injections, he informed her there just might be help for her in the form of a birth controll pill. He said studies showed that some specific birth controll had other benefits, in addition to actual birth control (the least of which she needed). He told her it may control her heavy bleeding in addition to helping to reduce the amount and severity of the boils on her face. As he peered at her scars and gashes, he wished he had been able to help her years before.
That little girl, Mr. West, is my daughter. So if you ask me why I think Mr. Cremeens blog is bullshit, this is why. She’s 36 years old now and is forever changed by what she has suffered. She is neither a slut or a prostitute.
Am I still wrong, Mr. West, and peculiar, to demand the same rights for my daughter men receive? It’s entirely about women’s rights, Mr. West, and I can still spot a fool a mile away.
“This controversy is about saving lives.” I guess what you are saying Wayne is that a certain % of women lose their lives when having an abortion. I would think that % would be quite small in this day and age. Other than that, whose lives are you talking about? One thing we all have in common and that is that none of us think Fluke should reproduce. Your argument is basically a cost benefit analysis. I don’t have a problem with that. I’m not against contraception for many of the reasons you give. This is 2012 though and your argument that women below the poverty level are getting pregnant because they can’t afford it is weak. It takes two to tango. You are saying that between them they can’t afford a condom. Call me crazy but I just don’t think you have it figured out yet. Here is a problem some of us have with doing a cost benefit analysis on human life. I didn’t look up the statistics but it’s the old people like me that get real expensive toward the end of their life. Once a person is confined to a wheel chair in a nursing home what good is he? Why not give him a $20 shot and get rid of him? Cost wise, it would benefit everyone, except him of course. Some of these unwanted pregancies end up being good taxpayers. That 85 year old guy is useless to society. Why keep him around? All America has to do is just keep doing what it is doing and it isn’t going to be long and the discussion will be about the invalid in the nursing home or maybe even less than “normal” children. Sounds ridiculous doesn’t it? Stick around.
Insurers can do whatever they want to do Jessie. If I don’t like what they are doing, I’ll go to another insurer. My concern is that the government is becoming more and more intrusive into areas of our lives that are none of it’s business. Everybody has a story Jessie. I have a childhood friend that has a similar story about his daughter that is true and he uses it to win arguments because it gains sympathy for him and places him on what he considers the higher moral ground. I have no use for Rush Limbaugh but I don’t see much difference in what Rush said and you calling Brady a “fool.” Liberals want to make sure that conservatives follow the “rules of conduct” to the letter while anything a liberal says is appropriate. Gee that sounds a lot like Saul Alinsky doesn’t it? I’ve read the book.
Just as I suspected; you are no more interested in listening to an opposing view than Rush is interested in a lame apology. You hear what you want to hear and your facts can be as skewed as a pig’s tail, but they’re yours, right? Lol. You didn’t understand one thing I wrote; it was not to garner sympathy but to explain to you the misinformation and total absurdity of Brady’s blog. But, there you have it, folks! Another fool believing another fool’s message, whether wrong or right, they’ll defend each other til the end! I’ve wasted enough time on such foolery today, Mr. West.
Well done Brady. The bigger issue is the mindset this creates. The idea that the government should force a religious institution to provide for an item it does not believe in. What’s sad is the Left assumes that government is needed to coerce individuals to provide/purchase a product whether they want to or not. It’s this statist mindset that the Left uses w/o realizing what freedoms we have here in the US. Its about individual responsibility. I don’t care how much sex Sandra Fluke is having but what I do care about is forcing a person or a buisness to provide something for free when in fact nothing is free because for 1. costs get passed down to the consumer, 2. I do not want to subsidize ANYONES sex life, and 3. if government grants rights (right to contraception) it can take them away. The Constitution is used to protect our GOD given rights. In conclusion, a “right to contraception” is only believable in a liberal statist utopia with unicorns and rainbows.
I’m sorry but I just had to comment on Jessie Quinn’s postings. As West said, everybody has a story. And every story is personal and often heartbreaking. But that has ZERO to do with the real issue here – “WHO PAYS FOR CONTRACEPTION AND CAN THE GOVERNMENT OVERRIDE THE 1ST AMENDMENT TO FORCE RELIGIOUS ENTITIES AND THEIR AFFILIATES TO DO SO AGAINST THEIR MORAL OBJECTIONS AND TEACHINGS? AND WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT ALSO HAS THE RIGHT TO TELL A PRIVATE BUSINESS (INSURANCE COMPANIES) THAT THEY MUST PROVIDE A GOOD OR SERVICE FOR FREE, REGARDLESS OF THEIR BUSINESS MODELS AND RISK ASSESSMENTS?”
That’s all it is. The women’s rights part might apply to “access” to contraception. But access is already open to those who can pay for it, or have other means of getting it, or use other less costly methods of contraception. The majority of students don’t suffer from adult acne or menstrual issues, do they? Maybe these students can cut back on drinking in order to pay for whatever sex they’re having. There are plenty of other things these spoiled rich kids can do to afford their contraception without forcing taxpayers or churches to pay for it.
[...] uses the word "entitled" as a pejorative associated with Democrats (emphasis mine): "Fluke is an entitled liberal, which is both emblematically typical and essentially required for one to be a liberal in today’s [...]