Sandra Fluke's CNN Op-Ed Analyzed...

Guys,

As I often say, I cannot make this stuff up.  What you're about to read is Sandra Fluke's recent CNN op-ed with analysis from yours truly.  Since I've made the SPLC'S black list, I figure I might as well do something to EARN my place on it-ha!  Without any further ado, here is the-gag-'lovely & gracious' Sandra Fluke's op-ed with my commentary...


------------------

Sandra Fluke: Slurs won't silence women

By Sandra Fluke, Special to CNN

updated 1:09 AM EDT, Wed March 14, 2012

Editor's note: Sandra Fluke is a third-year law student at Georgetown University Law Center and has served as president of Georgetown Law Students for Reproductive Justice.

What CNN and the rest of the national media did NOT tell you is that Miss Fluke isn't a young, twentysomething coed; rather, she is a seasoned, Feminazi activist who's 30 years old!  She spent five years working as a Feminazi domestic violence advocate in New York City.

(CNN) -- Last month, students from several Catholic universities gathered to send a message to the nation that contraception is basic health care. I was among them, and I was proud to share the stories of my friends at Georgetown Law who have suffered dire medical consequences because our student insurance does not cover contraception for the purpose of preventing pregnancy.

Darlin' (that always pisses off the Feminazis!), you just hung a fastball over the middle!  Stand by while I hit this out of the park...

Firstly, I have to ask one, simple question: why did you attend a Catholic university when any person with two brain cells knocking together knows that they take a dim view of birth control?  Why did you do that?!  Who the f*ck are YOU to demand that a religious institution change THEIR rules because you disagree with them?  Isn't that rather arrogant?  How is that any different than refusing to take off your shoes as a guest in someone's house who has a rule about removing shoes upon entry?  Why didn't you simply attend another law school whose philosophy was more in agreement with your own?  The truth of the matter is that you WANTED to cause trouble at Georgetown, isn't that right?

Before I continue, I have to take a little detour here.  It is important that the reader have some insight into law school, which I will provide now.

Now, as I stated previously, I seriously researched law school.  One of the many things I found out was that law school ranking matters.  I also found out which law schools were the top law schools.  Historically speaking, if you wanted a good future in the legal world, you wanted to attend a Top 14 (T14) law school.  Georgetown is ranked 14th in the land, which puts it at the bottom of the T14.  The ranking of the top 100 US law schools can be viewed here.

Another thing my research revealed was this: with the exception of the top three law schools (Harvard, Yale, and Stanford), where you attend law school determines where you practice.  Lawyers are risk averse, so they like to deal with alumni from their regional law schools.  For someone wishing to live and work in New Jersey, that would mean attending Rutgers or Seton Hall for law school.  Since Miss Fluke chose to attend Georgetown, one would THINK that she wished to live and practice in Wasthington, DC and its surrounding environs.  There are exceptions to this rule, such as the aforementioned HYS, which will allow a lawyer to practice anywhere.  One could attend Duke or Penn, allowing them to practice anywhere along the I-95 corridor.  That said, where you attend law school determines where you practice.  I'll come back to these two points presently.

Now, if Miss Fluke could get into Georgetown, she could have gotten into other T14 law schools; not only that, she could have gotten into T14 law schools that would have allowed her to practice in Washington, DC.  When we look at the law school ranking table, we can also view the GPA and LSAT scores of the school's incoming student body, its 1Ls.  Judging by the table, if Sandra Fluke got admitted to Georgetown, then her GPA & LSAT scores were good enough to get into Duke and Penn too; both schools place graduates along the I-95 corridor, so Miss Fluke could have practiced in DC as a grad from the Duke or Penn law schools.  If Miss Fluke were willing to attend a good law school outside of the coveted T14 in the DC area, then George Washington University's law school (ranked 20th) was also an option.

Now, it's time to get back on track; it's time to move on to point number two.

The second point is that NOBODY is restricting access to birth control, Bitch!  Where has access to birth control been restricted, hmm?  One can obtain numerous means of birth control here in America; access isn't a problem, Sweetheart (sorry, I had to take another potshot to piss off the Feminazis, hehehe).  You can get it anywhere, and do so cheaply.

Oh, and the $3,000 figure you quoted is false; you're a lying bitch!!  I paid a visit to Planned Parenthood's website, and I found out that birth control pills don't cost anywhere NEAR $1,000 a year.  After you arrive on Planned Parenthood's home page, you'll see a list of categories along the left side.  One of those categories is 'birth control', which I clicked.  That brought up a list of the various and sundry means of birth control, including birth control pills; I selected birth control pills, since that was your focus.  According to Planned Parenthood's page on birth control pills (that's key!), they cost $15-$50 per month; on an annual basis, that equates to $180-$600 a year, which would be $540-$1,800 over three years.  Uh, Darlin', that's a LOT less than $3,000 lie you told both to a Congressional committee and the nation!  You're a LIAR!

Three, whatever happened to good, old fashioned abstinence?  Whatever happened to NOT having sex-especially if you cannot AFFORD to do so?!  Oh, and here's another thing: whatever you may think of abstinence, there's no disputing this: it works EVERY TIME IT'S TRIED!  It has 100% effectiveness at avoiding pregnancy!  Since avoiding pregnancy is one of the holy grails of modern feminism, why not practice abstinence more?  Why not encourage other women to practice it more, since it is 100% effective at avoiding pregnancy?  Would you care to answer that, Sweetheart?

I joined these students in speaking at a media event because I believe that stories of how real women are affected are the most powerful argument for access to affordable, quality reproductive health care services.

See my points above.  You already have access to affordable birth control, Darlin'...

I also joined these students because now is a critical time to raise this issue in our public consciousness.

That was a pitiful, ineffective attempt to distract the American people from Barack Hussein Obama's HIDEOUS record.  Isn't it propitious that this issue is raised in the public consciousness at the same time gasoline is about to hit $4.00 nationwide?  Isn't this coincidental (NOT!) that this issue is raised in the public consciousness while unemployment is at record levels?  You know what I think?  I think you're a leftist plant, Miss Fluke...

Thanks to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, preventive care services, including contraception, will be covered by private insurance plans without co-pays or deductibles. If appropriately implemented, this important law will finally guarantee women access to contraception, regardless of the religious affiliation of their workplace or school.

Uh, I have another question here, Miss Fluke: why should religious organizations, churches, and schools be FORCED to violate their religious convictions?  Why should they be compelled to do something that goes against the core tenets of their faith?  Whatever happened to the First Amendment, part of which guarantees religious freedom, Miss Fluke?  Whatever happened to the 'separation of church & state' that you leftist whores always kvetching about?  Why aren't you crying out for separation of church and state in this instance, hmmm?

By now, many have heard the stories I wanted to share thanks to the congressional leaders and members of the media who have supported me and millions of women in speaking out.

You're right about millions of women speaking out, but it's NOT for birth control.  They're speaking out against higher energy prices, which impact their families in numerous ways.  From cutting down their disposable income (more money being spent for fuel) to higher food prices (because higher fuel prices means higher transport costs), millions of women are more concerned about ECONOMIC issues, not birth control-duh!  Higher prices for food, fuel, and energy means LESS money for vacations, toys for the kids, home improvements, etc.  THAT'S what millions of women are concerned about, not birth control pills, you lying bitch!

Because we spoke so loudly, opponents of reproductive health access demonized and smeared me and others on the public airwaves. These smears are obvious attempts to distract from meaningful policy discussions and to silence women's voices regarding their own health care.

How did your opponents smear you, Miss Fluke?  How does calling BULLSHIT on what you said constitute a smear?  If you say something publicly, how can you not expect to be called on it?  How can you consider Rush Limbaugh's 'slut & prostitute' remarks  a smear when you said, in effect, you were having so much sex that you needed someone else to pay $1,000 for your birth control expenses?!

These attempts to silence women and the men who support them have clearly failed. I know this because I have received so many messages of support from across the country -- women and men speaking out because they agree that contraception needs to be treated as a basic health care service.

What about practicing ABSTINENCE, my dear?  If you're so concerned about avoiding unwanted pregnancies, shouldn't you employ the means that is 100% effective?  Shouldn't you employ the means that is 100% free?  Finally, isn't it just good sense to refrain from sex, so as to avoid contracting an STD or STI?  What about THAT as a health issue?

Who are these supporters?

Good question: who ARE these supporters?

They are women with polycystic ovarian syndrome, who need contraception to prevent cysts from growing on their ovaries, which if unaddressed can lead to infertility and deadly ovarian cancer. They are sexual assault victims, who need contraception to prevent unwanted pregnancy.

 I just did some more Googling around, and I found THIS information about PCOS treatment.  You'll see that the link is from Womenshealth.gov-hardly a misogynistic web site!  Note: birth control pills are only ONE treatment option-and that's only if one is seeking to avoid pregnancy.  One can also treat PCOS via lifestyle changes and the use of diabetic pills.

They are Catholic women, who see no conflict between their social justice-based faith and family planning. They are new moms, whose doctors fear that another pregnancy too soon could jeopardize the mother's health and the potential child's health too. They are mothers and grandmothers who remember all too well what it was like to be called names decades ago, when they were fighting for a job, for health care benefits, for equality.

Uh, what about OBSERVING the core tenets of your faith, Miss Fluke?  If that faith's core tenets are not to your liking, why stay in that faith?  Isn't it true that one of Catholicism's core tenets prohibits the use of birth control of any kind?  Isn't this widely known?  I'm not even a Catholic, yet I know that-sheesh!  How stupid do you think we are, Miss Fluke?

Oh, and what did these beloved Catholic women of yours do BEFORE birth control pills were invented?  You do know that they've only been available since 1960, right?  What did humans do before then to avoid pregnancy?  Did you ever hear of natural family planning, which IS taught by the Catholic Church?

They are husbands, partners, boyfriends and male friends who know that without access to contraception, the women they care about can face unfair obstacles to participating in public life. And yes, they are young women of all income levels, races, classes and ethnicities who need access to contraception to control their reproduction, pursue their education and career goals and prevent unintended pregnancy. And they will not be silenced.

Say WHAT?!  How, pray tell me, does access to contraception impact participation in public life?  What does one have to do with the other?  I really can't wrap my arms around that.  If you want to control your reproduction, why don't you control access to your vagina?  Oh, and if you're really serious about your schooling, what about making that your focus, and not extracurricular activities like sex?

These women know how expensive birth control pills can be, with or without insurance coverage. For a single mother with kids, a woman making minimum wage, or a student living on loans, a high monthly co-pay could be the difference between buying contraception or one week of groceries.

Uh, Darlin', as I pointed out before, birth control pills only cost $15-$50 a month through Planned Parenthood!  That's hardly expensive; one could pay for that by refraining from one or two weekly visits to McDonald's or Taco Bell.  Even if we accept the high figure of $50, that's still less than most people are paying to fill their cars with gasoline; many are paying more than that!  I paid $40 to fill my car recently, and I drive a small, fuel efficient vehicle.

And imagine the financial burden of unplanned pregnancy and raising a child. For women without insurance coverage or with insurance that doesn't cover contraception, the costs create a significant financial burden.

See my above comments.  This is getting old.  Oh, and as for kids being a financial burden, I've had parents tell me this: if you wait till you can 'afford' kids, you'll never have them; you're NEVER ready to have kids!

Many women cannot medically use the least expensive types of contraception. As a result, many women, especially those 18 to 34 who have the most trouble affording contraception, simply go without. They face any number of medical risks as well as unintended pregnancy -- all of which damage their productivity and the health of their families.

Uh, would you care to elaborate on that, Miss Fluke?  Why can't women use these inexpensive forms of birth control?  Care to tell us that?  How can anyone have trouble affording $15-$50 a month it costs to obtain birth control pills from Planned Parenthood?

Most recently, certain political commentators have started spreading misinformation about the underlying government regulation we are discussing. To be clear, through programs such as Medicaid, the government already does and should fund contraception coverage for the poorest women in our country.

If that's the case, then why do you and other poor women need help with purchasing your birth control, Miss Fluke?  Aren't you contradicting yourself here?

But, despite the misinformation being spread, the regulation under discussion has absolutely nothing to do with government funding: It is all about the insurance policies provided by private employers and universities that are financed by individual workers, students and their families -- not taxpayers.

Uh, who pays for it isn't the issue-at least not directly.  No, what IS at issue here is The First Amendment; what is at issue here is religious freedom.  Wouldn't religious freedom entail worshiping God as one sees fit?  Wouldn't that mean allowing a church to REFRAIN from paying for birth control if that goes against one of the core tenets of their faith?  Miss Fluke, while telling part of the truth here, doesn't tell the WHOLE truth: mainly that this regulation is a FIRST AMENDMENT ISSUE-duh!

Those of us who call ourselves conservative (and I do, not that my long time readers need to be told that) never said it was an issue about taxpayers paying for birth control.  What IS at issue is religious freedom; what is at issue is the government, in effect, TELLING the Catholic Church what to do, mainly violate a core tenet of their faith.  Doesn't that make this a First Amendment issue?  Isn't one of the freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment freedom of Religion?  How can we have religious freedom if the government is telling the Catholic Church what to do?  Isn't the First Amendment one of the Bill of Rights?  Ergo, can we not say that the First Amendment provides churches and religious organizations protection FROM government interference?

You do remember the First Amendment, don't you?  It's one of the Bill of Rights, which is part of the Constitution.  You should have studied the Constitution during your first year of law school, Miss Fluke, so this shouldn't be news to you.  How is this not a religious freedom issue?

I am talking about women who, despite paying their own premiums, cannot obtain coverage of contraception on their private insurance, even when their employer or university contributes nothing to that insurance.

What about buying a policy that covers birth control, hmmm?  Better yet, what about obtaining it from Planned Parenthood or other entities providing birth control at a discounted price?  If you can't afford $15-$50 a month for The Pill, how can you afford to have sex?   If you're so worried about your health, what about abstaining from sex, and preventing pregnancy, not to mention a nasty STD?!

Restricting access to such a basic health care service, which 99% of sexually experienced American women have used and 62% of American women are using right now, is out of touch with public sentiment. In fact, more than 60% of Americans support this regulation and affordable access to contraception, according to the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation.

How is access to birth control being restricted, Miss Fluke?  How is it not available when you can go to any Planned Parenthood office and get it?  And if Planned Parenthood doesn't have an office near you (I can't imagine THAT in DC), did you know that you can purchase birth control pills online?!  It's true!  You can buy birth control pills online.  One of the vendors I Googled was Discount Pharmacy online.  They have birth control pills available for $30 a month delivered to your door; you don't even have to leave home to get 'em.  Talk about affordability and convenience!

Attacking me and women who use contraception by calling us prostitutes and worse cannot silence us.

And attacking our First Amendment rights will not silence US!

I am proud to stand with the millions of women and men who recognize that our government should legislate according to the reality of our lives -- not for ideology.

Government should legislate according to the Constitution and our First Amendment rights; it should legislate according to The Bill of Rights!  If it pisses off little Feminazis like you, too bad.

-------------------

Guys, that concludes my thoughts on Sandra Fluke's CNN op-ed piece.  I could have put in a lot more into this piece, but I didn't; I merely hit the blatantly obvious issues.  Even limiting myself like that, it's taken me most of the afternoon to write this.  Miss Sandra Fluke provided a 'target rich' environment; she made my job easy!

What I can't understand is why ANY guy would want to sleep with her.  Did you see her?  She's not at all hot.  She has a thick neck and short hair which accentuates that.  Someone on Mancoat said that she looked like a young Janet Reno-ouch!  I wonder if she swings the same way as Reno does?  Until next time...

MarkyMark