Is Sandra Fluke an Obama plant?
|
|
|||||
|
16 votes
|
|
67% | |||
|
8 votes
|
|
33% | |||
By CATHY CLEAVER RUSE
Last week Sandra Fluke, a student at Georgetown University Law Center, went to Congress looking for a handout. She wants free birth-control pills, and she wants the federal government to make her Catholic school give them to her.
I'm a graduate of Georgetown Law and former chief counsel of the House Subcommittee on the Constitution. Based on her testimony, I wonder how much Ms. Fluke really knows about the university or the Constitution.
Sandra Fluke, a third-year law student at Georgetown University, testifies during a hearing before the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee on February 23.
As a law student 20 years ago, I wasn't confronted by crucifixes in the classroom or, in truth, by any religious imagery anywhere. In that respect the law school has a different "feel" than the university. The law school chapel was an unadorned, multipurpose room in the basement used for Mass when it wasn't used for Gilbert and Sullivan Society rehearsals and club meetings. Among the clubs while I was there, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance was particularly vigorous.
I was not Catholic when I attended Georgetown Law, but I certainly knew the university was. So did Ms. Fluke. She told the Washington Post that she chose Georgetown knowing specifically that the school did not cover drugs that run contrary to Catholic teaching in its student health plans. During her law school years she was a president of "Students for Reproductive Justice" and made it her mission to get the school to give up one of the last remnants of its Catholicism. Ms. Fluke is not the "everywoman" portrayed in the media.
Georgetown Law School has flung wide its doors to the secular world. It will tolerate and accommodate all manner of clubs and activities that run contrary to fundamental Catholic beliefs. But it is not inclined to pay for or provide them. And it has the right to do so—to say "this far and no further."
When congressional committee counsels plan hearings, they look for two kinds of witnesses: "experts" and "victims." The experts are typically lawyers or law professors who can explain the constitutional authority for the new law and its legal impact, and the victims illustrate why the law is needed.
At the hearing of the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee chaired by Nancy Pelosi, Sandra Fluke testified as a victim. Having to buy your own contraception is a burden, she said. She testified that all around her at Georgetown she could see the faces of students who were suffering because of Georgetown's refusal to abandon its Catholic principles.
Exactly what does the face of a law student who must buy her own birth-control pills look like? Did I see them all around me and just not know it? Do male law students who must buy their own condoms have the same look? Perhaps Ms. Fluke should have brought photos to Congress to illustrate her point.
In her testimony, Ms. Fluke claimed that, "Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school." That's $1,000 per year. But an employee at a Target pharmacy near the university told the Weekly Standard last week that one month's worth of generic oral contraceptives is $9 per month. "That's the price without insurance," the employee said. (It's also $9 per month at Wal-Mart.)
What about Rush Limbaugh? I won't defend his use of epithets (for which he's apologized), but I understand his larger point. At issue isn't inhalers for asthmatics or insulin for diabetics. Contraception isn't like other kinds of "health care." Yes, birth-control pills can be prescribed to address medical problems, though that's relatively rare and the Catholic Church has no quarrel with their use in this circumstance. And the university's insurance covers prescriptions in these cases.
Still, Ms. Fluke is not mollified. Why? Because at the end of the day this is not about coverage of a medical condition.
Ms. Fluke's crusade for reproductive justice is simply a demand that a Catholic institution pay for drugs that make it possible for her to have sex without getting pregnant. It's nothing grander or nobler than that. Georgetown's refusal to do so does not mean she has to have less sex, only that she has to take financial responsibility for it herself.
Should Ms. Fluke give up a cup or two of coffee at Starbucks each month to pay for her birth control, or should Georgetown give up its religion? Even a first-year law student should know where the Constitution comes down on that.
Ms. Ruse, senior fellow for legal studies at the Family Research Council, received her J.D. from Georgetown Law in 1989.
Top Opinion
-
Kimmel 2012/03/07 15:56:58Other foolish nonsense.






















Georgetown University Law Center, as one of the nation's premier law schools, has no student health center???? GOSH!!! Those poor students are having unprotected sex all over the campus??? Does the county health department have NO resources for this poor waif who is at the mercy of her out-of-control sexual hormones and urges?????
Sandra Fluke
Religion
Sex
Race
Income
War
Peace
Energy
Global Warming (oops....Climate Change)
"Don't pay any attention to the man behind the curtain..."
What? It's for science....
This whole non-issue is a FABRICATION of the Obama regime.
Women can't get pills and condoms????
Republicans won't let women get birth control!!!???
OH, wait, they CAN get them EASILY and CHEAPLY.
As they could for YEARS and years.
Obama can't run on his record, so he needs issues on which he can demonize Republicans. This is one of those issues. If he can successfully sell enough people on the idea that Republicans are out to wage "war on women," he has a better chance of being re-elected.
Wise people know better, of course. They know that it's ridiculous to think that Republicans are trying to "ban contraception" or "wage war on women."
The only "war" I see being waged here is Obama and the Democrats waging war on religious liberties, specifically the Roman Catholic Church's.
Anytime the government tries to mandate something that a major religion teaches is wrong, "war on religious freedom" is the only way to describe it.
Anyone who voluntarily attends a Catholic college should not expect the college to abandon its Catholic principles or identity in order to suit them. They either respect the college's Catholic principles, or they go find themselves another college.
And let's not use "Catholic people use birth control anyway" as an excuse to give government the power to stomp on the First Amendment. That's a matter of personal choice, not government mandate.
Besides, religious freedom for churches is not dependent on any "success rate" of how well the church's members adhere to the church's teachings. Regardless of how many adherents follow (or break) Catholicism's teachings, the Church still has every right to hold the teachings and propagate them.
In which case....
"Fluke" was no "fluke".
It's also my business and prerogative - (because of her apparent advocacy and glorification of habitual, sexual promiscuity and fornication) - to sadly think of her as a probable slut.
However, she is never beyond forgiveness with repentance.
Her choice of behavior - my choice of words.
And, I don't have any sponsors to lose.
And, I couldn't care less who disagrees with my take.