Quantcast

The Truth About Sandra Fluke: She Was Nothing More Than A Liberal Plant. And The Media Believed She Was Nothing More Than A 30 Year Old University Student.

zbacku 2012/03/06 16:00:21
Care To Comment?
What Do You Think?
You!
Add Photos & Videos
Sandra Fluke, Gender Reassignment, and Health Insurance
Stephen Gutowski's picture
Stephen Gutowski
Monday, March 5, 2012 - 7:35pm




Sandra Fluke is being sold by the left as something she's not. Namely a random co-ed from Georgetown law who found herself mixed up in the latest front of the culture war who was simply looking to make sure needy women had access to birth control. That, of course, is not the case.

As many have already uncovered Sandra Fluke she is, in reality, a 30 year old long time liberal activist who enrolled at Georgetown with the express purpose of fighting for the school to pay for students' birth control. She has been pushing for mandated coverage of contraceptives at Georgetown for at least three years according to the Washington Post.

However, as I discovered today, birth control is not all that Ms. Fluke believes private health insurance must cover. She also, apparently, believes that it is discrimination deserving of legal action if "gender reassignment" surgeries are not covered by employer provided health insurance. She makes these views clear in an article she co-edited with Karen Hu in the Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law.

The title of the article, which can be purchased in full here, is Employment Discrimination Against LGBTQ Persons and was published in the Journal's 2011 Annual Review. I have posted a transcript of the section I will be quoting from here. In a subsection of the article entitled "Employment Discrimination in Provision of Employment Benefits" starting on page 635 of the review Sandra Fluke and her co-editor describe two forms of discrimination in benefits they believe LGBTQ individuals face in the work place:

"Discrimination typically takes two forms: first, direct discrimination limiting access to benefits specifically needed by LGBTQ persons, and secondly, the unavailability of family-related benefits to LGBTQ families."

Their "prime example" of the first form of discrimination? Not covering sex change operations:

"A prime example of direct discrimination is denying insurance coverage for medical needs of transgender persons physically transitioning to the other gender."

This so called "prime example" of discrimination is expounded on in a subsection titled "Gender Reassignment Medical Services" starting on page 636:

"Transgender persons wishing to undergo the gender reassignment process frequently face heterosexist employer health insurance policies that label the surgery as cosmetic or medically unnecessary and therefore uncovered."

To be clear, the argument here is that employers are engaging in discrimination against their employees who want them to pay for their sex changes because their "heterosexist" health insurance policies don't believe sex changes are medically necessary.

Additionally Sandra Fluke and her co-editor have an answer for why exactly these "heterosexist" insurance policies, and the courts that side with them, deem sex changes as medically unnecessary:

"In Mario v. P & C Food Markets, Inc., an employee who was denied such coverage brought claims under the federal Employee Retirement Income Security (ERISA) and Title VII. The court rejected the ERISA claim, finding the plaintiff's mastectomy and hormone therapy were not medically necessary. The court's ruling was based upon controversy within the medical community regarding that treatment plan. Much of that controversy has been linked to ignorance and bias against transgender persons, and the American Medical Association has declared the lack of coverage to be discrimination."

You see, all opposition to the determination that sex changes are medically necessary, and therefor must be covered by private employer provided health insurance, is based on "ignorance and bias against transgender persons".

The section on discrimination against those seeking gender reassignment ends with Sandra Fluke and her co-editor wondering why more lawsuits aren't filed against private employers on these grounds. Especially in comparison to the frequency with which these types of cases are filed against Medicare, Medicaid, and even the prison system:

"The reason for this lack of cases is unclear. Private employee insurance plans do not more frequently cover this need, so it may be a sign that transgender employees do not see the courts as likely to provide any assistance against private employers."

The argument made in this article edited by Sandra Fluke and Karen Hu is quite clear. "Gender reassignment" is a medically necessary set of procedures that must be covered under employee provided health insurance policies. If it is not covered by those policies that is tantamount to discrimination and legal action should be taken against the employer.

So, as you can see, Sandra Fluke is not what she is being sold as. Instead she is a liberal activist pushing some rather radical ideas. Keep that in mind as the left holds her up in the spotlight.

Read More: http://mrctv.org/blog/sandra-fluke-gender-reassign...

Add a comment above

Top Opinion

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • RJ~PWCM~JLA 2012/03/06 17:29:32
    Care To Comment?
    RJ~PWCM~JLA
    The "media", i.e the Dinosaur Media, publishes whatever Media Matters, 0bama's propaganda department, tells them to publish. The MM people meet weekly with the White House "communication team", and the disseminate the news for the week to the Old Media outlets for publication.
  • change? 2012/03/06 17:10:07
    Care To Comment?
    change?
    +2
    She's a 30 year old woman who believes that the government should mandate that private companies, employers, religious organizations pay for what she wants/needs. If she really can't afford contraceptives, the governments gives millions to Planned Parenthood and local health departments to help her get the contraceptives that she wants. This argument that it is denying her basic healthcare needs/contraceptives is totally bogus. No one is tyring to outlaw or keep her from having contraceptives. The argument is who must pay for it. Are vasectomys/condoms covered? What about men's reproductive healthcare rights? If the "burden" (Ms. Fluke's words) you bear is paying for birthcontrol...your life is pretty sweet. Give me a break Ms. Fluke...I don't think calling her a slut is appropriate, but a mooch is definately applicable.
  • Demonic Rat Hunter 2012/03/06 17:02:03
    Care To Comment?
    Demonic Rat Hunter
    +1
    It's all about the Agenda

    agenda fluke gay agenda
  • Amasaman 2012/03/06 16:34:19
    Care To Comment?
    Amasaman
    +2
    I guess they couldn't do a better job of covering her agenda driven past.
  • Bella 2012/03/06 16:19:04
    What Do You Think?
    Bella
    Her age is irrelevant. She's a decent woman who has been slandered by a "terrible" person
  • Simmeri... Bella 2012/03/06 17:14:56
    Simmering Frog - PHART
    +1
    Rush is a terrible person because he points out a woman is testifying before congress that she wants funding for sex? How does that make Rush a bad person?
  • Bella Simmeri... 2012/03/06 19:07:45
    Bella
    Show me proof that this women testified before congress saying she wants funding for sex. You have never read her testimony and have just listened to the lies RL has been making up.
  • Simmeri... Bella 2012/03/06 19:31:44
    Simmering Frog - PHART
    Go away. SImply because you say something doesn't make it true. What do you think she was going up there for? Pleading to government to help her pay for her Georgetown tuition?
  • Bella Simmeri... 2012/03/06 19:35:41
    Bella
    I just asked you to back up your lies with proof. LOL telling me to go away because you can't prove anything claimed by RL and his supporters is hilarious. READ HER TESTIMONY
  • Simmeri... Bella 2012/03/06 19:41:10 (edited)
    Simmering Frog - PHART
    I can't answer you because you just created your reality saying "your lies." I don't lie. That's how liberals deal with reality: when you don't like reality, you create your own. I'm not playing in your fantasy world.
  • Bella Simmeri... 2012/03/06 20:02:13
    Bella
    Stick with the fantasy that RL has created, don't check for yourself. Don't read her transcript yourself to find out what she actually said. Don't try to back up what youve claimed with proof. You're a right winger, you don't have to LOL. You're afraid to read her testimony because you know RL is a liar
  • Simmeri... Bella 2012/03/06 22:04:57
    Simmering Frog - PHART
    I don't even listen to Rush Limbaugh. Other than his response to Sandra Fluke Me, I haven't heard him in months.
  • Bella Simmeri... 2012/03/06 22:14:55
    Bella
    Show me how this is true. "Rush is a terrible person because he points out a woman is testifying before congress that she wants funding for sex? How does that make Rush a bad person?" if you don't listen to Rush where did you find the information that says she went to "congress for funding for sex?" Not from her testimony, not from what she actually said. You say you don't listen to him..."other than his responses to Sandra Fluke." How about turning Rush off and listen to or read what Ms Fluke said...
  • Simmeri... Bella 2012/03/06 22:22:00
  • Bella Simmeri... 2012/03/06 22:27:23
    Bella
    Here, I did the work for you read her own words. That is if you have the cajones. http://www.buzzfeed.com/boxof...
  • zbacku Simmeri... 2012/03/06 21:18:07
    zbacku
    I'd like to know what rock Bella has been hiding under. Talk about the denial of the left.. She's the poster child of that denial.
  • zbacku Bella 2012/03/06 21:16:32
    zbacku
    She wants the government to PAY for her birth control. If that's funding for her to have sex, then nothing is.
  • Bella zbacku 2012/03/06 21:37:38
    Bella
    So sorry so sad but she never said that. If you believe what you just wrote then back it up with proof. My proof is her testimony, READ IT.
  • Roger47 2012/03/06 16:12:29
    Care To Comment?
    Roger47
    The relevant issue is not her. It is that a group of Republican men holding a hearing to decide contraceptive policy for our nation saw no need to include women in the discussion. Rush has done an excellent job of distracting from that. He is "taking one for the team" by shifting the discussion away from the sexist Republican men. The Republican party does not respect what women have to say. That is the real story.
  • keymanjim Roger47 2012/03/06 16:22:25
  • JoeBtfsplk keymanjim 2012/03/06 16:50:50
    JoeBtfsplk
    +2
    It's the 'mandate' thingy!!!
  • Continu... Roger47 2012/03/06 17:08:07
    Continuing Anglican Priest
    So you think that posessing a vagina is necessary in order to understand and set policy?

    Blessings Upon You
  • Scrooge63 Roger47 2012/03/06 20:49:07 (edited)
    Scrooge63
    +2
    There are two groups that testify before Congress: experts and victims. She is no expert in constitutional law, religion or medicine and her name was submitted after a set deadline. Now it has been revealed that she's no "victim" either but a plant to try to force a Catholic institution to pay for abortion-causing drugs/procedures and gender-reassignment surgery. Shameful!

    Furthermore, the second panel (the one the Lamestream Media didn't show) featured two women, (medical doctors, I believe), that opposed the mandate.
  • tjfoxworth Roger47 2012/03/07 16:25:25
    tjfoxworth
    +2
    Nice try. The subcommittee hearing was on the constitutionality of Obama's mandate to force religious institutions to provide contraception in violation of their protected right to religious freedom. The Democrats had slated a man as their witness. With less than 24 hours notice they said they wanted Sandra Fluke instead, a clear violation of subcommittee protocols. The Subcommittee chair said no, there was no time to vet her or prepare questioning for her, stick with you original witness who they were prepared for. Flukes never testified before the subcommittee,it was basically a press conference staged to look like testimony. The truth is that this is a fabricated issue made to take everyone's attention away from Obama's failure as a president and us an upholder of the Constitution. There is no "War on Women", it simply "Wag the Pill".
  • greatwhyte2 2012/03/06 16:08:19
    What Do You Think?
    greatwhyte2
    +4
    Thats typical liberal tricks
  • bob 2012/03/06 16:08:06
    What Do You Think?
    bob
    Classic conservative smear attempt, good try
  • keymanjim bob 2012/03/06 16:12:14
    keymanjim
    +4
    It's not smear if it's the truth.
    Care to point out anything in the article that is a lie?
  • zbacku keymanjim 2012/03/06 17:03:35
    zbacku
    Truth doesn't matter to Liberals. Otherwise they couldn't exist.
  • zbacku bob 2012/03/06 17:01:59
    zbacku
    To a Liberal, all Truth is a smear. Nice try, but a fail nonetheless.
    Facts never seem to get in the way of a Liberal's agenda of Lies, and Deception.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/12/22 12:50:13

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals