“Forty percent of the female students at Georgetown Law reported to us that they struggled financially as a result of this policy (Georgetown student insurance not covering contraception),” Fluke reported.And here's this gem at towards the end of the video:
It costs a female student $3,000 to have protected sex over the course of her three-year stint in law school, according to her calculations.“Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school,” Fluke told the hearing.
[When we enrolled at a Catholic school] we expected women to be treated equally, to not have our school create untenable burdens that impede our academic success. We expected that our schools would live up to the Jesuit creed...to meet all of our medical needs.It's no longer hyperbole to deem liberalism a mental illness. These people are literally insane. Not to mention unbelievably entitled. She wants other people to pay for whatever she wants to do. There's no personal accountability here, no notion of being responsible and understanding the consequences of one's own actions. This is no longer demanding a safety net for those taking calculated risks; this is demanding society subsidize hedonism (believe me, these loose bitches ain't married). And note how she casts having sex as some unalienable right. As if it's akin to other legitimately sacrosanct American freedoms like that of religion and the right to bear arms (whoops, she probably doesn't like that last one).
Honestly, I don't even know what to say to these types of liberals anymore. This woman literally believes that freedom of action means that society must sanction that action. It's not enough that we allow her to do whatever she wants; we also must actively support those actions through subsidization and moral countenance. And if you don't, you're not "treating her equally"! Yes, demanding that someone either abstain from sex or find their own way to pay for a leisure activity is an "untenable burden."
How about we make a deal? We give that insufferable harpie all the birth control she wants just so we avoid anyone sharing her DNA coming into the world.
55 comments:
Share her DNA?
No possible way that freak will bear a child. Most probably adopt an African or two...
-Sweep the leg-
This a very, very bizarre twist on the world's oldest profession.
3000 is a lot of condoms
The most important thing to note here is that she is not demanding a negative right but rather a positive right. That is to say, there is no policy prohibiting her from having sex. What she wants is a positive entitlement - free stuff paid for by others. She wants the university to subsidize her sex life.
The best part is her surprise that a Catholic school doesn't want to pay for her contraception. Apparently she hadn't heard that the Church was the only one left that still opposes contraception. They never mentioned that on MTV News when she was growing up, I guess.
The most important thing to note here is that she is not demanding a negative right but rather a positive right. That is to say, there is no policy prohibiting her from having sex. What she wants is a positive entitlement - free stuff paid for by others. She wants the university to subsidize her sex life.
Very well said. I like the nomenclature you use here: "negative" vs "positive" right.
As a lawyer, she's going to have to refine her understanding of what "pro bono" actually entails.
"This woman literally believes that freedom of action means that society must sanction that action. It's not enough that we allow her to do whatever she wants; we also must actively support those actions through subsidization and moral countenance."
That's just feminism 101. Everything feminists do has to be unanimously supported by society, whether it's promiscuity or overeating.
Her name is Fluke... how fitting
Let me summarize this intrepid gaping maw's argument:
"I'm a woman and you owe me. Pay up. I want more free stuff for me! Me! Me!!! Meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!"
[When we enrolled at a Catholic school] we expected women to be treated equally, to not have our school create untenable burdens that impede our academic success. We expected that our schools would live up to the Jesuit creed...to meet all of our medical needs.
I love this.
WTF does having contraceptives have to do with your academic success, honey? Sleeping with Professor BigGrade, are we?
Medical needs. Lol. You have to admit that the left pulled a nice trick when it convinced the masses that contraception, which facilitates no strings sex, is a "medical need".
Well, it looks like she will make a fine lawyer one day.
Better get used to this, folks. America is churning out lawyers at a steady clip with no jobs waiting for them when they graduate. You'll find them slithering their way into petty positions of power where they can make people's lives miserable.
I think women in pantsuits are hot. It's a fetish to me.
I have mixed feelings about it, though.
First of all:
1. Pregnancy is not a disease.
2. Babies are not tumors.
If you're not ready to commit the next 2 decades of your life to raising another human being, don't have sex. If you're not ready to pay for treatment for STDs, don't have sex. Your actions have consequences in this life, if you're not prepared to face them, then you shouldn't be doing the act.
Second:
If you're going to tell me what happens in the privacy of your own bedroom is none of my business, then don't make me pay for the supplies and the consequences of your actions.
If, on the other hand, you are going to make me pay for the supplies and the consequences of your actions that take place in the privacy of your own bedroom, then don't tell me it is none of my business.
I don't care if that slut slept with one guy, or a 1000. Just don't make me pay for the consequences of her stupid actions.
How does she get $3000 over the course of 3 years?
That's averaging ~$3/day, which, as noted, is a lot of condoms. Amazon.com will sell you 48 for $16 (and they're new! Glad they clarified that).
http://tinyurl.com/28vv7cu
That's less than $1/day (assuming ladies in law school are only having sex once/day, every day of the year), so that leads me to conclude she's talking about a pill, or an implant, or something.
How much do these cost?
The world is fast dividing into those who are religiously pro-natalist and those who are not.
The left ensures that the secular in particular don't replace themselves.
This is not mere speculation. Look at Israel, which was once a very left wing country. No more. The left wing elite of Israel is literally losing their mind spewing antisemitism toward those among them that actually have genuine faith.
We are only in the 2nd or 3rd inning of the 1960s sex revolution. The bigger and slower effect is the demographic one that takes generations, the result of childbearing as a concious choice to those who want it only.
This is, I think, unprecedented in human history. Massive cultural and genetic shifts are inevitable.
Yeah, just looking at her you can see she's decided that the way to get ahead in life is by broadcasting a grievance. "I deserve to be in charge of something" is just about chiseled into her forehead. I find it hard to believe many men are clamoring to get into her bed, and we haven't even seen her chair legs.
Would you believe the following? 1) I've never hit a woman, and (2) I'd like to beat her up.
"What she wants is a positive entitlement - free stuff paid for by others. She wants the university to subsidize her sex life."
Why can't the guys banging her pay it?
They are the one's enjoying her, uh, company.
The Jesuits aren't getting jack. Why should they pay?
Could this chick please think of all the poor Africans who have no access to contraception?
She should be organizing car washes and bake sales to send contraception to the poor around the world.
I think she needs to invest in a good saguaro dildo with an extension cord. She won't have to cuddle with it afterwards and it will save the tax payers a tidy sum in the process.
Plain & simple: Liberals (feminists) are mentally defective. They are incorrigible beyond my comprehension. Why must we suffer such insanity?
The capacity of these people to demand things goes beyond the pale of even the most menial thought processes. Is this a nightmare or is this really happening?
If I were a righty philanthropist I'd pay 20 D.C. brothas to proposition her, then charge her with racism when she turned them down.
As a '60s survivor, I can assure you that this woman's sense of infinite entitlement is nothing new. The New Left freaks of my generation "knew" that everything should be free, and only uptight white Republicans were standing in the way of it -- just because they were mean and low on hipness quotient.
Following the '60s and early '70s, there were a couple of decades when it looked like relative sanity was going to prevail again. One of the most astonishing (and disheartening) developments lately is to watch the hippie/New Left virus re-emerging, like one of those ancient seeds found in a mummy case that starts germinating again.
Apparently, the BBC is against third world birth control:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/contraception/mass_birth_control_1.shtml
"Coercion: Using incentives to get people living in poverty to practice birth control amounts to coercion and violates the reproductive freedom of poor people
i.e. offering people on the edge of starvation food or money to use birth control amounts to an offer they can't refuse, and so deprives them of freedom of choice"
They are free to starve, or free to accept the birth control. We could go with the alternative and not interfere at all. Of course, that would entail them starving.
Hmm, I'll pay for her $3/day birth control pills if she'll pay for my right to a $300/hour escort once a week.
The right to bear arms is a positive right too - the government should not be supplying you with weapons but you have to find the money to buy them youself.
Screw 48 for $16, undercovercondoms.com will send you 100 for $20. At 20 cents a lay, it's obvious that this is less about financal hardship and more about being a spoilt little public-teat-sucking princess.
It needs to be stressed here that sex is a LEISURE activity. It's not like asking to be compensated for brain tumor surgery or something that is a necessity for life and health.
This is not a HEALTH issue, it's (feminist) liberals demanding the taxpayers subsidize their fun while mendaciously referring to their "health."
I'm spinning my head here because it's so unbelievably dishonest and stupid.
Wanting society's sanction--like gays and lesbians. Yep.
We are now a society of freaks.
What does the $3000 cover? Birth control pills? I can't believe it is that expensive.
Sensitivity_training_dropout:
I'm a little younger than you, and I can assure you that the the hippie/New Left virus never went away or even weakened in the 80's and 90's.
I still can't get over this!!
This isn't making health insurance mandatory because someone who never smoked a cigarette in their life gets lung cancer. This isn't mandatory health insurance because a kid gets diabetes or leukemia. This isn't having accepting some money wasting because shit happens in life.
This is liberal (feminists) wanting us to pay for their leisure. It's really that simple. There's absolutely no other way of explaining it. This woman wants me and other taxpayers to pay for her good time. And then she has the unbelievable AUDACITY to tell me that it's about her "health" and an "untenable burden" and her "medical needs".
Liberals have gone off the deep end. They're the most entitled, dumb, and unthinking cohort on the planet. Fuck them!!
(Every time I think about this bitch's screed, it pisses me even more.)
She's just angry and bitter because none of the guys she sleeps with care enough about her to help shoulder the costs of their "good time." Hence she must now ask society to help bear her loserish burden, and give her validation for her poorly planned lifestyle.
Her own fault for not making the right choices. Champions of casual sex hurt women more than men in the long run....
And according to her cost analysis she is presumably having sex more than once a day? Wtf, that is the recipe for a urinary tract infection or endometriosis.
"Bitches be crazy, you know that."
They put a Downs girl in the background to boot.
Apparently, feminism means governmental funding and support for anything women feel like doing. If you disagree, you're sexist.
I'm really tired of hearing about what women think or feel about issues regarding abortion or contraception, as if a woman's opinion holds more weight than that of a man. If abortion or contraception are immoral, they are immoral independent of what women (or men) think. What we need is to label a new liberal fallacy: Argumentum ad Femina.
What a bunch of sorry bitter losers apparently post here. Of course health insurance should cover contraception. And most policies do, and have done. The Catholic church, an organization of child molesters, really has no moral standing at this point to tell anyone how to live their lives.
Sex, by the way is not a leisure activity, and it is demeaning to call it that. A conservative, of all people, should know better.
Yes, sex as understood and taught by the Catholic Church should be for procreation, but this woman is not looking to have a child and raise a family with her husband; she wants free contraception so she can make sex a leisure activity for herself. It clearly has nothing to do with health and thus should obviously not be covered by healthcare insurance.
What a bunch of sorry bitter losers apparently post here. Of course health insurance should cover contraception. And most policies do, and have done. The Catholic church, an organization of child molesters, really has no moral standing at this point to tell anyone how to live their lives.
Sex, by the way is not a leisure activity, and it is demeaning to call it that. A conservative, of all people, should know better.
Sanctiminous commenter alert.
Yes we are all bitter losers because we don't want to pay for someone else's fun. Other fun I don't want to subsidize: skydiving, paintball, road trips, video games. I guess I'm such a "bitter loser" and so are all those parents who won't buy expensive toys for their kids.
As for the Catholic Church, ad hominem. It's not just the Catholic Church.
As for sex being a leisure activity, she clearly views it as such. And in fact that's one of the pillars of modern liberalism - that sex, especially for women, is so much fun.
For other response to that point, see Kurt above.
I don't know if sex in general is a leisure activity, but three-cocks-a-day epic college sluttery certainly is.
Of course health insurance should cover contraception. And most policies do, and have done. The Catholic church, an organization of child molesters, really has no moral standing at this point to tell anyone how to live their lives.
Why does this woman have moral standing to tell Catholic institutions how they need to spend their money?
Within the church, sex between a husband and wife can be a leisure activity. Nothing in the Bible condemns recreational sex between man and wife
Here's my thing, why did a catholic school allow a non-devote catholic or a non catholic to attend class there? they were asking for problems right from the start.
which isn't to imply the chick isn't crazy as hell or stirring up shit for the sake of shit stirring and trying to make a name for her
Within the church, sex between a husband and wife can be a leisure activity. Nothing in the Bible condemns recreational sex between man and wife
You must not be very familiar with biblical Christianity. It's not so much that pleasure between husband and wife is wrong per say but that making pleasure the ultimate aim for sex IS wrong. The aim for sex is reproduction and pleasure is more like a side-effect (get it?). You can have sex without contraception and still feel (or not feel) pleasure.
A few views:
1 - Reproductive sex yes (rules out totally recreative sex, contraception/birth control, sodomy).
2 - Marital monogamy yes (sex outside of marital relationship like threesomes, adultery, etc is wrong).
3 - Must be between male and female (rules out homosexuality and bissexuality).
Homosexual? No.
Heterosexual recreative? No.
Heterosexual reproductive? Yes.
Very good stuff. Linked and commented HERE on the Ex-Army Blog.
Derb mentioned this article on NRO.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/292393/you-should-be-paying-our-sex-lives-john-derbyshire?toggle=y#comment-bar
Derb mentioned this article on NRO.
Awesome! Thanks for letting me know.
The pill costs $35/month.
You can get 100 condoms for $12 on Amazon. If you can't do quite that well, we can assume $5/month for condoms.
That's $40/month. That's the cable bill that you won't have time to watch while you're in law school.
The pill costs $35/month.
You can get 100 condoms for $12 on Amazon. If you can't do quite that well, we can assume $5/month for condoms.
That's $40/month. That's the cable bill that you won't have time to watch while you're in law school.
Hmmpph...math?!?!!!??!?! You're obviously a bitter loser who hates women.
The pill is $4 a month at Walmart, for the girls not on such a tight budget, they can get a 3 month supply for $10.
But they better use condoms if they be lying with negroes.
negroes have syphilis at a rate 9.1 times White people.
negroes have gonorrhea at a rate 20.5 times White people.
negroes have chlamydia at a rate 8.7 times White people.
http://www.cdc.gov/std/health-disparities/race.htm
and HIV at 3.7 times the rate of White males.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20182358
women are safer f'ing barn animals
I read the Bible almost daily; the Old Testament has has a whole chapter on the joys of sex and never mentions reproduction. Paul makes a case for sexual availability as a means to keep from sexual sin with no mention of reproduction.
Don't confuse what the Bible says vs what the "educated" tells you it says
She must be getting both holes filled every night to justify her dollar figure.
Isn't the whole point of socialism and welfare a redirection of money from virgin nerds to reproducing douches? Idiocracy had it right.
In most European countries, taxpayer money already finances free condoms in high schools.
And of course, nodoby can oppose this because that would brand you as a bitter loser who can't suffer others having sex while he doesn't.
Shorter comment thread: Why can't all these stupid women just keep their legs closed until men choose to have sex with them?
Don't you idiots see what your argument really is?
Post a Comment