Sandra Fluke’s Curious Activism and More Curious Recommendations

Dumb Luck for the Left?

Isn’t it odd that the Democrats have been pushing this contraception theme as the means by which to derail the heated issue over the Obamacare mandate on religious institutions as a breech of their religious freedoms, and just as Rush Limbaugh stepped into the well-laid snare, the trap was sprung with a ferocity that no talk-show host should warrant, who should rise to the top but Sandra Fluke, 30 year-old Georgetown University law-school student and radical feminist advocate to catch Limbaugh off guard.  I think Rush is a target of opportunity, because I believe they were hoping Rick Santorum would get caught up in all of this.  Having failed to ensnare any of the Republican presidential hopefuls, but having managed to catch the big radio voice they would most like to destroy, they seized upon the opportunity to attack Limbaugh for his imprudent use of the words “prostitute” and “slut.”

Fluke isn’t the innocent she’s been portrayed as having been.  She’s been presented as a bit of a patsy, and a well-meaning young woman, and all of that, but the truth is that Fluke has been a radical activist for years.  In fact, her entire rationale for enrolling at Georgetown University was to try to force this fight.  She’s not some poor, helpless student who was set upon by big mean Rush Limbaugh.  By all reports, she’s a coldly-calculating left-wing conniver who is actively pursuing the goal to compel colleges and other religious institutions to cover not only contraception, but also gender reassignment surgery for transgendered people.  That’s right, Ms. Fluke is hardly some wide-eyed victim of the evil right-wing and other alleged woman-haters. Here’s an excerpt of the article at TheCollegePolitico:

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”.

This gets more absurd, as she appeared Monday on The View with the gaggle of gawking leftists(minus Elizabeth Hasselbeck, who is probably moderately conservative at best.)  Fluke rejected Limbaugh’s apology, as read in part by Barbara Walters, and when asked about Rush Limbaugh, launched into another thing and made a website recommendation.  Guess which one?  (It’s at around the 1:03 mark in the video)

Barbara Walters went out of her way to mention that this isn’t about tax-payer money, and this is somewhat true, but in fact, it’s much worse than this: It’s about compelling religious institutions to pay for coverages that are contrary to their deeply held religious views.  As bad as it would be if Fluke were merely demanding public money, what she’s actually demanding is that the First Amendment rights of religious institutions be over-ridden by her demands.  She’s worse than a welfare moocher for contraception:  She’s a full-on tyrant who doesn’t give a damn for the rights of people and institutions that will be compelled at gunpoint to provide this coverage.  In my view, this doesn’t make the case for Fluke, but merely damns her all the more.

Her recommendation of Media Matters as a source for information is troubling, because what this reveals is a hardcore radical-left activist and advocate bent on an agenda.  The longer this goes on, the more thoroughly I’ve become convinced that it’s a lefty set-up al the way, and that unsuspecting Rush Limbaugh ran headlong into it merely means this was engineered at the highest levels.  As it turns out of course, the testimony happened with Minority Leader(and former Speaker) Nancy Pelosi presiding, while Obama’s administration was pushing this desperately as they were beginning to lose ground in the polls due to the controversy over their violation of the protections of the free exercise of religion.

Now comes word that a push is ongoing in the Senate to get Rush Limbaugh off the radio altogether, and the White House has posted a link to a petition to get Limbaugh off of Armed Forces Radio, while political hack Steny Hoyer(D-MD,) runs around talking up the possibility of Fluke filing suit against Limbaugh.  I doubt such a suit would ever occur, because as Mark Levin pointed out on his show Monday evening, this would open up the matter of discovery, and soon we would find out all the details of Ms. Fluke’s personal life. I can imagine attorneys asking things like:

“Have you ever participated in the events known widely as “slut-walks?”

Of course, nobody knows the full details about Ms. Fluke’s life, never mind whether she’s ever participated in such an event, but that is the way she and the White House would probably like to keep it, because it would cause great harm to this little storm they have swirling around Rush Limbaugh, and it’s for this reason that I doubt she’d file suit.  By testifying before Congress, she’s entered into the realm of public persons by her own volition.  The standards there would be much higher, and she’d be hard-pressed to show that Limbaugh’s questions, little more than opinions, were anything more than any of the millions of other opinions issuing forth about public personae each and every day in media. In short, she’d probably lose, and for her trouble, would be placed into the position of having to air her own laundry, however clean or dirty it might be.

One thing is certain about Fluke: She’s not the poor little school-girl the media has made her out to be, and while Limbaugh probably shouldn’t have used the words he did, it’s clear to me that the left is using this to gin up another false narrative, and more, they’re continuing to push the notion that some alleged entitlement to contraception trumps religious liberties.  It’s a lie, it’s a sham, and if they expect me to forget this, they’re wrong.  Oh, and don’t expect me to abandon Limbaugh to the leftist hyenas. I’m not like those weak-kneed Republicans last seen running for the tall grass.  Not a chance.

Here’s some more interesting background on Fluke.

 

Like Be the first one who likes this post!
  • phillipser

    Hang strong Rush! Fighting all the liberal whack jobs and the media can be a hard fight.  You are not alone.  There are tons of fans out here in the nation and we applaud what you do.  Its always amazing how the liberals always pull out the boycott card to get what they want.  Their platform or reason will not stand on its own two feet.  Threats and more threats…..Maybe its time the conservatives started doing the same thing to all the liberal late night mouths that think spreading liberal crap is funny.

    • ruffsoft

      Rush has been married 4 times and has no children.  He says marriage exists to raise kids.  He got caught with Viagra (in someone elses name) traveling alone back from the Domincan Republic.

      My guess:  this drug-addled pervert goes abroad to have sex with minors.  Well maybe just prostitutes.   Or maybe he just needs them to masturbate.   He thinks the birth control pill is like Viagra.   By the way, demonizing liberals is a standard fascist tactic.  Hitler, Mussolini, Joe McCarthy, Pinochet, and many other fascists blame liberals for everything evil.  

      BTW, Rush is a large part of the media.   Do you applaud his 
      lies and lewdness?   You appear to be very confused, very 
      angry, very sick.

    • Victoria JohnGalt Montgomery

      All you seem to be doing is baselessly smearing Rush. Who’s the very angry person here?

      BTW – Hitler WAS a liberal. Nazi is literally short for national socialist.

      Can you say TROLL? Lol lefties are cute. It’s funny how she gets her panties in a wad over being called a slut, yet Sarah Palin is expected to stay quiet about her Down’s syndrome child being mocked by television shows made by outwardly liberal creators like Seth Mcfarlane.

      Bachmann and Palin have both been called much worse things than “sluts” without making their sex lives/habits public.
      As a young married woman IN COLLEGE I can say that my birth control runs me almost a whopping $48 a year, so unless Ms. Fluke considers infanticide birth control, she’s using a hell of a lot of condoms. I also don’t expect others to pay for my birth control, as pregnancy is the natural outcome of engaging in sex…but it’s damn hard to afford a baby on a military salary when the military has had the two lowest pay increases in over fifty years under leftist leadership. Oh..and as a staunch conservative, I can tell you that I’m not religious, I’m just logical. :)

  • phillipser

    Hang strong Rush! Fighting all the liberal whack jobs and the media can be a hard fight.  You are not alone.  There are tons of fans out here in the nation and we applaud what you do.  Its always amazing how the liberals always pull out the boycott card to get what they want.  Their platform or reason will not stand on its own two feet.  Threats and more threats…..Maybe its time the conservatives started doing the same thing to all the liberal late night mouths that think spreading liberal crap is funny.

  • donpurser

    Now that I know more about this story and how quickly the left moved to storm the advertisers that have left Rush, it seems to be an almost foregone conclusion that this entire saga was planned from the start.  This is the kind of thing Obama spent this life learning and doing – it’s what he does.

    Again, there is a double-standard at work here. Look at how the left treated and continues to treat Sarah Palin, Michele Bachman and other ladies on the right.  Their savage words, ceaseless attacks, and unfounded accusations are repeated as truth when they are nothing but vicious lies.  Did advertisers leave Jimmy Fallon after the drummer there called Michele Bachman the “B” word?  Of course not. 

    This election is about much more than the politics of this country.  It is about our soul as well.  Evil forces control the left and for decades they have taken us further into the toilet.  If Obama is re-elected, we ain’t seen nothing yet.

    • ruffsoft

      Rather than examine the absurd belief of the church that sex not for procreation (including married couples and those beyond childbearing years, who sin if they have sex), you demonize “the left.”  

      You may be in the toilet, but the rest of us understand that 
      crazy beliefs, which make 99% of sex a sin, and which are rejected by 98% of Catholic women, cannot be imposed in a secular setting, such as a college or hospital.  

      Your only example of leftwing nastiness is the drummer for Jimmy Fallon?   

      Can  you say conspiracy theory?

    • donpurser

      The absurdity here is your imagined understanding of the beliefs of any church.  Go again to your messiah and he can give you some more “White House talking points” that convince those reactionaries, who, incapable of independent thought, resort to attacking the beliefs of those who are.

      Were I to give you all the vicious words and childish attacks of the left, to include those of your messiah, (who called the tea-party “tea-baggers”), you would still fail to recognize your position  of standing, with the dark-side.  

      Conspiracies?  Those are for folks who lack critical thinking skills and fail to comprehend truth.  Something with which you seem quite familiar.

  • Betty

     Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
    prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
    speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
    assemble, and to petition the government
     for a redress of grievances.

    I am so baffled by this woman, can’t she read?   Isn’t forcing a religion to act against its core values – prohibiting the free exercise of that religion?

    • ruffsoft

      Congress is prohibited from establishing a state religion.
      A religion may believe what it wishes, but it has no right to impose its believes on those who do not share them.  Even 98% of Catholic women reject the Church’s idiotic beliefs.

      Georgetown takes government money (Pell grants, etc) to cover tutiition.   A university is not a church.  If you take government money, you have to follow the rules that everone else does, and that includes not coming between a woman and her doctor.

      Rights belong to individuals.  No one, including a church or an employer, has the right to impose its values on anyone else.

      Especially if the beliefs are rejected by 98% of its own sheep and are totally idiotic.   Why should a bunch of berobed men, guilty of either pederasty or tolerating pederasty for centuries, be allowed to choose and pick which doctor’s prescriptions it will honor.   No one should come between a person and their doctor.   That is a fundamental violation of the right of privacy.

      Do you agree that sex is only for procreation (the Church’s position, with a little slack if the sex is with a boy)?  That would make sex for intimacy between a married couple a sin, and worse, it would mean that older married couples, beyond childbearing years, are prohibited from having sex.

      Why do you defend a belief which is so out of touch with reality?   A church can believe what it wants, but when it enters the secular world of education or healthcare, it cannot impose its values (even if worthy of respect) on others.  Leave the bullshit for church. 

    • Victoria JohnGalt Montgomery

      This isn’t about some religion’s beliefs, but they’re sadly allowing you to justify your battery of their freedom with their beliefs as a cover. It’s about freedom, and their freedom as a school/institute to provide what they do and don’t want to provide. As a non-religious lover of life who respects the inalienable right to life, I would never allow an abortion to be performed in my clinic.. don’t like it, go elsewhere. That’s right, freedom. Ms. Fluke didn’t like Georgetown’s refusal to pay for her sexual needs? She has the choice and freedom to go elsewhere.

    • donpurser

      So an individual (Ms Fluke) can impose her imagined rights on the entire university, it’s students, faculty, contributors, and endowments?  There is no right to contraception from anyone except herself.  She is welcome to purchase all she wants – with her own money.

  • http://edgeofthesandbox.wordpress.com/ Edge of the Sandbox

    Many thanks for the link.  There actually was a slutwalk held at Georgetown, it would be interesting to get Sandra Fluke’s opinion of it.  I suspect, even if she didn’t participate, which is implausible considering that she must be pretty high on the feminist totem poll in her school, she was supportive.

    • ruffsoft

      Your suspicions reveal only a disgusting imagination. the Georgetown “slutwalk” was done to bring awareness to sexual abuse and the way victims are often blamed.   Apparently, the ironic use of the term slut was beyond you.  

    • Victoria JohnGalt Montgomery

      Whether she did it with ironic itentions doesn’t quite matter, for one to participate in a slut walk they’re calling themself a “slut”.. ironically or not.
      Maybe Rush was “being ironic “?

  • JJinSarahSota

    You should also see Pamela Gellar’s post today. It’s got a pic of Fluke encouraging folks to “Occupy My Vagina”. Really.

    http://networkedblogs.com/uOWyS 

    Maybe it’s just me, but that sounds pretty slutty.

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/MOYMUUOSVDIYO3LDT7CIZXL6FA JOHANNES

       I am glad there are still some folks out there who remember Dan;s lies.

  • Stand Taker

    I’m sorry but we’re to seriously believe that there are multiple men lining up to have sex with Sandra Fluke? Puh-leeese. No one’s sleeping with this dowdy, unfeminine militant. And that hair style… might have been fashionable in the 1920′s. Might have been.

    Forget contraception, Sandra. Let’s get you a mirror so that you can come back to reality.

    • ruffsoft

      Like Rush, you are fantasizing about Ms Fluke’s sexual life.
      In your case, you imagine that she is unable to attract a partner.    Because you know nothing about her, you are projecting your own fantasies.   In your case, even Viagra wouldn’t help.

      • Stand Taker

        Nice try, Alinsky. You’re the only one here talking about “fantasies” and “Viagra”. Seriously creepy.

    • Victoria JohnGalt Montgomery

      Gross. I don’t even want to imagine the sick “partners” Ms. Fluke attracts. Her physical appearance aside, I don’t think a rational person could even hold a conversation with her without vomiting in their mouth a bit two minutes into the endeavour.

  • ruffsoft

    The Bill of Rights gives rights to individuals, not institutions.
    The Church can believe what it wants, but it has no right to impose its beliefs on others who do not share them.   

    If you don’t want contraceptives, no one is forcing you to use them. 
    But the Church, no more than the government or an employer, should have the right to come between a persona and their doctor.

    This article attempts to demonize Ms Fluke with innuendo and it all comes clear when it states “words Rush probably should not have used.”   Probably?   This article is a slightly sanitized attempt to do what Rush was doing:  character assassination, defamation of character, and libelous lies.

    Net effect:   Republicans lose.  More women vote than men, and 99% of women have used birth control (including 98% of Catholic women).   If you lie down with dogs, don’t be surprised when you wake up with fleas.   

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/MOYMUUOSVDIYO3LDT7CIZXL6FA JOHANNES

    Thanks for lots of clarification on Ms Fluke.  I have not read or heard most of the items cited anywhere else.  Wonder why that might be?