A Middle-Age Child's Nutty Demand

[PoliticalChic]

1. "She's a couple of years younger than Mozart was at the time he croaked, but, if the Dems are to be believed, the plucky little Grade 24 schoolgirl has already made an even greater contribution to humanity. She's had the courage to stand up in public and demand that someone else (and this is where one is obliged to tiptoe cautiously, lest offense is given to gallant defenders of the good name of American maidenhood such as the many prestigious soon-to-be-former sponsors of this column who've booked Bill Maher for their corporate retreat with his amusing "Sarah Palin is a c***" routine ...that someone else pay for her sex life.


2. ...she's attending Georgetown, a nominally Catholic seat of learning, so how expensive can that be?
Alas, Georgetown is so nominally Catholic that the cost of her sex life runs to three grand — and, according to the star witness, 40% of female students "struggle financially" because of the heavy burden of maintaining a respectable level of pre-marital sex at a Jesuit institution.

3. ...I'd say the core issue here is not religious liberty ...Nor is the core issue liberty in its more basic sense — although it would certainly surprise America's founders that their republic of limited government is now the first nation in the developed world to compel private employers to fully fund the sex lives of their employees.


4. Nor is it even the distinctively American wrinkle the Republic of Paperwork has given to governmentalized health care, under which the "right to privacy" the Supreme Court claimed to have discovered in Griswold vs. Connecticut and Roe vs. Wade will now lead to thousands and thousands of self-insuring employers keeping computer records of the morning-after pills and herpes medication...


5. Nor is the issue that America has 30-year-old schoolkids — or even 30-year-old school kids who expect someone else to pick up the tab for their extracurricular activities, rather than doing a paper route and a bit of yard work to save up for their first IUD, as we did back in my day.

6. All of us are born with the unalienable right to life, liberty, and a lifetime supply of premium ribbed silky-smooth ultrasensitive spermicidal lubricant condoms. No taxation without rubberization, as the Minutemen said. The shot heard round the world, and all that.



7. ... the Fluke story is a useful reminder that the distinction between fiscal and social conservatism is generally false. As almost all those fashionable split-the-difference fiscally conservative/socially liberal governors from George Pataki to California's pathetically terminated Terminator eventually discover, their social liberalism comes with a Hell of a price tag.

8. Ask the Greeks how easy it is for insolvent nations to wean the populace off unaffordable nanny-state lollipops: When even casual sex requires a state welfare program, you're pretty much done for.


9. No, the most basic issue here is not religious morality, individual liberty, or fiscal responsibility. It's that a society in which middle-aged children of privilege testify before the most powerful figures in the land to demand state-enforced funding for their sex lives at a time when their government owes more money than anyone has ever owed in the history of the planet is quite simply nuts.

10. "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom," wrote Benjamin Franklin in 1784. In the absence of religious virtue, sexual virtue, and fiscal virtue, one might trust to the people's sense of sheer preposterousness to reject the official narrative of the Fluke charade. Yet even that is not to be permitted....

...The left's urge to narrow the bounds of public discourse and insist that "conventional wisdom" unknown to the world the day before yesterday is now as unquestionable as the Laws of Physics.


Nothing that Rush said is as weird or as degrading as what Sandra Fluke and the Obama administration are demanding."
Sandra Fluke's Financial Strain To Maintain A Respectable Pre-marital Sex Life At A Jesuit School - Investors.com

 

[Sweet Willy]

I'm trying to parse that down a bit. Basically, you're saying that our Churches and religious institutions have failed so miserably at imparting their chastity values to their own people, that we now have a problem that has reached a government level debate on how the public interest is best served in this sphere.

Bottom line: The pill cost less than maternity leave or a c section. The Church is impotent to convince it's own followers not to have recreational sex and the government doesn't care, nor should it care, one way or the other. The insurance companies will ultimately hold sway and they will favor covering pills rather than pregnancies.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I'm trying to parse that down a bit. Basically, you're saying that our Churches and religious institutions have failed so miserably at imparting their chastity values to their own people, that we now have a problem that has reached a government level debate on how the public interest is best served in this sphere.

Bottom line: The pill cost less than maternity leave or a c section. The Church is impotent to convince it's own followers not to have recreational sex and the government doesn't care, nor should it care, one way or the other. The insurance companies will ultimately hold sway and they will favor covering pills rather than pregnancies.

Interesting post, Willy...at the same time obscure, yet inferring where there is no basis for same....

1. "...our Churches and religious institutions have failed so miserably..."
Let's broaden that a bit...

a. The sixties was a pivotal time in the formation, or reformation of this culture. One interesting explanation involves the numbers of individual coming of age at the time, who must be civilized by their families, schools, and churches. A particularly large wave may swamp the institutions responsible for teaching traditions and standards.
Bork, "Slouching Toward Gomorrah."

b. “Rathenau called [this] ‘the vertical invasion of the barbarians.’” Jose Ortega y Gasset, “The Revolt of the Masses,” p. 53. The baby boomers were a generation so large that they formed their own culture. The generation from 1922-1947 numbered 43.6 million, while that of 1946-1964 had 79 million. Would it surprise anyone if this culture was opposed to that of their parents?

2. What you have done in your post, and possibly in your worldview, is focus on 'a tree' when there is an entire forest of inputs....

The result is what Hayek referred to in "The Fatal Conceit." Although it refers to socialism, he explains the primary conceit, that the human mind can a) conceive, and b) implement a better way of accomplishing a process than the one worked out over millennia by a mechanism more suited to the task than the human mind….that process being the interaction of human beings, each of whom wants something from the other, and all of whom must live together.

So, "The pill cost less than maternity leave or a c section" is a conclusory statement based on insufficient data, or understanding of the events that brought us to this moment.

3. The values and traditions that would once upon a time be aghast at this 30-something person demanding that society support- in every sense- her lifestyle, no longer hold sway with the elites and those who obey their conceits....

People have intelligence...why blame the churches for our dilemma?
The bottom line?
We are better than this.

 

[Sweet Willy]

I'm not sure I blame the church. I'm just stating the obvious: They have become ineffective as the leaders of sexual habit. Almost no one, including their own, practice more than lip service to the churches stance on sexual issues.

I think the portrayal of this as paying someone to have sex is just not an honest position. It's a political one. The church has become impotent on the issue so they argue for the government to help them do what they can't anymore.

 

[Katzndogz]

Murdering babies shortly after they are born cuts down on maternity leave too. Mothers no longer have to worry about giving up those entertaining nights out or even pay out hard earned money for baby sitters.

Liberals intend to totally separate recreational sex from it's purpose of propagation of the species. To shift the responsiblity for the results of recreational sex to the public at large. It is not a failure of personal responsiblity, but a failure of the entire society that the pregnancy has even happened. And, it must be corrected without charge or penalty.

There is something vaguely disconcerting about reducing women to the sexual status of a dog in heat, permanently, 24/7, without control over her biological impulses. What's surprising is that so many women are so unutterably supid and easily manipulated that they buy into this claptrap without question. They simply MUST spread their legs as often as they can with as many willing men as they can find because they are biologically incapable of saying no. It is their "healthy recreation". No more interesting or important than a nice romping tennis match.

Why do so many women accept this kind of debasement?

 

[Katzndogz]

I'm not sure I blame the church. I'm just stating the obvious: They have become ineffective as the leaders of sexual habit. Almost no one, including their own, practice more than lip service to the churches stance on sexual issues.

I think the portrayal of this as paying someone to have sex is just not an honest position. It's a political one. The church has become impotent on the issue so they argue for the government to help them do what they can't anymore.

The Church has been ineffective at countering the vast media blitz promoting indiscriminate sex. They have become ineffective as leaders of sexual habit because the family has collapsed and no longer is effective in reinforcing Church teachings. Instead there is a sex driven media replacing the intrinsic value of a human being with a devaluation of humanity itself.

 

[Sweet Willy]

Murdering babies shortly after they are born cuts down on maternity leave too. Mothers no longer have to worry about giving up those entertaining nights out or even pay out hard earned money for baby sitters.

Liberals intend to totally separate recreational sex from it's purpose of propagation of the species. To shift the responsiblity for the results of recreational sex to the public at large. It is not a failure of personal responsiblity, but a failure of the entire society that the pregnancy has even happened. And, it must be corrected without charge or penalty.

There is something vaguely disconcerting about reducing women to the sexual status of a dog in heat, permanently, 24/7, without control over her biological impulses. What's surprising is that so many women are so unutterably supid and easily manipulated that they buy into this claptrap without question. They simply MUST spread their legs as often as they can with as many willing men as they can find because they are biologically incapable of saying no. It is their "healthy recreation". No more interesting or important than a nice romping tennis match.

Why do so many women accept this kind of debasement?

The status of sex as purely a reproductive tool is dead my friend. Again, this is an idea that the Church has failed to impart to it's own flock. Asking the government to correct it won't help. The secular answer IS birth control. Because the secular idea doesn't have anything to do with some moral idea about the "intended" purpose of sex. There is a more pragmatic view that looks more at the SURE results of sex that we have to deal with. There is logic to the lefts idea that controlling unwanted pregnancy translates into fewer hungry babies to feed on the public dime. And this makes sense coming from the crowd that supports actually feeding hungry babies. What makes less sense is the crowd who raises sand about feeding other people's children also being the same crowd hell bent on making sure those babies are delivered .... so they might have the joy of starving them, I guess.

 

[Sweet Willy]

I'm not sure I blame the church. I'm just stating the obvious: They have become ineffective as the leaders of sexual habit. Almost no one, including their own, practice more than lip service to the churches stance on sexual issues.

I think the portrayal of this as paying someone to have sex is just not an honest position. It's a political one. The church has become impotent on the issue so they argue for the government to help them do what they can't anymore.

The Church has been ineffective at countering the vast media blitz promoting indiscriminate sex. They have become ineffective as leaders of sexual habit because the family has collapsed and no longer is effective in reinforcing Church teachings. Instead there is a sex driven media replacing the intrinsic value of a human being with a devaluation of humanity itself.

I wouldn't argue with you here. You are right. The end result is my observation: The Church is ineffective in this mission these days. They just can't convince people to not have recreational sex. WHY they can't do this anymore is kind of beside the point.

 

[Katzndogz]

Murdering babies shortly after they are born cuts down on maternity leave too. Mothers no longer have to worry about giving up those entertaining nights out or even pay out hard earned money for baby sitters.

Liberals intend to totally separate recreational sex from it's purpose of propagation of the species. To shift the responsiblity for the results of recreational sex to the public at large. It is not a failure of personal responsiblity, but a failure of the entire society that the pregnancy has even happened. And, it must be corrected without charge or penalty.

There is something vaguely disconcerting about reducing women to the sexual status of a dog in heat, permanently, 24/7, without control over her biological impulses. What's surprising is that so many women are so unutterably supid and easily manipulated that they buy into this claptrap without question. They simply MUST spread their legs as often as they can with as many willing men as they can find because they are biologically incapable of saying no. It is their "healthy recreation". No more interesting or important than a nice romping tennis match.

Why do so many women accept this kind of debasement?

The status of sex as purely a reproductive tool is dead my friend. Again, this is an idea that the Church has failed to impart to it's own flock. Asking the government to correct it won't help. The secular answer IS birth control. Because the secular idea doesn't have anything to do with some moral idea about the "intended" purpose of sex. There is a more pragmatic view that looks more at the SURE results of sex that we have to deal with. There is logic to the lefts idea that controlling unwanted pregnancy translates into fewer hungry babies to feed on the public dime. And this makes sense coming from the crowd that supports actually feeding hungry babies. What makes less sense is the crowd who raises sand about feeding other people's children also being the same crowd hell bent on making sure those babies are delivered .... so they might have the joy of starving them, I guess.

I agree, sex as a reproductive tool is absolutely dead. So is being responsible for any children. It is part and parcel of a general degeneracy that permeats our culture and one of the reasons why it will eventually collapse under the weight of a mountain of depravity. It is unfair to expect parents to care and feed their own children. It is expected that people today will starve those children if the public won't step up to the plate and put food into those hungry little mouths. How DARE we be so heartless as to expect Mom to forego anything at all to feed her kids. How DARE we expect some man to kick in a few bucks. He will be deprived of a six pack or two and gosh darn it, he has a RIGHT to that.

We have a people, a general citizenry, a population, that degrades and debases itself. A people who find it reasonable to war on its own children as a way of exercising some bizarre concept of freedom. The government for all of its faults and foibles is being responsive to a population that has elevated death of children to a lofty perch of admiration. The government for all of its own faults and foibles has only responded to women who do not have the same respect for their bodies as does a bitch in an alley. I have to say this about dogs, a bitch doesn't lift her tail for any male that comes along. Sometimes she sits on it. Male dogs respect that expression of no. They don't come up with ridiculous studies of how healthy indiscriminate sex is. Which is far more than I can say about the average men and women we have today.

Animals in the wild aren't as foolish as Americans today.

 

[Sweet Willy]

You have some good points, despite all the hyperbole. But I don't see anything that supports the Churches notion that they should resort to an economic fight over this simply because they have lost the moral fight.

 

[code1211]

I'm not sure I blame the church. I'm just stating the obvious: They have become ineffective as the leaders of sexual habit. Almost no one, including their own, practice more than lip service to the churches stance on sexual issues.

I think the portrayal of this as paying someone to have sex is just not an honest position. It's a political one. The church has become impotent on the issue so they argue for the government to help them do what they can't anymore.

The Church has been ineffective at countering the vast media blitz promoting indiscriminate sex. They have become ineffective as leaders of sexual habit because the family has collapsed and no longer is effective in reinforcing Church teachings. Instead there is a sex driven media replacing the intrinsic value of a human being with a devaluation of humanity itself.

I wouldn't argue with you here. You are right. The end result is my observation: The Church is ineffective in this mission these days. They just can't convince people to not have recreational sex. WHY they can't do this anymore is kind of beside the point.

The problem with this is, though, that the checks are being written by people that are beholding to the folks who have taken vows of celibacy.

No sex of any purpose is allowed to them and as a result, no contraception of any type is needed.

It's the golden rule, my friend. Who has the gold, makes the rules.

 

[code1211]

You have some good points, despite all the hyperbole. But I don't see anything that supports the Churches notion that they should resort to an economic fight over this simply because they have lost the moral fight.

That is not the chain of logic in this. According to the Catholic Church, life begins at conception. Contraception by this definition and by this method is murder. "Thou Shall not Kill" is a pretty important and fundamental part of the Catholic Church.

Just because you don't accept the logic doesn't mean the logic is not there.

It really has nothing to do with sex except that this is how life begins.

 

[Sweet Willy]

The Church has been ineffective at countering the vast media blitz promoting indiscriminate sex. They have become ineffective as leaders of sexual habit because the family has collapsed and no longer is effective in reinforcing Church teachings. Instead there is a sex driven media replacing the intrinsic value of a human being with a devaluation of humanity itself.

I wouldn't argue with you here. You are right. The end result is my observation: The Church is ineffective in this mission these days. They just can't convince people to not have recreational sex. WHY they can't do this anymore is kind of beside the point.

The problem with this is, though, that the checks are being written by people that are beholding to the folks who have taken vows of celibacy.

No sex of any purpose is allowed to them and as a result, no contraception of any type is needed.

It's the golden rule, my friend. Who has the gold, makes the rules.

And the problem with that is that even the vows of celibacy aren't taken seriously by a whole of the people who make those vows. There just isn't any moral authority there. When your flock finds out that the bishop knocked up sister better-than-you, they tend to disregard your future odes to sexual purity. Not to mention more egregious sex offenses that have run wild in the church for ages, having lately come to light. Again, for a plethora of reasons, the church is just bankrupt on the issue. They have failed in their mission to impart these sexual values to their own flock. We are to now allow them to use the government or force or politics to do what they've failed at? Actually, I'd agree to it on one condition: TAX THEM. If they want a voice on how the government operates, pay up. Otherwise, you're don't have that position to work from either. They are morally and politically bankrupt on the issue.

 

[Sweet Willy]

You have some good points, despite all the hyperbole. But I don't see anything that supports the Churches notion that they should resort to an economic fight over this simply because they have lost the moral fight.

That is not the chain of logic in this. According to the Catholic Church, life begins at conception. Contraception by this definition and by this method is murder. "Thou Shall not Kill" is a pretty important and fundamental part of the Catholic Church.

Just because you don't accept the logic doesn't mean the logic is not there.

It really has nothing to do with sex except that this is how life begins.

I think life begins at arousal.

Seriously though, by the Churches own logic, I don't see where contraception violates what you just said. If you're using contraception, the life never begins, there is no "murder". I fail to see how the abortion issue plays into contraception. The morning after pill, sure. But birth control? Just not so. Your argument here looks like an attempt to bring an irrelevant issue to the table just so the word "murder" is introduced into the discussion.

 

[frazzledgear]

I'm trying to parse that down a bit. Basically, you're saying that our Churches and religious institutions have failed so miserably at imparting their chastity values to their own people, that we now have a problem that has reached a government level debate on how the public interest is best served in this sphere.

Bottom line: The pill cost less than maternity leave or a c section. The Church is impotent to convince it's own followers not to have recreational sex and the government doesn't care, nor should it care, one way or the other. The insurance companies will ultimately hold sway and they will favor covering pills rather than pregnancies.

OMG -you truly have a dense reading comprehension problem honey if that is what you took away from that OUTSTANDING post. Who gives a flying fuck if birth control pills cost more or less than maternity leave or a C section -what the hell does that have to do with ANYTHING? Birth control pills cost half as much as a bucket of chicken at Kentucky Fried too -SO WHAT? Did you truly not understand what she was really saying -because each point was dead on. Who should really be footing the bill for BCP AND most importantly what authority and the proper role of government is not and CANNOT be based on comparing the cost of birth control pills to the cost of anything else.

Just the very idea that someone who WANTS birth control pills is demanding that people who DON'T want them MUST foot the bill so she can have them for "free" is offensive and morally bankrupt. Those who respond to that with "well it's cheaper than maternity leave" are both morally bankrupt and lack any critical thinking skills. It is like saying taxpayers must provide a "free" car to all adults -because that is cheaper than the hospital bill when a pedestrian get hits by a car. Do you buy that one too -because it is the identical "logic" you are relying on here. Does that point out the glaring lack of critical thinking with that example or do you need an even more absurd one? Not having a car doesn't increase the odds of getting hit by one. Shifting who pays for BCP from the person who WANTS them to the people who don't -has NO IMPACT on who ends up on maternity leave or with a C section either.

This whole birth control pill thing has been an entirely MANUFACTURED PHONY ASS ISSUE by the Obama administration and we know it was because George Stephanopolous was informed about how they planned on making it an issue WEEKS before it was. Which is why he asked his questions about it during a Republican debate, doing his part to manipulate the public and start fanning a little flame with it. Because Obama can't run on his RECORD -and would much rather run against someone he can claim is too socially conservative and "waging war on women". Isn't that an odd one too -since Republicans didn't start this and had no issue at all until Obama did this -exactly who waged the real war here? Republicans weren't pushing for a change -so that can't be a "war on women" when who foot the bill for BCP wasn't an issue whatsoever. Everyone understood those who WANT them should pay for them -not those who DON'T want them. Obama is the one who demanded that change -and that those who DON'T want them should pay for them so those who do WANT them can have them for "free". Except there is no such thing as a free lunch so in reality this is simply playing to his extremist base who have no problem demanding others pay for everything they want in life anyway.

This is also the left's deliberate attempt to manipulate people's perceptions about the very definition of "rights". The left is constantly calling desirable goods and services "rights" -and then insists that as "rights", people are ENTITLED to them and therefore government must PROVIDE it. It is a documented tactic written by leftwing radicals themselves about how to do it -and why it is so important they do. They do it by first identifying highly valued goods and services -such as health care and even cheapo birth control pills. They insist these are now "rights" -that these are things people are entitled to have because they WANT them. And since they are "rights", government must provide it -which in reality means taxpayers must foot the bill for whatever desirable goods and services the left decides to call a "right".

The REASON they do it isn't because they actually give a flying fuck about health care -if car repairs were an over valued service, it would be car repairs they claimed were a "right". They know for a fact that government provided health care will result in poorer QUALITY and will aim to provide only ADEQUATE health care -because this isn't about quality. The primary concern with government run health care is about cutting costs -and it requires cutting quality and no longer concerned with improving quality of life and eventually they realize the best way to cut costs is to deny treatment to the people who need it the most because treating sick people is a lot more expensive than treating healthy people. They KNOW for a FACT government run health care does not result in a healthier population and in fact within a very short time, they become noticeably unhealthier because it takes so much longer for sick people to be seen -so they get even sicker and more resistant to treatment. This is entirely about POWER -and prying it out of the hands of the people and handing it over to government. Your real rights are that which must be protected FROM government -but the left has a nonstop agenda to convince people that our rights are just desirable goods and services that we demand government GIVE us. That our rights come from government itself, an unforgivable deception. In order for government to give us goods and services -first requires turning over more power to government. Unlike wealth, power is a finite pie -and in order for government to get more power, it must strip it from us. This is all about stripping power from WE THE PEOPLE and leaving us more helpless in the face of a far more powerful government which will then have far greater control over all its citizens. In other words, it is a demand that we all agree we are state owned property and what we make and produce actually belongs to government which can then decide which among us it will just "give" it to. While we pretend it's free of course -LOL. Convincing people that they have a "right" to the goods and services produce by someone else which then obligates them to GIVE it to you - is absolutely critical in distracting people from noticing the nonstop erosion of their real rights. Sadly some people have so little value for their real rights and real freedoms -they are clamoring to sell it for any cheap bauble government dangles in front of them.

Obama and his cronies have to be laughing their asses off about the whole thing -and rightly so. Not only were they able to manipulate the entire debate to the ONLY issue THEY want to discuss, they were able to insert it into the Republican nomination process by merely creating an entirely manufactured, phony issue out of whole cloth like this -but it has to be really rewarding for them to see that so many people are willing to throw the Bill of Rights in the trash for a fucking $9 a month. It would make the founders weep.

 

[Luissa]

You guys still obsessed with this girl?

Rush called her a slut and a prostitute. The fact you keep defending him PC, says a lot about your character.

Her point isn't about getting someone to pay for her birth control, it is not have woman discriminate against. These college students, and people who work for Catholic companies PAY for their health insurance. There is no getting around that. You nanny state bullshit doesn't work here.
The Republican party is condoning discrimination against women, and are saying it is okay for a grown man to attack a innocent woman just because he doesn't agree with her.
The fact that you also tried to argue she could be considered a slut is very low, and completely disrespectful to women. Be proud of your gender, don't try to put them back into the dark ages.

 

[editec]

Sippose that an industry is owned by somebody whose religion makes them think all health care is a sin? (

Ought that industry get a pass on offering government mandated health care insurance?

After all, the owners religious beliefs are violated if he is forced to insure his employees.

At what point does somebody's religious believes trump civil authority, kids?

That is really the question we are asking ourselves.

 

[Katzndogz]

Why should there be ANY civil authority mandating free contraception is the question you should be asking yourself. It's not like she's demanding free pacemakers. She'd never get those unless there was some copayment by the insured. There's no such thing as a free pacemaker without supplemental insurance. To feminist activists birth control is MUCH more important than a pacemaker. Or insulin, or any other kind of life saving medication. Because this is about women's HEALTH. How it got to be about women's health is really the question. That's the biggest long con in in history.

 

[Sweet Willy]

Sorry, maybe I just don't get it. I just don't see why birth control shouldn't be covered in an insurance plan. And free works fine for me. All this carrying on about who pays for the pills doesn't make much sense to me since the same risk pool will pay for the pregnancy / delivery if there is an unwanted pregnancy. And then there is a baby that ends up on the public dole because the entire reason the girl was on BC to start with was because she can't or won't afford a baby. And then we probably will need to build a new school for all the extra babies and my county taxes go up and on and on and on. It takes a village to NOT have to raise these kids.

And besides all that, the church has been pretty clear that their whole objection is based on religious dogma. So none of these economic excuses flush. As someone else pointed out, if the Church were opposed to any other sort of thing covered by the insurance would they then too be able to deny coverage?

It does all come back to the fact that the Church can't convince you to not have sex when they say you're not supposed to so they would very much like to keep a threat of unwanted pregnancy over your head if they can. If you can't afford BC then you're one of the lucky ones the Church gets to grasp at in it's futile and out dated fight against contraception.

I just am not a fan of the idea of doing anything that will cause people to have more babies. I don't really like babies at all. If I could have opted to have been 12 at birth, I would have skipped the whole baby phase myself.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Why should there be ANY civil authority mandating free contraception is the question you should be asking yourself. It's not like she's demanding free pacemakers. She'd never get those unless there was some copayment by the insured. There's no such thing as a free pacemaker without supplemental insurance. To feminist activists birth control is MUCH more important than a pacemaker. Or insulin, or any other kind of life saving medication. Because this is about women's HEALTH. How it got to be about women's health is really the question. That's the biggest long con in in history.

1. It doesn't stop here. Our friend, Ms. Fluke, is also a propounder for government providing 'gender reassignment surgery.'

2.The Obama administration is behind the effort: Anita Dunn's firm is paying Ms. Fluke.

3. Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-New York, who pushed for Fluke’s testimony. Maloney also initiated the call for Fluke to sue Rush Limbaugh for his on-air derogatory remark about Fluke, according to The Daily Beast.

a.During the hearing, Maloney thanked Nancy Pelosi “for bringing Sandra [Fluke] to this hearing and for your commitment to these issues that are so important to tens of millions of women and men across our country.”

4. According to Celinda Lake’s website, her company conducted polling on the contraception issue in conjunction with an organization called the Communications Consortium Media Center, or CCMC, and the Herndon Alliance marketing firm.
Herndon Alliance helped to market Obamacare, even providing suggestions on which words supporters should use to promote the bill.

5. Prior to Georgetown, Fluke previously worked with Sanctuary for Families in New York City, where she launched the agency’s pilot Program Evaluation Initiative.
Another Sanctuary employee was Berta Colón, who now serves as president the Public Interest Projects that funded the CCMC.

See Dots connect: Is this why Sandra Fluke picked to testify? Progressive groups snagged in birth control debate « Klein Online