Sandra Fluke Argued for Mandatory Coverage for Sex-Change Surgery

[Jroc]

So the point of this topic just happens to be about a women that, as it turns out (coincidentally, mind you) just got called a slut and a prostitute by Rush?

Or, perhaps, the point of this topic is to further alienate Ms. Fluke and justify Rushs' actions?

Methinks I don't need a compass to figure out which direction the OP was headed. I'm not stupid.

Perhaps you do.

So you believe the intent of this OP was simply to discuss a random law school student's view of HC coverage?

Seriously, don't act that stupid.

No the intent of the op is to show that this women is just a left wing activist, a shill for the left, and also to point out the extent of her activism, by pushing for such stupid shit. Like I said this will be over soon we have more important issues to discuss

 

[driveby]

In short, she wants everyone else to work for and pay for her desired goods and services.

Didn't we outlaw slavery at one point?

What? How is an insurance company covering this the same as getting it for free or slavery?

Because the douchebag wants the gubment to mandate it......

 

[driveby]

In short, she wants everyone else to work for and pay for her desired goods and services.

Didn't we outlaw slavery at one point?

Just a guess, but I would imagine she especially wants men to pay. Some women just aren't big fans of men.

Not an honest argument. She is already paying $30,000 a year to Georgetown for a package that includes health coverage. So they've already agreed to have a transactional relationship.

They'll give her an education and medical coverage and room and board. She gives them $30,000/year.

Sounds reasonable.

Now all they are discussing are terms.

In a purely fiscal sense, it's really in GeorgeTown's interest to pay for her family planning expenses. (A Gender reassignment, maybe not so much.) They want her to finish her degree so she can pay off her student loans and give money to the Alumni association, after all. And family planning is cheaper than unplanned pregnancies.

That's against Georgetown's policy, which she knew when she signed up. If she didn't like it, there are how many other law schools she could attend?.......

 

[Si modo]

In short, she wants everyone else to work for and pay for her desired goods and services.

Didn't we outlaw slavery at one point?

Just a guess, but I would imagine she especially wants men to pay. Some women just aren't big fans of men.

Not an honest argument. She is already paying $30,000 a year to Georgetown for a package that includes health coverage. So they've already agreed to have a transactional relationship.

They'll give her an education and medical coverage and room and board. She gives them $30,000/year.

Sounds reasonable.

Now all they are discussing are terms.

In a purely fiscal sense, it's really in GeorgeTown's interest to pay for her family planning expenses. (A Gender reassignment, maybe not so much.) They want her to finish her degree so she can pay off her student loans and give money to the Alumni association, after all. And family planning is cheaper than unplanned pregnancies.

It wasn't an argument I was presenting; it was an observation.

Irrespective, Fluke knew the terms before she started at Georgetown. If she wants an insurer to cover her BC, then she can find a different carrier. She is not obliged to use Georgetown's carrier, nor is she obliged to attend Georgetown.

 

[Sallow]

Just a guess, but I would imagine she especially wants men to pay. Some women just aren't big fans of men.

Not an honest argument. She is already paying $30,000 a year to Georgetown for a package that includes health coverage. So they've already agreed to have a transactional relationship.

They'll give her an education and medical coverage and room and board. She gives them $30,000/year.

Sounds reasonable.

Now all they are discussing are terms.

In a purely fiscal sense, it's really in GeorgeTown's interest to pay for her family planning expenses. (A Gender reassignment, maybe not so much.) They want her to finish her degree so she can pay off her student loans and give money to the Alumni association, after all. And family planning is cheaper than unplanned pregnancies.

That's against Georgetown's policy, which she knew when she signed up. If she didn't like it, there are how many other law schools she could attend?.......

There's something higher then Georgetown's policy...the law.

They don't like it..maybe they shouldn't have signed up.

 

[Si modo]

Not an honest argument. She is already paying $30,000 a year to Georgetown for a package that includes health coverage. So they've already agreed to have a transactional relationship.

They'll give her an education and medical coverage and room and board. She gives them $30,000/year.

Sounds reasonable.

Now all they are discussing are terms.

In a purely fiscal sense, it's really in GeorgeTown's interest to pay for her family planning expenses. (A Gender reassignment, maybe not so much.) They want her to finish her degree so she can pay off her student loans and give money to the Alumni association, after all. And family planning is cheaper than unplanned pregnancies.

That's against Georgetown's policy, which she knew when she signed up. If she didn't like it, there are how many other law schools she could attend?.......

There's something higher then Georgetown's policy...the law.

They don't like it..maybe they shouldn't have signed up.

The Supreme Law of the Land is the Constitution, not Obamacare.

 

[Sallow]

That's against Georgetown's policy, which she knew when she signed up. If she didn't like it, there are how many other law schools she could attend?.......

There's something higher then Georgetown's policy...the law.

They don't like it..maybe they shouldn't have signed up.

The Supreme Law of the Land is the Constitution, not Obamacare.

And?

If Obamacare is ruled "unconstitutional" then no one will have to follow it.

Until then..they do.

 

[paulitician]

Despite all their boasting, this issue is not a big winner for Democrats. This will all be sorted out in Court eventually. The Government cannot and should not force anyone to subsidize Citizens' personal sexual behavior. This will go to Court and the Government will lose. The People just don't support the Government strong-arming them this way.

 

[Full-Auto]

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 . . . is “Employment Discrimination Against LGBTQ Persons” and was published in the Journal’s 2011 Annual Review.

Remember, as Byron York previously reported, Fluke was rejected as a last-minute substitute witness at a Feb. 16 committee hearing because staffers for Chairman Issa were unable to discover Fluke’s claim to expertise relevant to the subject of the hearing. This law school journal article is the sort of thing that might have been discovered about Fluke’s background, had the Democrats who put Fluke forward as a witness done so with the usual 72-hour advance notice. Here’s one brief quote from the article:

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.

Now, imagine Fluke trying to defend this language about “heterosexist” policies in a public hearing, with Republican members of the committee questioning her about whether religious institutions (or private businesses, or taxpayers) should also be required to foot the bill for “gender reassignment.”

Congratulations, America: You’ve been scammed!

Sandra Fluke Argued for Mandatory Coverage for Sex-Change Surgery | Digg PresidentObama

As if we needed more evidence that the majority of democrats are fruitloops.

 

[Jarhead]

So the point of this topic just happens to be about a women that, as it turns out (coincidentally, mind you) just got called a slut and a prostitute by Rush?

Or, perhaps, the point of this topic is to further alienate Ms. Fluke and justify Rushs' actions?

Methinks I don't need a compass to figure out which direction the OP was headed. I'm not stupid.

Perhaps you do.

So you believe the intent of this OP was simply to discuss a random law school student's view of HC coverage?

Seriously, don't act that stupid.

Actually, your interpretation may be wrong.

I took the OP as an attmept to accurately show that this Law School student is not some random student offering her opinion...but instead an activist with an agenda.

Now...why is this important?

Becuase an activist has an agenda...a random college student offers their opinion based on experiencve.

Those with an agenda are more apt to paint a picture more in line with their agenda.

It makes a difference.

Now, that being said.....whereas I accept the left argument that Palin deserves what she gets becuase she throws herself in the middle of debates.....so does this college student. If she were a random student, that is one thing...but when you are an activist and you throw yourself INTO the debate, you need to be prepared for the backlash.

Unless, of course, you feel Palin was treated unfairly.

 

[Sallow]

Despite all their boasting, this issue is not a big winner for Democrats. This will all be sorted out in Court eventually. The Government cannot and should not force anyone to subsidize Citizens' personal sexual behavior. This will go to Court and the Government will lose. The People just don't support the Government strong-arming them this way.

Religious organizations should NOT be involved in for profit or accepting government money for charity.

Simple as that.

We really need to get out of the business of subsidizing religion in ANY form.

That is unconstitutional. And I seriously don't know why you liberatarians aren't concerned with that.

 

[driveby]

Not an honest argument. She is already paying $30,000 a year to Georgetown for a package that includes health coverage. So they've already agreed to have a transactional relationship.

They'll give her an education and medical coverage and room and board. She gives them $30,000/year.

Sounds reasonable.

Now all they are discussing are terms.

In a purely fiscal sense, it's really in GeorgeTown's interest to pay for her family planning expenses. (A Gender reassignment, maybe not so much.) They want her to finish her degree so she can pay off her student loans and give money to the Alumni association, after all. And family planning is cheaper than unplanned pregnancies.

That's against Georgetown's policy, which she knew when she signed up. If she didn't like it, there are how many other law schools she could attend?.......

There's something higher then Georgetown's policy...the law.

They don't like it..maybe they shouldn't have signed up.

I'm pretty sure Georgetown University didn't sign up for that 2000 page, unconstitutional piece of dung and what's happening now falls under the "we'll have to pass it to find out what's in it" section.....

 

[Si modo]

There's something higher then Georgetown's policy...the law.

They don't like it..maybe they shouldn't have signed up.

The Supreme Law of the Land is the Constitution, not Obamacare.

And?

If Obamacare is ruled "unconstitutional" then no one will have to follow it.

Until then..they do.

True, so far, only that is not the issue. Yet, the Supreme Law of the Land is the Constitution, not Obamacare. Religious organizations' rights to practice their religions will not be infringed by Obamacare as they are protected by the First Amendment.

 

[Sallow]

The Supreme Law of the Land is the Constitution, not Obamacare.

And?

If Obamacare is ruled "unconstitutional" then no one will have to follow it.

Until then..they do.

True, so far, only that is not the issue. Yet, the Supreme Law of the Land is the Constitution, not Obamacare. Religious organizations' rights to practice their religions will not be infringed by Obamacare as they are protected by the First Amendment.

They also can't infringe on the rights of their employees.

 

[Sallow]

That's against Georgetown's policy, which she knew when she signed up. If she didn't like it, there are how many other law schools she could attend?.......

There's something higher then Georgetown's policy...the law.

They don't like it..maybe they shouldn't have signed up.

I'm pretty sure Georgetown University didn't sign up for that 2000 page, unconstitutional piece of dung and what's happening now falls under the "we'll have to pass it to find out what's in it" section.....

If they are operating in this country..then they signed up to it's laws.

 

[Jarhead]

And?

If Obamacare is ruled "unconstitutional" then no one will have to follow it.

Until then..they do.

True, so far, only that is not the issue. Yet, the Supreme Law of the Land is the Constitution, not Obamacare. Religious organizations' rights to practice their religions will not be infringed by Obamacare as they are protected by the First Amendment.

They also can't infringe on the rights of their employees.

Thus why their employees are told ahead of time that they are a religious organiozation....you know...before they accept the job....

 

[Si modo]

And?

If Obamacare is ruled "unconstitutional" then no one will have to follow it.

Until then..they do.

True, so far, only that is not the issue. Yet, the Supreme Law of the Land is the Constitution, not Obamacare. Religious organizations' rights to practice their religions will not be infringed by Obamacare as they are protected by the First Amendment.

They also can't infringe on the rights of their employees.

Actually, they (religious organizations) CAN infringe on some of the rights of their employees, according to the SCOTUS. That's because they ARE religious organizations and their freedoms are protected by the Supreme Law of the Land.

 

[WillowTree]

In short, she wants everyone else to work for and pay for her desired goods and services.

Didn't we outlaw slavery at one point?

What? How is an insurance company covering this the same as getting it for free or slavery?

Nothing is free asswipe. Haven't you heard? Demanding all this mandatory coverage is going to cause premimums to rise just like yer gasoline is rising.

 

[WillowTree]

Every time the democrats take money from your pocket they are taking your freedom.

 

[Lovebears65]

She sounds like every far left wingnut out there. They want everything for free..