Sandra Fluke's Testimony - Here it is. Watch so you will not look like such a fool~

[Seawytch]

You should follow the link in that blog, just so you get the joke on Sea.

Actually, you should just click on this link...it is to the Aetna plan offered by Georgetown for their faculty and staff. (BTW...it provides contraceptive coverage)

PLAN DESIGN AND BENEFITS PROVIDED BY AETNA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY - Insured

Wow, that settles it. Aetna offers a plan that covers contraception, and that proves Goergetown bought it.

Not sure I follow your logic. Do you have any evidence that Georgetown actually insures through Aetna? If you do, can you prove this is the specific plan that Goergetown bought? Does the actual extent of your reasoning here amount to "I want to believe this so I have no need to actually check facts?"

Did you, by chance, click on the link and look at the address?

Here it is so you can see it is a Georgetown link.

http://benefits.georgetown.edu/health/medical/aetnappo/2012 GU Aetna PPO Plan Summary - FINAL.pdf

 

[code1211]

Regardless, the SCOTUS has repeatedly ruled in favor of protection of First Amendment rights.

Of course they have. That's their job. But they have also maintained that first amendment rights are indeed limited, and that many claims are not entitled to first amendment protections.

You and I disagree on this. I am a huge proponent of First Amendment rights because I am of the belief that without that few other inherent rights are possible.

So, if Obama really pushes this, he will lose a lot of Catholic support (and they supported him), but he will also lose a lot of us who value the Constitution. Not saying you don't, but I am baffled at how so many are willing to budge so willingly on these rights.

Personally, it's just that I subscribe to Scalia's arguments, as described in Smith, and those in all the other previous cases, about the limits of the first amendment. I don't think that acknowledging limits on freedoms means that one is in any way less of a proponent of those freedoms. I'm also a strong proponent of gun ownership rights and firmly support responsible gun ownership. But I don't object to the limits on those rights that allow states to regulate gun ownership, either, so long as those regulations don't encroach on as much of that right as the constitution does protect.

If Obama goes for this, this WILL be challenged. Hopefully, Congress will come to their senses and fix it. They should.

The health care law is already signed, and is already being challenged. Personally, I do not support the law. I wish it had not been passed, and I would like to see it repealed. But it's not going to happen though the courts. And I have no interest in seeing the Congress craft law that pacifies one religious group over another.

I don';t understand your meaning in this. The law is being applied to a religion that finds the direction to be murder.

In this area, there is this religion being attacked, but the right to attack a religion is the issue being asserted by the Feds in this.

Separation of Church and state in our Constitution protected members of religion from being persecuted or directed by the state.

This administration is once again trampling the long term ideas for a short term goal. This group has no base beliefs and no moral compass. Everything is predicated only on winning the particular moment of the day in which any topic is considered.

That is how the Big 0 says one day, in front of a Jewish audience that in the upcoming military conflict between Iran and Israel that he has Israel's back. The following day he says that it's not a military doctrine.

What?!!???!

This Jackass is so twisted up in his lies he thinks we don't hear them. He is so possessed of his own superiority that he believes in his heart that we will believe whatever lie he puts forth today.

Those on the left do.

 

[code1211]

And most will have no other option for insurance. Therefore, the school is putting the squeeze on the students to promtoe a religious agenda!

The students have a choice of HC insurance, contrary to what many believe.

And, as the school is run by a religious organization, they can promote that religion as much as they want.

With private policies costing upward of $1000/month, they do NOT have a choice. I know what it's like to be in graduate school with a child in HS and one in college. You don't have the money to throw away like that. The school policy is your only choice. I have a sneaking suspicion that the policy the school offeres is the exact same policy every other school offers, but minus the contraception coverage. I know the company, but I won't post the name. If that is the case then those students have a good case of religions discrimination. She just may not be far enough along in law school to know that Just because they are 'private' doesn't mean they can do what they want. When the doors of a private institution are opened to the publc, then public policy applies. That is WELL settled. They certainly could not discriminate aginst blacks just because they are private. They have opened their door do everyone. So, neither can they discriminate against non Catholics.

No to put too fine a point on this, but the choice to attend school or not is a choice. The choice to have insurance or not is a choice. The choice to attend a public or a private school is a choice. The choice to choose a religious or a non-religious school is a choice.

The act of living is the result of choices. To say that someone has no choice assumes a reality that does not exist.

 

[code1211]

Okay, so what do we call it when normal and routine medical practices are specifically excluded, for no other reasons than forcing a religious practice upon the insured?

Excuse me? I have said this more than once in this thread alone, insurance is not designed to cover routine medical expenses. Birth control, as you just pointed out, is a routine medical expense. What I, and everyone else who understands what insurance is actually for, call this is common sense. Being that this is a free country you can call it whatever you want, just don't expect people with a brain to agree with you.

You are wrong.

All insurance comes at a defined cost and provides defined benefits.

 

[code1211]

BTW: Did you know that your tax dollars pay for contraceptives for female employees of the federal government?

That has nothing to do with the case involving the Catholic Church.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Actually, you should just click on this link...it is to the Aetna plan offered by Georgetown for their faculty and staff. (BTW...it provides contraceptive coverage)

PLAN DESIGN AND BENEFITS PROVIDED BY AETNA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY - Insured

Wow, that settles it. Aetna offers a plan that covers contraception, and that proves Goergetown bought it.

Not sure I follow your logic. Do you have any evidence that Georgetown actually insures through Aetna? If you do, can you prove this is the specific plan that Goergetown bought? Does the actual extent of your reasoning here amount to "I want to believe this so I have no need to actually check facts?"

Did you, by chance, click on the link and look at the address?

Here it is so you can see it is a Georgetown link.

http://benefits.georgetown.edu/health/medical/aetnappo/2012 GU Aetna PPO Plan Summary - FINAL.pdf

Do you, by any chance, understand that insurance companies often send quotes to employers, and that does not mean that those serives are actually bought? Do you also understand that the policy you keep pointing to is a PPO which has a high deductible and copays? That, even if you actually prove that this is a plan offered to Georgetown staff, that most of them would be on a different plan? And that this particular plan doesn't actually cover contraception unless the employee purchases a separate policy that covers it themselves?

Did you even read your own link, or did you just take the word of some blogger on the Internet?

 

[code1211]

But of course...(and I provided it before)

Law Student Makes Case For Contraceptive Coverage

Well, so says a blog. Do you have anything from Georgetown?

I'm not one who buys something just because a blog says it, especially when they don't back it up.

That wasn't "some blog", that was NPR. I've provided my evidence from a credible source. If you believe that NPR is in error, the onus is on you to disprove it.

I don't think that's true. If NPR made the claim without suitable citation, you are obliged to provide the substantiation if asked.

While the press is filled with really, really cute girls and so on, they are still people and have been known to repeat things that are simply not true.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Well, so says a blog. Do you have anything from Georgetown?

I'm not one who buys something just because a blog says it, especially when they don't back it up.

That wasn't "some blog", that was NPR. I've provided my evidence from a credible source. If you believe that NPR is in error, the onus is on you to disprove it.

I don't think that's true. If NPR made the claim without suitable citation, you are obliged to provide the substantiation if asked.

While the press is filled with really, really cute girls and so on, they are still people and have been known to repeat things that are simply not true.

What actually happened is a blog misrepresented an NPR report as saying that Georgetown provides contraceptive coverage to its employees. Seawytch jumped on it, and still insists she is right, despite the fact that I have laid out the numerous errors in both the blog post she relied on and the NPR report that was factually inaccurate.

 

[Inthemiddle]

I don';t understand your meaning in this. The law is being applied to a religion that finds the direction to be murder.

No, the law is being applied to EVERYONE.

In this area, there is this religion being attacked

No there isn't. This is a law that applies to everyone. It's not targeted at any religion or religion in general. The law has nothing to do with religion.

but the right to attack a religion is the issue being asserted by the Feds in this.

No, stop being so dishonest. The federal government is exercising its power to regulate commerce, in this particular case health care commerce.

Separation of Church and state in our Constitution protected members of religion from being persecuted or directed by the state.

Nobody is being persecuted by this law. It's a flat out lie for anyone to claim this is persecution.

This administration is once again trampling the long term ideas for a short term goal.

What? That doesn't even make any sense.

This group has no base beliefs and no moral compass.

Again, that doesn't make any sense.

That is how the Big 0 says one day, in front of a Jewish audience that in the upcoming military conflict between Iran and Israel that he has Israel's back. The following day he says that it's not a military doctrine.

Stay on topic, or stay silent. There is no reason to ramble onto babbling irrelevancies.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I don';t understand your meaning in this. The law is being applied to a religion that finds the direction to be murder.

No, the law is being applied to EVERYONE.

So is DOMA, that must make it constitutional.

Idiot.

 

[code1211]

I don';t understand your meaning in this. The law is being applied to a religion that finds the direction to be murder.

No, the law is being applied to EVERYONE.

You clearly do not understand what is happening here. The Federal government is trying to compel the Catholic Church to fund contraception. Contraception, as defined by the Catholic Church, is murder and in violation of its central dogma.

Whether you agree with that dogma or not is not a part of this debate. Whether the law is applied to those who are not Catholic is not a part of this debate. The religion has maintained very consistent stance on this and this is a part of their dogma. The first amendment is pretty clear about the restraint placed on the government in this.

Please see the first restraint of the first amendment of the Constitution of the United States. The Founders were pretty clear about this and the Big 0 hates them, their ideas and their Constitution.

Freedom of Speech, Press, Religion and Petition

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.

 

[earlycuyler]

No, her math is bad or she is incredibly stupid, or, as is likely the case, bending the truth to make a political point.

Which is exactly why you have yet to illustrate the deficiencies in her math.

Here's some math for you. The vaginal ring costs up to $80 for a three week dosage. Law school takes three years. Do the math. That's more than $4000 over the course of law school. Fluke said that without coverage, contraception can cost a female student more than $3000 over the course of law school. So, where is the bad math?

Schools teach, they are not nor should they be in the insurance business.

So why is the school interfering with health insurance for its students?



The issue is an alleged first amendment violation by the insurance mandate to cover birth control. The fact that Georgetown offers such coverage to their employees eliminates any basis to make a first amendment objection, even if such an objection were constitutionally sound, which it isn't anyway.



1) You still have yet to provide any evidence.

2) If you expect students to obtain free birth control from some whatever source, you lose any basis to object to her position because "she wants someone else to pay for it."



So, the fact that THE OPPOSITION is making an argument based on religious freedom means that her position is somehow faulty?

Its nothing more then fodder for the weak minded.

You're the one babbling like a weak minded fool. You're jumping into the debate without any idea what either side has been saying.

It reminds me of something I saw on a T-shirt one time. Go's like this-

"If I cant dazzle them with my brilliance, I will baffle them with my bullshit ".

Thats all this is. Bull shit.

I'll agree. Everything you're saying is bullshit.

The most expensive birth control offered by planned parenthood cost $0.00 to $850.00 . The cheapest cost $0.35. It also states that no woman will be refused treatment due to inability to pay. Her story is a stupid political stunt nothing more, to get the feeble minded all worked up. Other then the fact that the school is a religious institution, and does not provide the slut with free birth control you have backed nothing up. There is no argument.

 

[Inthemiddle]

The Federal government is trying to compel the Catholic Church to fund contraception.

No, the federal government has passed a law that will require ALL EMPLOYERS to include health insurance packages that will include contraception. You clearly don't understand what is going on here.

Contraception, as defined by the Catholic Church, is murder and in violation of its central dogma.

I really don't care if they define it as murder. If the Church decides to define paying the minimum wage as murder, should they be exempt from that too, just because they want to be? They can believe whatever they want. But that the mere claim of a belief does not alleviate their obligation to abide by a law that does not deal with the actual practice of religion.

Whether the law is applied to those who are not Catholic is not a part of this debate.

YOU don't want it to be part of the debate. But the fact is that it's a fundamental part of the legal question involved. Because this a law of GENERAL APPLICABILITY to ALL PEOPLE, and deals with a matter that is not inherently religious, it is outside the scope of first amendment protections.

The religion has maintained very consistent stance on this and this is a part of their dogma.

And once upon a time the Mormon church maintained a consistent stance on polygamy as part of their dogma. But laws against polygamy are still constitutional. You can be unhappy about the law all you want. But that doesn't make it unconstitutional.

The first amendment is pretty clear about the restraint placed on the government in this.

How many Supreme Court decisions have you read about first amendment rights? Scalia had a very good one on Smith, where he emphatically reminded everyone that first amendment protections have NEVER included activity that goes beyond inherently religious activity, and that mere claim to religious belief does not alleviate duty to abide by a law of general applicability. I dunno, maybe Scalia is too liberal for you?

Please see the first restraint of the first amendment of the Constitution of the United States. The Founders were pretty clear about this

You really, actually, believe that the intent of the framers in adopting the first amendment was to create a carte blanche by which anyone can claim exception to any law whatsoever, by simply saying "I believe .... "? Okay, here we go: "I have a religious belief in human sacrifice." You think I suddenly have a constitutional right to sacrifice a human, even if he were a willing participant?

and the Big 0 hates them, their ideas and their Constitution.

And this highlights how absurd your entire position is. When you make stupid comments like this, it just goes to show that the alleged rationale for your objections is nothing more than BS, and that the real issue is your Obama Derangement Syndrome. You sound as bad as the wing nut liberals who constantly toted the "Anyone but Bush" line.

 

[Inthemiddle]

The most expensive birth control offered by planned parenthood....and does not provide the slut with free birth control

And that's your argument? She shouldn't get birth control via an insurance plan that she pays for, because she can get it free at taxpayer expense? Are you a liberal?

 

[Clementine]

OK. Here's the link.

Sandra Fluke's Controversial Birth Control Testimony - YouTube

It is pretty clear to me that most who are discussing this have not heard her testimony.

This is a prime example of how the left is diverting attention away from the real issue. That hearing was about whether it is constitution for the president to force people to provide this coverage.

Fluke's testimony was nothing more than a side show to shore up sympathy and get people to side with Obama while he continues with an unconstitutional demand. Fluke is not an expert on that subject, is she? And she was bought in last minute, with no chance for being vetted. This was all by design and intended to derail the hearing and get people emotionally riled up.

Fluke is an activist and admitted to targeting this college before she enrolled.

The issue is whether Obama can force people to do things or not. My guess is that the Dems are well aware that they could not succeed because they know what Obama is doing is unconstitutional and this was a cheap stunt to make people focus on something else. There are enough idiots out there and they know this crap works. Frustrating.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The Federal government is trying to compel the Catholic Church to fund contraception.

No, the federal government has passed a law that will require ALL EMPLOYERS to include health insurance packages that will include contraception. You clearly don't understand what is going on here.

Aren't you the one that keeps ignoring the Religious Freedom Restoration Act? Have you come up with a way to actually make a federal mandate that is clearly in violation of federal law legal? Or do you prefer to keep your head up Sebelius's ass and ignore reality?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The Federal government is trying to compel the Catholic Church to fund contraception.

No, the federal government has passed a law that will require ALL EMPLOYERS to include health insurance packages that will include contraception. You clearly don't understand what is going on here.

Contraception, as defined by the Catholic Church, is murder and in violation of its central dogma.

I really don't care if they define it as murder. If the Church decides to define paying the minimum wage as murder, should they be exempt from that too, just because they want to be? They can believe whatever they want. But that the mere claim of a belief does not alleviate their obligation to abide by a law that does not deal with the actual practice of religion.



YOU don't want it to be part of the debate. But the fact is that it's a fundamental part of the legal question involved. Because this a law of GENERAL APPLICABILITY to ALL PEOPLE, and deals with a matter that is not inherently religious, it is outside the scope of first amendment protections.



And once upon a time the Mormon church maintained a consistent stance on polygamy as part of their dogma. But laws against polygamy are still constitutional. You can be unhappy about the law all you want. But that doesn't make it unconstitutional.



How many Supreme Court decisions have you read about first amendment rights? Scalia had a very good one on Smith, where he emphatically reminded everyone that first amendment protections have NEVER included activity that goes beyond inherently religious activity, and that mere claim to religious belief does not alleviate duty to abide by a law of general applicability. I dunno, maybe Scalia is too liberal for you?

Please see the first restraint of the first amendment of the Constitution of the United States. The Founders were pretty clear about this

You really, actually, believe that the intent of the framers in adopting the first amendment was to create a carte blanche by which anyone can claim exception to any law whatsoever, by simply saying "I believe .... "? Okay, here we go: "I have a religious belief in human sacrifice." You think I suddenly have a constitutional right to sacrifice a human, even if he were a willing participant?

and the Big 0 hates them, their ideas and their Constitution.

And this highlights how absurd your entire position is. When you make stupid comments like this, it just goes to show that the alleged rationale for your objections is nothing more than BS, and that the real issue is your Obama Derangement Syndrome. You sound as bad as the wing nut liberals who constantly toted the "Anyone but Bush" line.

No, the federal government has passed a law that will require ALL EMPLOYERS to include health insurance packages that will include contraception. You clearly don't understand what is going on here.

When should the federal government stop messing with a woman's reproductive system?

 

[mudwhistle]

The way Rush Limbaugh talked about this woman, and the way men on this forum - supposedly men who respect women - should give some idea what it is like for a woman to push the envelope and even go to law school. Let alone step out and use the knowledge for anything. Law school and medical school remain the two bastions of discrimination against women. I lived it every class I was in. I only had two female profs in law school, and the men in the classes simply hated having to take instruction from them. They got one of them fired. They couldn't get the other one fired but not for the lack of trying.

I am very disappointed in the men on here who, without even watching this testimony, have atributed words that were not spoken and a lifestyle which they have pulled out of the air, just because she is a woman who dared speak out. If this had been a male law student the ravings would have been nothing like this. Would rush have called him a 'manho' and then all the guys fall in behind him accusing him of promiscuity? I don't think so. Men don't even chastize their own for 'sewing their wild oats' with or without protection. It is women who are left with the responsibility and burden of this typical male behavior which generally only merits a wink. And there are some things birth control pills are used for which have zip to do with contraception - illnesses.

30 has nothing to do with anything. This is America. I could go enroll to get yet a 4th college degree tomorrow if I wanted to. You would laugh. Others did. They laughed but they didn't have the guts to do what I did, and neither would you. They stopped laughing a long time ago. And the stronger I get at fighting my battles, the more they wish they had gone to school as well.

It also troubles me that people on here cannot see that anyone who has the intestinal fortitude to do so can testify before our government and petition for action. I don't even want to hear about this being a private company she was discussing. None of you pay me any mind when I post about all the administrative regulations in this country we already have because you all think you are hot shot Constitutional scholars and constructors. You know nothing about the real life regs that dictate everything you do even down to where you dump your shit. The people do have all residual powers, and the people - even women - have the right to petition the government for change.

This woman was tastefully dressed in business attire. She was not over made up and she had a very conservative hair style. I thought she presented herself very well did an excellent job. And I am SO disappointed in all of you who claim you don't want women to be treated like muslim women are treated. It would seem to me that is exactly what you want because that would be about the only way she could have been more conservatively dressed.

Some of my friends have behaved very badly, I'm sad to say.

She's another John Kerry.

She was presented to the public by Democrats that went around the rules, and with the help of the media, presented a farce as if it was an official sub-committee hearing.

That is just one point of contention I have with it.

The other point of contention I have with it is she was never questioned by the opposition so that her assertions could be challenged. She presented testimony from others that was pure hearsay. She claimed expenses and used other women's medical conditions to justify them.

In other words the whole thing was dishonest and misleading.

She seemed brave, but that is a matter of opinion. I felt there was a process that she should have gone through that she didn't have to. This whole mess was unethical and very underhanded. It was intended to fool you. It was intended to pull at the heart-strings of women. And it seems in your case it worked.

 

[Seawytch]

Wow, that settles it. Aetna offers a plan that covers contraception, and that proves Goergetown bought it.

Not sure I follow your logic. Do you have any evidence that Georgetown actually insures through Aetna? If you do, can you prove this is the specific plan that Goergetown bought? Does the actual extent of your reasoning here amount to "I want to believe this so I have no need to actually check facts?"

Did you, by chance, click on the link and look at the address?

Here it is so you can see it is a Georgetown link.

http://benefits.georgetown.edu/health/medical/aetnappo/2012 GU Aetna PPO Plan Summary - FINAL.pdf

Do you, by any chance, understand that insurance companies often send quotes to employers, and that does not mean that those serives are actually bought? Do you also understand that the policy you keep pointing to is a PPO which has a high deductible and copays? That, even if you actually prove that this is a plan offered to Georgetown staff, that most of them would be on a different plan? And that this particular plan doesn't actually cover contraception unless the employee purchases a separate policy that covers it themselves?

Did you even read your own link, or did you just take the word of some blogger on the Internet?

Are you being intentionally obtuse? Drill down on the link I provided. If you visit, for example, this link: Medical Insurance: Office of Faculty and Staff Benefits, you get this:

Benefits 2012 » Health & Welfare
Medical Insurance

The following medical plans are available to faculty, staff and AAPs:

To learn more about a plan, click on the plan name.

Aetna Open Choice PPO
United Healthcare Choice Plus PPO
CareFirst BlueChoice Opt-Out Plus Open Access POS
Kaiser Signature HMO

Employee Eligibility
You are eligible to enroll in a Georgetown University sponsored medical plan if you are:

A staff employee, including members of the Allied International Union, hired to work 30 or more hours per week;
An academic employee hired to work at least 75% time;
A fellow.
Dependent Eligility
If you are covered under a medical plan, you may also elect coverage for your spouse/LDA and your eligible dependent children. You will select from one of the following levels of coverage:

Employee only
Employee and spouse/LDA
Employee and child/ren
Family (employee, spouse/LDA and child/ren)

Do you see that list of plans? The first one on the list is the Aetna plan offered by Georgetown University that I had linked to previously...the one that includes contraceptive coverage.

I've proven my claim. Georgetown offers contraceptive coverage to its employees, but won't do the same for its students.

 

[Inthemiddle]

This is a prime example of how the left is diverting attention away from the real issue.

People make inaccurate claims about Fluke's testimony, so showing the testimony is diversion?

That hearing was about whether it is constitution for the president to force people to provide this coverage.

No it wasn't. Here's a grade school lesson for you: The President does not pass laws. That's what Congress does.

Fluke's testimony was nothing more than a side show to shore up sympathy and get people to side with Obama while he continues with an unconstitutional demand.

If you were educated at all about this stuff, you'd know that the law is not unconstitutional. You may disagree with it, as do I, but it's not unconstitutional.

Fluke is not an expert on that subject, is she?

Hmmm, I'm inclined to think that if we are talking about availability of contraceptive coverage amongst female Georgetown law students, then Fluke is a pretty good candidate to talk about that.

And she was bought in last minute, with no chance for being vetted.

Which is why the full committee did not hear her. What's your point?

This was all by design and intended to derail the hearing

Her statement was done AFTER the hearing. Do you even know what you are talking about?

and get people emotionally riled up.

*GASP!* You mean to tell me that politicians are playing on people's emotions? Never! No politician would ever do anything like that. Have you ever before seen a politician, for example, use emotionally charged language for a sensitive issue, abortion for example, like "partial birth abortion," or "killing a baby," as opposed to using the correct technical terms? Certainly no politician would ever do something like that.

Fluke is an activist and admitted to targeting this college before she enrolled.

At best, you're making an ad hominem argument. Forget who has done the speaking. Let's address the merits of the arguments, and maintain an accurate portrayal of them.

The issue is whether Obama can force people to do things or not.

You must think awful highly of the President, because you sure are putting an awful lot in his lap. Congress passes laws, the Executive executes the laws.

My guess is that the Dems are well aware that they could not succeed because they know what Obama is doing is unconstitutional

Simply saying "it's unconstitutional" doesn't make it so. There is nothing unconstitutional about the law. Claims of religious freedom infringements are ignorant claims that either have no knowledge of the extensive case law on religious freedom, or they completely ignore it.

and this was a cheap stunt to make people focus on something else. There are enough idiots out there and they know this crap works. Frustrating.

Actually, if anything, the "cheap stunt" is the people who want to insist that the law is unconstitutional, instead of actually addressing the law on its merits. The "cheap stunt" is to say that anyone whatsoever can simply say "I have a religious belief" and they will be instantly exempt from any law whatsoever. THAT would be a cheap stunt.