G
Fluke said its the cost.......take it up with her
The post is in English and quite clear....exactly what part of it don't you comprehend.
I'll look for smaller words....
Last edited:
"And so, I am here to share their voices and I thank you for allowing them to be heard.
Without insurance coverage, contraception can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school. For a lot of students who, like me, are on public interest scholarships, that’s practically an entire summer’s salary.
So reading comprehension really is your problem.....there is not much sense in debating an asswipe that can't understand simple English.....
(pwn 1)
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
Explain which behavioral characteristics exhibited by Ms. Fluke make her a "slut", Blabo. If you can.
Right wingers are spewing a huge amount of venom at law student Sandra Fluke, but it’s quite evident from Rush Limbaugh’s statements and the nonsense all over the right wing blogs that most of these people have no idea what Fluke actually said.
Actually, that’s the generous analysis — it’s also likely that they do know what she said, but are deliberately lying about it.
So in the interest of accuracy, here’s the video of Sandra Fluke’s testimony to the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee, on February 23, 2012. She actually begins speaking at about 15:20.
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/art...kes_Testimony_That_Drove_the_Right_Wing_Crazy
Here’s just one obvious example showing how the ranting wingnuts never read or watched her statement: notice that Fluke says she was past president of Law Students for Reproductive Justice. It’s the first thing she says, in fact, when she introduces herself.
But the right wing blogs are all screaming about thishttp://littlegreenfootballs.com/art...im_Hoft_Uncovers_Another_Secret_Far_Left_Plot, and pretending it’s a deep dark secret they’ve discovered that totally discredits Ms Fluke.
Right wingers are spewing a huge amount of venom at law student Sandra Fluke, but it’s quite evident from Rush Limbaugh’s statements and the nonsense all over the right wing blogs that most of these people have no idea what Fluke actually said.
Actually, that’s the generous analysis — it’s also likely that they do know what she said, but are deliberately lying about it.
So in the interest of accuracy, here’s the video of Sandra Fluke’s testimony to the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee, on February 23, 2012. She actually begins speaking at about 15:20.
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/art...kes_Testimony_That_Drove_the_Right_Wing_Crazy
Here’s just one obvious example showing how the ranting wingnuts never read or watched her statement: notice that Fluke says she was past president of Law Students for Reproductive Justice. It’s the first thing she says, in fact, when she introduces herself.
But the right wing blogs are all screaming about thishttp://littlegreenfootballs.com/art...im_Hoft_Uncovers_Another_Secret_Far_Left_Plot, and pretending it’s a deep dark secret they’ve discovered that totally discredits Ms Fluke.
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
I'll give it another try in your case, Blabo.
"Without insurance coverage, contraception can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school. For a lot of students who, like me, are on public interest scholarships, that’s practically an entire summer’s salary. Forty percent of female students at Georgetown Law report struggling financially as a result of this policy. One told us of how embarrassed and powerless she felt when she was standing at the pharmacy counter, learning for the first time that contraception wasn’t covered, and had to walk away because she couldn’t afford it. Women like her have no choice but to go without contraception. Just last week, a married female student told me she had to stop using contraception because she couldn’t afford it any longer. Women employed in low wage jobs without contraceptive coverage face the same choice.
Did Ms. Fluke say she personally couldn't afford birth control?
Yes, or no, Blabo.
The dictionary is your friend....use it.....or read post 98....I posted the definitions for you.....and even the definitions of the other words you might not understand.....
the last 2 lines make it even clearer.....
and her statement speaks for itself....no one needs to explain her words for me
"And so, I am here to share their voices and I thank you for allowing them to be heard. Without insurance coverage, contraception can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school. For a lot of students who, like me, are on public interest scholarships, that’s practically an entire summer’s salary. So reading comprehension really is your problem.....there is not much sense in debating an asswipe that can't understand simple English.....
The answer is obvious .......go for it, take a wild guess,.......look up the word ME and who it might refer to.
Then she goes on to say.....
"You might respond that contraception is accessible in lots of other ways. Unfortunately, that’s not true.".....Ms. Fluke
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unfortunately, that is true.....prophylactics cost as little as 50 cents each....an under normal circumstances should present no financial burden especially if cost is shared by participants.....
According to the Kinsey Institute, average frequency of sexual intercourse in US is 112 times per year (age 18-29), 86 times per year (age 30-39), and 69 times per year (age 40-49).
Less than $5.00.......$3.60......$2.90 per month, respectively......
So....unless you need 50 years to get your law degree, $3000 is way too high an estimate for normal (even abnormal) contraception needs......
Heres to Ms. Fluke
"You might respond that contraception is accessible in lots of other ways. Unfortunately, that’s not true.".....Ms. Fluke
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unfortunately, that is true.....prophylactics cost as little as 50 cents each....an under normal circumstances should present no financial burden especially if cost is shared by participants.....
According to the Kinsey Institute, average frequency of sexual intercourse in US is 112 times per year (age 18-29), 86 times per year (age 30-39), and 69 times per year (age 40-49).
Less than $5.00.......$3.60......$2.90 per month, respectively......
So....unless you need 50 years to get your law degree, $3000 is way too high an estimate for normal (even abnormal) contraception needs......
Heres to Ms. Fluke
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
Poor Blabo.
You think 'like me, are on public interest scholarships' means 'I am having lots of sex and am therefore a slut'?
I noticed that you still cannot provide an example of 'slutty' behavior that includes Ms. Fluke.
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
Then she goes on to say....."You might respond that contraception is accessible in lots of other ways. Unfortunately, that’s not true.".....Ms. Fluke
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unfortunately, that is true.....prophylactics cost as little as 50 cents each....an under normal circumstances should present no financial burden especially if cost is shared by participants.....According to the Kinsey Institute, average frequency of sexual intercourse in US is 112 times per year (age 18-29), 86 times per year (age 30-39), and 69 times per year (age 40-49). Less than $5.00.......$3.60......$2.90 per month, respectively......So....unless you need 50 years to get you law degree, $3000 is way to high an estimate for normal (even abnormal) Heres to Ms. Fluke
contraception needs......
Are you saying that prophylactics are interchangeable with other forms of contraception, Blabo?
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
Explain how Ms. Fluke is a 'slut', Blabo.
icedancer2theend
Verified User
If it is not about the cost why did she bemoan the cost? Regardless, what is wrong, is for her to appeal to the government to intrude on religious liberty for something that is not a constitutionally protected right- birth control.
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
Blabo isn't very smart, is he?
Poor Blabo.
Now, tell us how your argument applies in light of what was actually said:
Here's Fluke's testimony in toto:
Leader Pelosi, Members of Congress, good morning, and thank you for calling this hearing on women’s health and allowing me to testify on behalf of the women who will benefit from the Affordable Care Act contraceptive coverage regulation. My name is Sandra Fluke, and I’m a third year student at Georgetown Law, a Jesuit school. I’m also a past president of Georgetown Law Students for Reproductive Justice or LSRJ. I’d like to acknowledge my fellow LSRJ members and allies and all of the student activists with us and thank them for being here today.
Georgetown LSRJ is here today because we’re so grateful that this regulation implements the nonpartisan, medical advice of the Institute of Medicine. I attend a Jesuit law school that does not provide contraception coverage in its student health plan. Just as we students have faced financial, emotional, and medical burdens as a result, employees at religiously affiliated hospitals and universities across the country have suffered similar burdens. We are all grateful for the new regulation that will meet the critical health care needs of so many women.
Simultaneously, the recently announced adjustment addresses any potential conflict with the religious identity of Catholic and Jesuit institutions.
When I look around my campus, I see the faces of the women affected, and I have heard more and more of their stories. On a daily basis, I hear from yet another woman from Georgetown or other schools or who works for a religiously affiliated employer who has suffered financial, emotional, and medical burdens because of this lack of contraceptive coverage. And so, I am here to share their voices and I thank you for allowing them to be heard.
Without insurance coverage, contraception can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school. For a lot of students who, like me, are on public interest scholarships, that’s practically an entire summer’s salary. Forty percent of female students at Georgetown Law report struggling financially as a result of this policy. One told us of how embarrassed and powerless she felt when she was standing at the pharmacy counter, learning for the first time that contraception wasn’t covered, and had to walk away because she couldn’t afford it. Women like her have no choice but to go without contraception. Just last week, a married female student told me she had to stop using contraception because she couldn’t afford it any longer. Women employed in low wage jobs without contraceptive coverage face the same choice.
You might respond that contraception is accessible in lots of other ways. Unfortunately, that’s not true. Women’s health clinics provide vital medical services, but as the Guttmacher Institute has documented, clinics are unable to meet the crushing demand for these services. Clinics are closing and women are being forced to go without. How can Congress consider the Fortenberry, Rubio, and Blunt legislation that would allow even more employers and institutions to refuse contraceptive coverage and then respond that the non-profit clinics should step up to take care of the resulting medical crisis, particularly when so many legislators are attempting to defund those very same clinics?
These denials of contraceptive coverage impact real people. In the worst cases, women who need this medication for other medical reasons suffer dire consequences. A friend of mine, for example, has polycystic ovarian syndrome and has to take prescription birth control to stop cysts from growing on her ovaries. Her prescription is technically covered by Georgetown insurance because it’s not intended to prevent pregnancy. Under many religious institutions’ insurance plans, it wouldn’t be, and under Senator Blunt’s amendment, Senator Rubio’s bill, or Representative Fortenberry’s bill, there’s no requirement that an exception be made for such medical needs. When they do exist, these exceptions don’t accomplish their well-intended goals because when you let university administrators or other employers, rather than women and their doctors, dictate whose medical needs are legitimate and whose aren’t, a woman’s health takes a back seat to a bureaucracy focused on policing her body.
In sixty-five percent of cases, our female students were interrogated by insurance representatives and university medical staff about why they needed these prescriptions and whether they were lying about their symptoms. For my friend, and 20% of women in her situation, she never got the insurance company to cover her prescription, despite verification of her illness from her doctor. Her claim was denied repeatedly on the assumption that she really wanted the birth control to prevent pregnancy. She’s gay, so clearly polycystic ovarian syndrome was a much more urgent concern than accidental pregnancy. After months of paying over $100 out of pocket, she just couldn’t afford her medication anymore and had to stop taking it. I learned about all of this when I walked out of a test and got a message from her that in the middle of her final exam period she’d been in the emergency room all night in excruciating pain. She wrote, ‘It was so painful, I woke up thinking I’d been shot.’ Without her taking the birth control, a massive cyst the size of a tennis ball had grown on her ovary. She had to have surgery to remove her entire ovary. On the morning I was originally scheduled to give this testimony, she sat in a doctor’s office. Since last year’s surgery, she’s been experiencing night sweats, weight gain, and other symptoms of early menopause as a result of the removal of her ovary. She’s 32 years old. As she put it: ‘If my body indeed does enter early menopause, no fertility specialist in the world will be able to help me have my own children. I will have no chance at giving my mother her desperately desired grandbabies, simply because the insurance policy that I paid for totally unsubsidized by my school wouldn’t cover my prescription for birth control when I needed it.’ Now, in addition to potentially facing the health complications that come with having menopause at an early age— increased risk of cancer, heart disease, and osteoporosis, she may never be able to conceive a child.
Perhaps you think my friend’s tragic story is rare. It’s not. One woman told us doctors believe she has endometriosis, but it can’t be proven without surgery, so the insurance hasn’t been willing to cover her medication. Recently, another friend of mine told me that she also has polycystic ovarian syndrome. She’s struggling to pay for her medication and is terrified to not have access to it. Due to the barriers erected by Georgetown’s policy, she hasn’t been reimbursed for her medication since last August. I sincerely pray that we don’t have to wait until she loses an ovary or is diagnosed with cancer before her needs and the needs of all of these women are taken seriously.
This is the message that not requiring coverage of contraception sends. A woman’s reproductive healthcare isn’t a necessity, isn’t a priority. One student told us that she knew birth control wasn’t covered, and she assumed that’s how Georgetown’s insurance handled all of women’s sexual healthcare, so when she was raped, she didn’t go to the doctor even to be examined or tested for sexually transmitted infections because she thought insurance wasn’t going to cover something like that, something that was related to a woman’s reproductive health. As one student put it, ‘this policy communicates to female students that our school doesn’t understand our needs.’ These are not feelings that male fellow students experience. And they’re not burdens that male students must shoulder.
In the media lately, conservative Catholic organizations have been asking: what did we expect when we enrolled at a Catholic school? We can only answer that we expected women to be treated equally, to not have our school create untenable burdens that impede our academic success. We expected that our schools would live up to the Jesuit creed of cura personalis, to care for the whole person, by meeting all of our medical needs. We expected that when we told our universities of the problems this policy created for students, they would help us. We expected that when 94% of students opposed the policy, the university would respect our choices regarding insurance students pay for completely unsubsidized by the university. We did not expect that women would be told in the national media that if we wanted comprehensive insurance that met our needs, not just those of men, we should have gone to school elsewhere, even if that meant a less prestigious university. We refuse to pick between a quality education and our health, and we resent that, in the 21st century, anyone thinks it’s acceptable to ask us to make this choice simply because we are women.
Many of the women whose stories I’ve shared are Catholic women, so ours is not a war against the church. It is a struggle for access to the healthcare we need. The President of the Association of Jesuit Colleges has shared that Jesuit colleges and universities appreciate the modification to the rule announced last week. Religious concerns are addressed and women get the healthcare they need. That is something we can all agree on. Thank you.
http://womensissues.about.com/gi/o.h...of_Sandra_FlukGeorgetown LSRJ is here today because we’re so grateful that this regulation implements the nonpartisan, medical advice of the Institute of Medicine. I attend a Jesuit law school that does not provide contraception coverage in its student health plan. Just as we students have faced financial, emotional, and medical burdens as a result, employees at religiously affiliated hospitals and universities across the country have suffered similar burdens. We are all grateful for the new regulation that will meet the critical health care needs of so many women.
Simultaneously, the recently announced adjustment addresses any potential conflict with the religious identity of Catholic and Jesuit institutions.
When I look around my campus, I see the faces of the women affected, and I have heard more and more of their stories. On a daily basis, I hear from yet another woman from Georgetown or other schools or who works for a religiously affiliated employer who has suffered financial, emotional, and medical burdens because of this lack of contraceptive coverage. And so, I am here to share their voices and I thank you for allowing them to be heard.
Without insurance coverage, contraception can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school. For a lot of students who, like me, are on public interest scholarships, that’s practically an entire summer’s salary. Forty percent of female students at Georgetown Law report struggling financially as a result of this policy. One told us of how embarrassed and powerless she felt when she was standing at the pharmacy counter, learning for the first time that contraception wasn’t covered, and had to walk away because she couldn’t afford it. Women like her have no choice but to go without contraception. Just last week, a married female student told me she had to stop using contraception because she couldn’t afford it any longer. Women employed in low wage jobs without contraceptive coverage face the same choice.
You might respond that contraception is accessible in lots of other ways. Unfortunately, that’s not true. Women’s health clinics provide vital medical services, but as the Guttmacher Institute has documented, clinics are unable to meet the crushing demand for these services. Clinics are closing and women are being forced to go without. How can Congress consider the Fortenberry, Rubio, and Blunt legislation that would allow even more employers and institutions to refuse contraceptive coverage and then respond that the non-profit clinics should step up to take care of the resulting medical crisis, particularly when so many legislators are attempting to defund those very same clinics?
These denials of contraceptive coverage impact real people. In the worst cases, women who need this medication for other medical reasons suffer dire consequences. A friend of mine, for example, has polycystic ovarian syndrome and has to take prescription birth control to stop cysts from growing on her ovaries. Her prescription is technically covered by Georgetown insurance because it’s not intended to prevent pregnancy. Under many religious institutions’ insurance plans, it wouldn’t be, and under Senator Blunt’s amendment, Senator Rubio’s bill, or Representative Fortenberry’s bill, there’s no requirement that an exception be made for such medical needs. When they do exist, these exceptions don’t accomplish their well-intended goals because when you let university administrators or other employers, rather than women and their doctors, dictate whose medical needs are legitimate and whose aren’t, a woman’s health takes a back seat to a bureaucracy focused on policing her body.
In sixty-five percent of cases, our female students were interrogated by insurance representatives and university medical staff about why they needed these prescriptions and whether they were lying about their symptoms. For my friend, and 20% of women in her situation, she never got the insurance company to cover her prescription, despite verification of her illness from her doctor. Her claim was denied repeatedly on the assumption that she really wanted the birth control to prevent pregnancy. She’s gay, so clearly polycystic ovarian syndrome was a much more urgent concern than accidental pregnancy. After months of paying over $100 out of pocket, she just couldn’t afford her medication anymore and had to stop taking it. I learned about all of this when I walked out of a test and got a message from her that in the middle of her final exam period she’d been in the emergency room all night in excruciating pain. She wrote, ‘It was so painful, I woke up thinking I’d been shot.’ Without her taking the birth control, a massive cyst the size of a tennis ball had grown on her ovary. She had to have surgery to remove her entire ovary. On the morning I was originally scheduled to give this testimony, she sat in a doctor’s office. Since last year’s surgery, she’s been experiencing night sweats, weight gain, and other symptoms of early menopause as a result of the removal of her ovary. She’s 32 years old. As she put it: ‘If my body indeed does enter early menopause, no fertility specialist in the world will be able to help me have my own children. I will have no chance at giving my mother her desperately desired grandbabies, simply because the insurance policy that I paid for totally unsubsidized by my school wouldn’t cover my prescription for birth control when I needed it.’ Now, in addition to potentially facing the health complications that come with having menopause at an early age— increased risk of cancer, heart disease, and osteoporosis, she may never be able to conceive a child.
Perhaps you think my friend’s tragic story is rare. It’s not. One woman told us doctors believe she has endometriosis, but it can’t be proven without surgery, so the insurance hasn’t been willing to cover her medication. Recently, another friend of mine told me that she also has polycystic ovarian syndrome. She’s struggling to pay for her medication and is terrified to not have access to it. Due to the barriers erected by Georgetown’s policy, she hasn’t been reimbursed for her medication since last August. I sincerely pray that we don’t have to wait until she loses an ovary or is diagnosed with cancer before her needs and the needs of all of these women are taken seriously.
This is the message that not requiring coverage of contraception sends. A woman’s reproductive healthcare isn’t a necessity, isn’t a priority. One student told us that she knew birth control wasn’t covered, and she assumed that’s how Georgetown’s insurance handled all of women’s sexual healthcare, so when she was raped, she didn’t go to the doctor even to be examined or tested for sexually transmitted infections because she thought insurance wasn’t going to cover something like that, something that was related to a woman’s reproductive health. As one student put it, ‘this policy communicates to female students that our school doesn’t understand our needs.’ These are not feelings that male fellow students experience. And they’re not burdens that male students must shoulder.
In the media lately, conservative Catholic organizations have been asking: what did we expect when we enrolled at a Catholic school? We can only answer that we expected women to be treated equally, to not have our school create untenable burdens that impede our academic success. We expected that our schools would live up to the Jesuit creed of cura personalis, to care for the whole person, by meeting all of our medical needs. We expected that when we told our universities of the problems this policy created for students, they would help us. We expected that when 94% of students opposed the policy, the university would respect our choices regarding insurance students pay for completely unsubsidized by the university. We did not expect that women would be told in the national media that if we wanted comprehensive insurance that met our needs, not just those of men, we should have gone to school elsewhere, even if that meant a less prestigious university. We refuse to pick between a quality education and our health, and we resent that, in the 21st century, anyone thinks it’s acceptable to ask us to make this choice simply because we are women.
Many of the women whose stories I’ve shared are Catholic women, so ours is not a war against the church. It is a struggle for access to the healthcare we need. The President of the Association of Jesuit Colleges has shared that Jesuit colleges and universities appreciate the modification to the rule announced last week. Religious concerns are addressed and women get the healthcare they need. That is something we can all agree on. Thank you.
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
No, it doesn't. State the reason you think the definition of "slut" can be fairly and accurately applied to a woman whose sexual habits are completely unknown to you, Blabo.
How many times must we read the same thing ?......I quoted her exact words.....the pertinent part is very small....the rest deals with other than contraception....
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
You misunderstood her words.
Explain how she fits the definition of a slut...the one you keep insisting applies.
.Wow.....Only 6 more groans from Howdy Dudie in the last hour.....keep up the good work, asswipe.....
you're a credit to your specie....whatever it is.....and
