The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : Fluke the Welfare Queen

Vern Crisler| 3.12.12 @ 10:03AM

In short, she's a slut.

Lesser Weevil| 3.12.12 @ 10:36AM

No, she's worse than that.

daddio| 3.13.12 @ 1:12PM

if she accepts dinners and drinks in exchange for sex, she is what Rush said she was.

Jilli| 3.12.12 @ 6:56PM

Stay classy guys, your commentary is as impressive as mr. babbins.

beebop2| 3.12.12 @ 7:05PM

Sweetie? 0bama's numbers with women are DROPPING so who's worried? Your side started this bait and switch and it's not working out like they thought it would? Boo freaking hoo!

Ella| 3.12.12 @ 9:32PM

No, they are not dropping. As a matter of fact, Republican women with a remaining brain cell are now moving to Obama in droves, just because of morons like JED.

mamacancook| 3.13.12 @ 12:31AM

I beg to differ!! Even the lefty Washington Post today reported this whole Fluke debacle has caused MORE women to abandon OWEbama!! I know libs are not keen on facts...but just to set the record straight for you.

Tim| 3.13.12 @ 2:26PM

I think you don't understand numbers very well.

That number is in reference to REPUBLICAN women. 53% of women who identify as REPUBLICAN agree with GOP policy makers. That means 47% of REPUBLICAN women don't agree with the GOP on the issue.

It isn't women as a whole, it's republican women. And almost half of the self identifying republican women don't agree. The washington post is very good and number manipulation to impress people like you.

Trinacria| 3.13.12 @ 6:39PM

No, sport - the cohort was simply characterized as "adults". Nice try, though.

JamesJ| 3.13.12 @ 10:47AM

I want my free stuff!
I guess that makes you another modern day welfare queen.

HVP| 3.13.12 @ 2:36PM

Here's a little something to help you guys out who don't know how insurance or hormone therapy (aka birth control) works.
1. An individual pays for health insurance. So to equate wanting insurance to cover something is not the same as asking the state or government to do. The equation of Fluke to a well fare queen is erroneous.

2. Hormone therapy (birth control) is taken by women to address a whole host of issues that come along with the act of menstruating and having a uterus and ovaries. Birth control is but one use for this particular medication and when a woman has reproductive issues that need to be addressed utilizing birth control and having insurance to help cover the cost is no different than wanting insurance to cover the cost of diabetes, heart problems, and blood pressure. Insurance needs to cover the needs of the individual or what's the point?

This battle for keeping a therapy that addresses many complaints from being covered because it can also prevent birth is ludicrous. Women just want to know that when they're buying into insurance, especially when they are forced to carry insurance, it's working for their best interest. There is nothing wrong with wanting that. This shaming of women with legitimate complaints needs to stop.

Jennifer| 3.14.12 @ 2:28PM

When she can prove she has a real, extant, non-contraceptive reason for needing hormonal therapy, she can argue it should be covered under basic care. Otherwise, she only wants it so she can play (ie sleep around) without paying (having a child.)

If she can't provide medical proof it's therapeutic, not recreational, she can try the old-fashioned method of keeping her legs closed to prevent pregnancy. No one ever died from not having sex. If she can't get a date without instantly putting out, she should try finding a better class of man who also gets that.

Or, you know, pay for her own damn pills. It's not THAT expensive to someone who can afford Georgetown and living in that area. Tell her to give up Starbucks or something.

LiveFreeOrDie| 3.15.12 @ 6:35PM

That would be a great point if it were true. Hormone therapy or any other medical issue where BC pills are the prescription IS covered.

Mimi Mayes | 3.15.12 @ 7:48PM

You are so condescending, and so BORING.

HVP| 3.13.12 @ 2:36PM

Here's a little something to help you guys out who don't know how insurance or hormone therapy (aka birth control) works.
1. An individual pays for health insurance. So to equate wanting insurance to cover something is not the same as asking the state or government to do. The equation of Fluke to a well fare queen is erroneous.

2. Hormone therapy (birth control) is taken by women to address a whole host of issues that come along with the act of menstruating and having a uterus and ovaries. Birth control is but one use for this particular medication and when a woman has reproductive issues that need to be addressed utilizing birth control and having insurance to help cover the cost is no different than wanting insurance to cover the cost of diabetes, heart problems, and blood pressure. Insurance needs to cover the needs of the individual or what's the point?

This battle for keeping a therapy that addresses many complaints from being covered because it can also prevent birth is ludicrous. Women just want to know that when they're buying into insurance, especially when they are forced to carry insurance, it's working for their best interest. There is nothing wrong with wanting that. This shaming of women with legitimate complaints needs to stop.

Skip| 3.13.12 @ 4:18PM

Here's a little something to help you guys out who don't know how insurance at Georgetown works:

1. The issue at hand is the HHS mandate, which requires **cough, cough** FREE contraception and abortofacients, with no co-pay, for all employers (except churches, so far as we know). (BTW, it's "welfare").

2. Hormone therapy (birth control) is covered by Georgetown student insurance in cases when the intent and purpose is NOT birth control.

The outrage is feigned.

In the dark ages (January, 2012), employers and insurance companies decided what should and shouldn't be covered.

HVP| 3.13.12 @ 4:45PM

So by your logic if an insurance company and provider decide that insulin no longer needs to be covered that would be ok? I think not. If we're being forced to carry coverage should it not address the spectrum of issues that an individual may face. Again why should I be forced to carry and pay for something that doesn't address my needs? I shouldn't. I should be able to expect that my health care coverage covers my health. Whether it be Georgetown, St. Mary's, or Spaghetti Monster U. Why should I be penalized for having ovaries and a uterus? Regulations help keep the best interest of the person in mind not just the institutions who provide or the providers who would rather just take our money and get by on the minimal coverage possible. We don't live in a society where the balance of self interest and corporate or institutional interest is balanced. Or we wouldn't be having this discussion.

SPJ| 3.13.12 @ 5:18PM

The real problem here is that Georgetown University WAS denying the dispensing of hormonal therapy pills even if it was being used as a hormonal therapy drug and not for birth control use. They made women jump through hoops to get the prescription. Now the real rub here is that Georgetown University Employees have birth control coverage. With no hoops to jump through. So it is my belief that Georgetown University is forcing it's religious beliefs on the students. While the staff get a free pass.

Trinacria| 3.13.12 @ 6:44PM

"The real problem here is that Georgetown University WAS denying the dispensing of hormonal therapy pills even if it was being used as a hormonal therapy drug and not for birth control use. They made women jump through hoops to get the prescription."

If the student health insurance policy provides coverage for oral contraceptives for non-contraceptive indications and the insurer was denying coverage, that's a breach of contract case that should be adjudicated in the appropriate jurisdiction - not a basis for a national mandate requiring the provision of free contraception and abortifacients by all insurers.

Marie commenting| 3.13.12 @ 5:38PM

HVP,

Skip just explained about Georgetown's health Insurance covering hormone therapy for other reasons than birth control. Please pay attention. It's all a fabrication by liberals to take away our freedoms and don't say your birth control because it is dirt cheap many places!

Trinacria| 3.13.12 @ 6:01PM

"So by your logic if an insurance company and provider decide that insulin no longer needs to be covered that would be ok?"

Are you pretending to miss the point or are you truly that obtuse? The issue in the HHS mandate is the requirement that insurance companies provide contraceptives and abortifacients FREE OF CHARGE (no deductable, no copay, just pick up your pills and walk away). There is NO other class of drugs for which the HHS has mandated that insurance companies provide the products FREE OF CHARGE - not insulin, not chemotherapy, not even those used to treat the most serious and life threatening conditions. On what principled grounds, therefore, does one make the argument that oral contraceptives and abortifacients are more medically necessary than say, insulin for a diabetic patient or chemotherapy for a breast cancer patient. By your (strained) logic, the fact that these drugs aren't provided free of charge to diabetics and breast cancer patients means that they are being "penalized" for having a pancreas and breasts, respectively. This is simply absurd.

"If we're being forced to carry coverage should it not address the spectrum of issues that an individual may face."

Perhaps the question should be, is it within the constitutionally enumerated powers of the federal government to "force us to carry coverage" in the first place? And further to the point, why does the Obamacare mandate require that my insurance company provide coverage for goods and services that I don't need (at an increased cost to me)? You're asking the right question, but for the wrong reason...

"I should be able to expect that my health care coverage covers my health."

Indeed you should. And if you choose to work for an employer or attend a school that you know a priori does not offer an insurance plan that meets your specific needs, well - that seems like a YOU problem. Moreover, you're quite free to shop around and purchase a policy that meets your needs. Or should I be expected to pay for that, too?

Jennifer| 3.14.12 @ 2:31PM

Diabetes is a disease. A desperate need to spread your legs for your date is at most an issue of self-control. If you have a DISEASE requiring hormone therapy, prove it's medical and can't be treated any other way, or admit you just want the pill and pay for it yourself. Or pay more for insurance that covers it. Why should *I*, the taxpayer, pay more because you have ovaries? Pay for it yourself, sweetie. I have better things to spend my money on.

Mark MacInnis| 3.15.12 @ 8:25AM

You ARE MISSING THE POINT! In a free market, an insurance company would be free to do so, and free consumers will be free to then go choose another company, who would be free to advertise that they covered insulin.

But what you dolts are also missing out on is the coming rationing of health care. Which might someday include rationing of insulin, if it is determined by a politically appointed committee that it is politically and economically desirable to do so. You fools for Obama....just wait. 5 years from now, when it is too late, you'll be CRYING, wondering how the government could have let us down so big....

Unless the Supreme court saves us....

Darla| 3.15.12 @ 5:17PM

"Insurance needs to cover the needs of the individual or what's the point?" This is completely outrageous. Insurance is a form of risk management used to hedge against the risk of a contingent, uncertain loss. When in the world did consumers start believing that they should receive greater benefit value than premium payment? It makes no sense!!!

Mrs. Vito| 3.13.12 @ 10:25PM

You wish!! This whole 'war on women' thing is a total failure, like Obama himself. Seen the polls today, sweetie??!

Doublespeak| 3.13.12 @ 2:05PM

So you don't understand how womens birth control works i take it. Not a surprise you'd need to have contact with them as a start.

Oldefarte| 3.12.12 @ 10:56AM

Jed's words say it all accurately!!!!!!

beebop2| 3.13.12 @ 6:19AM

Gandhi and MLK would be so proud, don't you think?

"The women’s group “Liberal Ladies Who Lunch” is putting together an unusual event, which it is calling “Access Denied: Sex Strike.” The event, which is scheduled to take place between April 28 and May 5, features a poster saying “If our reproductive choices are denied, so are yours.”

This is your Democrat party. This is what passes for the results of public education in America. While major American cities and states balance at the brink of collapse, a bunch of nitwits (who apparently don't normally do so), threaten to keep their legs closed. Good Lord.

Skippy| 3.13.12 @ 11:41AM

Lysistrata writ small.
How pitiful.

Doublespeak| 3.13.12 @ 2:08PM

Holy logical fallacy. I'm sure in your little bubble somehow women not opening their legs has something to do with cities on the brink of collapse, but reality doesn't.

Although if we took your logic why are you posting on the internet instead of fixing our cities? Good lord hypocrite.

wiggles| 3.13.12 @ 3:13PM

Wow. But having a bunch of old theocratic men tell them how to manage their bodies, through a service they pay into(i have yet to see free health care in this century), is just and honorable.
I've spent too many years overseas fighting the exact mentality the right now pushes in this country. I used to be conservative, but then I realized it died a long time ago when it was taken over by our very own version of the Taliban.

Skip| 3.13.12 @ 4:21PM

How is letting insurance companies and those who pay the lion's share of fees (employers and the like) determining coverage "our very own version of the Taliban?"

I didn't serve two tours in Afghanistan so our government can dream up new "rights". To each their own. If you want a specific coverage, pay for it. Don't expect others to pay for (or condone it).

It's called "freedom".

Droopy| 3.14.12 @ 8:56AM

You are missing the whole point of insurance, which is to spread the cost of coverage around to everyone. Besides how many of these businesses don't deduct from the employees paycheck a copay in addition to the one you pay when seeing the DR?

Trinacria| 3.14.12 @ 4:03PM

No, droopy; the basis of insurance is actuarial analysis, which is a form of statistical probability. In summary, it's placing a bet - based on the statistical probability that a given policy holder will experience a significant health event - that the premiums collected for that policy holder will exceed the costs of any covered health event that he or she might experience.

If the point were simply to spread the costs across everyone, why wouldn't everyone have the same premium?

Big Bob| 3.12.12 @ 11:14AM

No. The point here was to continue the misdirection move started by the White House. BHO had no authority to do what he did when proclaiming his contraception fiat; but he quickly threw up Ms. Fluke to "misdirect" the angst. He is a master at this move, and will continue to be successful with it if we don't begin to counteract it by not getting sucked into it.

Gabe| 3.12.12 @ 5:40PM

good point: but you just can't help getting sucked in, can you? exhibit #1: the above post

David W| 3.12.12 @ 11:24AM

It is unfortunate that the GOP/Conservatives are not able to attack her like this article does. When oh when will the GOP/Conservatives actually work together and come up with consistent (and effective) talking points. We never seem to be able to articulate a good response that can break through the MSM/liberal crap.

Jilli| 3.12.12 @ 6:59PM

Yeah David, it's a real shame - republicans have only managed to give obama and the democrats 15-25 point leads over republicans with female voters. I bet if the gop/conservatives keep it up they could build that lead to at least 50% with the largest voting block. Smart move.

beebop2| 3.12.12 @ 7:09PM

Did you read this on the Huffington Post? Take a look at the poll conducted by that bastion of CONSERVATIVE thought .... The Washington Post...

During the first few days of February, about a week before Obama declared a so-called "accommodation" to the contraception/abortifacient mandate, a Washington Post/ABC poll showed Obama's approval rating at 50 percent, with 46 percent of Americans disapproving.

Then, from March 7 to 10--a week into the national media firestorm surrounding Rush Limbaugh's degrading remarks about Georgetown Law student and liberal activist Sandra Fluke--Washington Post/ABC conducted another poll. It found Obama's approval rating at 46 percent, down four points from February, and his disapproval rating at 50 percent, up four points from February

cwxj415| 3.13.12 @ 2:18AM

Pick your poll . . . there's one for every result you may want. Here's one from Gallup today

http://www.gallup.com/poll/153.....ekend.aspx

showing O's approval rating up to 49% this week, from 45% in February.

I'm not saying who's right and who's wrong . . . just that it's a lousy idea to start arging about polls.

daddio| 3.13.12 @ 1:15PM

yep-polls are almost useless. Depends on the questions asked, how they are asked, who is asked, and how the data is sliced and diced.

Trinacria| 3.12.12 @ 8:06PM

If these voters believe that the Constitution grants the federal government the power to mandate that private companies provide a good or service without compensation, then I rather suspect that they weren't inclined to vote conservative in the first place.

Wait! I've got an idea - why don't the conservatives abandon conservative principles and advocate liberal policies in order to appeal to those who embrace progressive ideals? Why, it's a brilliant strategy! Moron.

cwxj415| 3.13.12 @ 2:21AM

"provide a good or service without compensation"

What are you talking about? Georgetown, like any other university, CHARGES its students a substantial fee for the use of their health service.

I'm not weighing in on whether O's decision was right or wrong, but please: If you're going to make a snarky comment, try to get your facts straight first.

Trinacria| 3.13.12 @ 1:31PM

Hey, Stephen Hawking, the mandate in question requires INSURANCE COMPANIES TO PROVIDE ORAL CONTRACEPTIVES FREE OF CHARGE - NO DEDUCTABLE, NO COPAY, NADA. The premiums that are paid to insurance companies provide coverage for a prespecified percentage of the costs for specific goods and services once a deductable has been met; the policy holder is then responsible for the remaining portion of the cost, (these are set forth in clear detail in the policy; in the case of prescription benefit plans, the details are set forth in the prescription drug formulary).

Now - try to keep up - when the government mandates that the insurance company must provide a particular class of drugs without recouping the shared costs from the policy holder, the government has - by definition - mandated the provision of a good or service by a private entity without permitting said entity to recoup the costs for which the recipient is responsible.

In summary, when one contemplates posting a snarky comment imploring the author of the origninal comment to get his facts straight prior to making a snarky comment, one should, in the interest of proper form, heed one's own advice and endeavor to understand the subject matter in at least some superficial level of detail prior to engaging in what can only be described as an amateurish attempt at snarkdom. Really, sport, I'm embarrassed for you.

Close reader| 3.13.12 @ 2:50PM

The insurance companys will not lose any money over this. Any incurred cost will be passed on to the consumer. To be clear, that's the intrinsic nature of capitalism.

Close reader| 3.13.12 @ 2:57PM

I should point out that the research shows that total costs for insurance company's actually go down when birth control is covered.

Trinacria| 3.13.12 @ 5:26PM

Now you've stepped in it - you've just picked a battle with someone who happens to make his living in this area and I can assure you that you have no idea what you're talking about.

I'd be delighted to entertain any published research on the topic that you'd care to offer to support the claim you've just pulled out of your ass; since none will be forthcoming, I shant hold my breath. Please, sport, stop now - you're embarrassing yourself.

Trinacria| 3.13.12 @ 5:20PM

No, Kemosabe, to be clear - that's the intrinsic nature of government intervention in the free market. The intrinsic nature of capitalism involves the willing exchange of goods or services between two parties at a mutually agreeable price.

If the government can madate the provision of free goods and services to consumers based on the assumption that the cost will be passed on to the consumer (as if this were somehow less egregious than requiring the company to bear the cost), the government can mandate that any company provide any product free of charge at any time. Perhaps there's an obscure clause in the Constution that grants the federal government the power to mandate the provision of free goods and services by private companies provided that the cost can be passed along to other consumers; if not, your distinction between who actually bears the cost is irrelevant.

Close Reader| 3.13.12 @ 6:23PM

I hope that you're purposefully conflating the requirement for no co-pay and the notion that insurance companies cannot charge for the product at all. I assure you that premiums are calculated to earn the companies a respectable profit. Once again, that's capitalism.

According to a 2011 report from the non-partisan Institute of Medicine, “Women with unintended pregnancies are more likely to receive delayed or no prenatal care and to smoke, consume alcohol, be depressed, and experience domestic violence during pregnancy. Unintended pregnancy also increases the risk of babies being born preterm or at a low birth weight, both of which raise their chances of health and developmental problems.”

From a study the IOM cited, "The direct medical cost of unintended pregnancy in the United States was estimated to be nearly $5 billion in 2002. The cost savings due to contraceptive use in that same year was estimated to be $19.3 billion."

Trinacria| 3.13.12 @ 7:06PM

When quoting data from a published study, it is customary to provide a reference for the study (author, title, journal, volume, date of publication), as it allows the reader to examine and understand important information regarding the analytic methodology, the credentials of the authors, and any relevant conflicts of interest. The absence of such information precludes meaningful interpretation of the results.

That being said, you have failed to catch one rather glaring flaw in the conclusion. You state that the total direct medical costs of unintended pregnancy in the US was estimated to be $5 billion in 2002, while the savings due to contraceptive use in that same year was estimated to be $19.3 billion. In pharmacoeconomic research, it is impossible for the direct medical cost savings associated with an intervention to exceed the total direct medical cost of the condition it is intended to treat. If the total direct medical cost of unwanted pregnancy is $5 billion, and contraception eliminated 100% of unwanted pregnancies, the maximum possible savings in direct medical costs would be $5 billion.

Close reader| 3.13.12 @ 7:58PM

I didn't provide a link because many sites don't allow links in comments to prevent spammers from posting advertisements. If you'd care to read the report, a basic Internet search for IOM and birth control will point you in the right direction- any term related to women's health should work.

I think you misinterpreted the relationship of the dollar figures. I'll expalin with an analogy: I spent $150 on car maintenance that prevented a $1500 repair. I spent $150 that resulted in a $1350 savings.

Trinacria| 3.14.12 @ 1:26PM

"I think you misinterpreted the relationship of the dollar figures. I'll expalin with an analogy: I spent $150 on car maintenance that prevented a $1500 repair. I spent $150 that resulted in a $1350 savings."

No - I understand the figures quite well. Using your analogy, the total cost of the $1500 repair represents the $5 billion total cost of unwanted pregnancy. The $150 cost of maintenance , which presumably represents the cost of providing free birth control, was not addressed in the IOM data you shared, as there is no reference to the cost of providing free birth control. The total savings associated with preventative maintenance (providing free birth control) was estimated to be nearly 4 times the cost that would have been incurred if you simply paid for the $1500 repair ($19.3 billion in the IOM report, or, applying the math to your car repair example, $6,000).

So - if you don't pay for the preventative maintenance, the maximum cost you will incur for the repair is $1,500. How then does one save $6,000 by paying for the maintenance that prevents the $1,500 repair?

biomuse| 3.15.12 @ 5:18PM

http://www.brookings.edu/repor.....homas.aspx

Are we done here?

sotto voce| 3.12.12 @ 9:12PM

If this is true (I have doubts; I just heard today that Obama's approval rating is dropping among women) I'm ashamed that my sex has fallen for the transparent games the Dems are playing. I, for one, am infuriated at the cheap tricks Democrats use to attempt to emotionally manipulate women. Liberal hypocrisy drove me from the Democrat plantation long ago. The fact that the despicable opportunist Gloria Allred has predictably jumped into the fray says it all.

Canisius| 3.13.12 @ 1:31PM

God's honest truth I almost ran over ole Gloria at Kennedy airport, (summer 2011) she jumped out of a cab in the departure flight drop off. She gave me a look I gave her the finger, one of the most satisfying moments of my life

Skippy| 3.13.12 @ 11:46AM

Hey Jilli,
If such numbers are accurate it only points out how stupid American women are.
Since the only thing that apparently matters to them is their genitalia and its implications, have they not become the pure sex objects they screech that men think of them?
Methinks you need to get out more and meet women to whom getting laid without consequence is irrelevent.

albert constantine jr.| 3.12.12 @ 8:03PM

DW;

I'm not sure, but it seems this article and thread drew the attention of a lot of trolls.

biomuse| 3.12.12 @ 11:27PM

People calling out this further smearing of a decent, civic-minded law student are not "trolls."

"Trolling" is being provocative for its own sake. This article would seem to fit the bill.

Willis| 3.13.12 @ 7:11AM

I sure hope my daughter does not become "a decent, civic-minded law student".

ha| 3.13.12 @ 4:19PM

willis -

don't worry, she won't. she'll get get knocked up in high school.

cwxj415| 3.13.12 @ 2:25AM

"trolls", I presume, means anybody who doesn't march in lockstep with the current 'approved opinions' of the viewers of this website.

I fear for the future of intellectual conservatism when I read the comment pages (and, sometimes, the articles) on this website.

beebop2| 3.13.12 @ 5:33AM

Nothing like the reception that a differing opinion receives at, say, Kos or Huffington? No. Of COURSE ... two different things ... like Rush and Maher. Funny how there is no real set of values in the liberal mind.

SPJ| 3.13.12 @ 5:23PM

There isn't much of value in the Republican mind either.

Marie commenting| 3.13.12 @ 5:42PM

SPJ

I guess you have never known one. Republican that is!

Brandon | 3.13.12 @ 12:12PM

"It is unfortunate that the GOP/Conservatives are not able to attack her like this article does." You mean, exactly the same way Rush attacked her? It's funny, even when this guy tries to separate his critique from Limbaugh's, he still can't resist the little jabs at her sexuality. So, it might be "titillating" to talk about her promiscuity. Really? It's not titillating to me. The fact that this geezer finds it titillating is possibly the most disgusting thing I've read all week. And Rush's characterization of her as a slut isn't relevant, but it just "could be accurate." Translate: I think she's a slut who has a lot of sex, I want my readers to know that, but my argument is more sophisticated than Limbaugh's because I talk about this other stuff.

wiggles| 3.13.12 @ 3:19PM

Yeah, its to bad "Barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen 2012!" just doesn't have the ring to be a good slogan for the true feelings of the party.

Skip| 3.13.12 @ 4:25PM

That would be "too bad".

Not much English in the Community Organizing BA program?

Trinacria| 3.13.12 @ 7:29PM

It would also be "it's", but why pile on? Little wiggles has already waded rather further out from shore than prudence would dictate. One has to admire the courage, though; takes a healthy set to so carelessly expose one's ignorance.

Here's to you, wiggles - may we all be so courageous.

Harpagon| 3.12.12 @ 11:55AM

Sandra Fluke makes me puke!

Former Subscriber 3| 3.12.12 @ 5:49PM

clever

Cpm| 3.13.12 @ 4:12PM

Except that her last name really rhymes with f**k.

Skip| 3.13.12 @ 4:26PM

I prefer the blood-sucking flatworm pronunciation.

albert constantine jr.| 3.12.12 @ 11:55AM

The Left deserves credit for funding most of its objectives through other people’s money. With the rare exception of those like Soros who actually purchase their advocacy with their own cash, the left has perfected the technique of living off the taxpayer (Planned Parenthood & ACORN), the charity (Susan B. Komen Foundation to Planned Parenthood), corporate shakedown (ACTION Network, Jesse Jackson, et al), or unlawful takings (Obamacare to Insurance Company or Religious Organization contraception fiat).

The fact that most conservatives believe that people should make their own decisions about how to spend their money often puts us at a disadvantage in this regard.

Al Adab| 3.12.12 @ 2:53PM

Don't forget the Welfare Rights Organization. There is an entire industry with many highly paid lawyers, obviously Ms Fluke's goal, constantly pushing the entitlement mentality on otherwise capable human beings. Despicable.

albert constantine jr.| 3.12.12 @ 4:38PM

I have a feeling that if one were to review the books of any Welfare Rights Organization, the funding sources are three out of the four I list.

wiggles| 3.13.12 @ 3:22PM

The true welfare lobbies are the Bank, Oil, Mining, and Insurance industries.
They get the biggest chunk of government hand outs. Look it up. Look up the subsides for industries that make billions in profit and pay their CEOs hundreds of millions of dollars.
Tax Dollars.

Trinacria| 3.13.12 @ 7:25PM

Look it up? Happy to. Reference, please?

Droopy| 3.14.12 @ 10:53AM

Google

Trinacria| 3.14.12 @ 3:43PM

Ah, yes, one can always count on the near certain erudition of anyone with the distinguished monikor, "Droopy". By way of clarification, "Google" is to "reference" as "library" is to "book"; it is the place one goes to obtain a specific reference, not a reference itself. Responding to a request for a reference with "Google" is rather like responding to a request for someone's address with "Europe".

Now, get back to work; there must be a lot of thirsty customers waiting for their Slurpees...

Evan| 3.12.12 @ 11:56AM

I bet her parents are so proud.

Al Adab| 3.12.12 @ 2:58PM

Evan:
Sadly they probably are. Apples don't fall far from the tree ubnless in this case her very expensive college education led her astray into the social engineering realm of the elites. The self-annointed elites that is.

beebop2| 3.12.12 @ 7:51PM

Found this:

Sandra Fluke is 30 years old, and graduated from Cornell. Her father is Richard B Fluke, II, who is a machinist and a pastor at a Methodist church from a small town in Pennsylvania, Saxton. Her mother, Betty Kay Fluke, is a school counselor. I presume she went to the local high school in Saxton; it doesn’t seem like her parents could afford to send her to an elite private school.

I would imagine that she was bullied in school and is not thrilled to be a small town girl from a faith based household ... but that's just me.

beebop2| 3.12.12 @ 7:11PM

Funny thing about their silence, dont you think?

dtizzle| 3.12.12 @ 8:40PM

Yeah, real funny. The last time she said something, an obese psychopath called her a slut over 100 times, while speaking into millions of empty heads. Real funny.

beebop2| 3.13.12 @ 5:34AM

This was San Fran Nan throwing a hissie fit and using Fluke. She made herself a public figure when she agreed to this liberal charade.

Bob Grant| 3.12.12 @ 12:06PM

"The welfare queens of the 1980s were small-timers...."

I'm going astray a bit but welfare queens are NOT "small timers"!!!

The cost to society these Queens inflict is massive: Section 8 entitlements; CHIPS; food stamps: "living allowances" per child; Medicaid; ...not to mention the cost to police the areas in which Queens tend to live, and the cost to prosecute, provide legal assistance, and incarcerate a large percentage of their offspring.

The burden to society of one Welfare Queen can be in the millions!!

I would say this Fluke character would be the small timer but nonetheless dangerous.

dtizzle| 3.12.12 @ 8:43PM

Less than half of what it paid to bail out corporate (R) America.

beebop2| 3.13.12 @ 5:37AM

Who -- funny enough pay the salaries of those of us who WORK versus sitting with our jaws open and hands out on the first of the month all the while in the age group and with the abilities to actually join us in the work force. Yeah. Big bad product producing, job creating companies.

Bob Grant| 3.13.12 @ 11:18AM

What you said!

Skippy| 3.13.12 @ 11:51AM

Except that corporate America is a positive force in society.

jdw| 3.13.12 @ 11:26AM

The welfare queens of the 1980s didn't exist. Not in any significant numbers, anyhow.

"It was a powerful story, but reporters investigating it concluded it wasn't quite true. Some said it may have been based on a then-47-year-old woman in Chicago, but that Reagan wildly exaggerated her abuses."

www.cnn.com/2012/01/23/politics/weflare-queen/

Cuffs| 3.12.12 @ 12:46PM

Ms Fluke follows the example of Mr & Mrs. Obama. Go to school on the tax payer dime,
plus affirmative action, graduate, ditch a
law license and get cushy governmant positions
instead of getting"real jobs."
God bless America.

DLee| 3.13.12 @ 6:43PM

I'd say she follows the example of Jed Babbin, the author of this article...Go to school on the tax payer dime, plus affirmative action, graduate, ditch a law license (from Cumberland and Georgetown), and get cushy governmant positions (Deputy Undersecretary of Defense) instead of getting"real jobs."

I suppose the irony is lost on you, though.

God bless retarded Republican America.

Cuffs| 3.12.12 @ 12:47PM

Ms Fluke follows the example of Mr & Mrs. Obama. Go to school on the tax payer dime,
plus affirmative action, graduate, ditch a
law license and get cushy governmant positions
instead of getting"real jobs."
God bless America.

Flying Spaghetti Monster| 3.13.12 @ 3:25PM

"ditch a law license and get cushy governmant [sic] positions instead of getting'real jobs'"

...hmmm, sounds like Michele Bachmann to me.

SPJ| 3.13.12 @ 5:32PM

You mean the (R) rep Michele Bachmann that got paid with tax dollars by the government to be a foster parent. That Michele Bachmann?

Jeff Perren| 3.12.12 @ 2:37PM

The author makes many good points, especially the last about so many of them continuing to spread the Welfare State virus.

And, yet, sadly there are many, many conservatives who continue to believe we shouldn't eliminate welfare but simply scale it back, make it efficient, or some other useless plan. Once you conceded the principle, arguments over the amount and beneficiaries are pointless. When "need" is the standard there will always be someone who can make a quasi-plausible case that they need you to pay for it.

Al Adab| 3.12.12 @ 2:56PM

Jeff:
Precisly the issue with the GOP this year. The candidates seem to be saying, "we can manage Leviathan better" but none question the legitimacy of the beast. Where is he/she who would repeat the words, "Do not talk to me about making government more efficient for I intend to reduce its size."?

biomuse| 3.12.12 @ 11:34PM

Typical viewpoint of those interested in campaigning but not in governing.

Because, see, once you're elected, you have to think about things like keeping order when Americans get sick of seeing people starving in the street while billionaires pay tax at less than 17% rates, and begin to act up.

How many bullets are you willing to fire into an unarmed crowd, instead of funding any sort of safety net? Just curious.

beebop2| 3.13.12 @ 5:39AM

If Warren Buffet were actually PAYING 17 percent, we'd be getting some where. He is fighting the payment of his taxes for both Berkshire Hathaway as well as a private JET OWERSHIP company he controls. FIGHTING to pay what he owes. 0bama should have picked a symbol that didn't ring hollow.

biomuse| 3.13.12 @ 8:37PM

The person I happened to be thinking of was Romney, not Buffet, as though that were relevant in any case to minimizing as much as possible taxes on the wealthy, which is a stated platform item in Grover's New Party. I mean, what, do you deny that?

Whenever you'd like to actually address the point, feel free.

plewis| 3.12.12 @ 4:09PM

So receiving a scholarship, which includes a policy of health insurance coverage, from a private institution is welfare? This is funny coming from a guy who made a handsome living representing companies who languished at the public teat

Gabe| 3.12.12 @ 6:03PM

but plewis, that was different because he was fighting for corporate welfare. you see, corporate welfare is OK because corporations are pure virgins who can do no wrong :)

swank| 3.12.12 @ 6:22PM

Thank you for pointing out the obvious. Nobody else can seem to see it.

CVINCENT| 3.12.12 @ 6:27PM

Thank you. I thought for a moment that no one was going to come here and state the truth. This article is absolute Republican propaganda. This gentleman (and I use that word facetiously), should be ashamed of himself, but I guess that will never happen.

Jilli| 3.12.12 @ 7:01PM

There is no shame with folks like babbin - there is no low they don't mind stooping to. You just have to wonder what makes them so bitter and angry? Bless their miserable souls....

albert constantine jr.| 3.12.12 @ 7:43PM

Are you all the same troll, or are there a couple of you burning up comments today?

biomuse| 3.12.12 @ 11:37PM

A troll wrote the article. You're now corresponding with adults.

beebop2| 3.13.12 @ 5:42AM

Take yourself back to the "media" outlet you normally foment. I am sure they are clamoring for your bon mots and self congratulatory back slapping.

biomuse| 3.13.12 @ 8:40PM

Oh boy.

"Go away, I don't wanna TAWK to you!" (sniff, sniff)

Now THERE'S a believer in deliberative democracy!

slut spotter| 3.13.12 @ 10:44AM

it's really all Sandra... she is not studying today

Skippy| 3.13.12 @ 11:55AM

After decades of angry women bitching that conservative men never think beyond their own crotches, it's heartening to see liberal women are exactly the same.

biomuse| 3.13.12 @ 8:43PM

Actually, it was just "men," not conservative men.

Thinking about one's crotch is what must be done when discussing reproductive issues, be they erectile or otherwise.

Trinacria| 3.12.12 @ 6:34PM

No; receiving a scholarship with includes a health insurance policy from a private institution does not consitute acceptance of welfare. However, advocating government mandates for the provision of free contraception (i.e. without deductables or copays) by all providers of healthcare (including those for whom doing so violates fundamental moral principles) goes rather well beyond the mere acceptance of welfare.

Trinacria| 3.12.12 @ 6:34PM

"which" includes...

SPJ| 3.13.12 @ 5:39PM

It's cheaper for insurance companies to provide free birth control than it is to provide neo-natal and birthing care to pregnant women. After all it's all about the bottom line for corporations isn't it?

Trinacria| 3.13.12 @ 6:06PM

If it were cheaper for insurance companies to do so, does it not occur to you that they'd be doing so already? Or perhaps you're suggesting that insurance companies don't care about the bottom line - they just want to keep women down.

Please, stop being a simpleton. Think about what you write before you write it.

beebop2| 3.13.12 @ 6:25PM

I guess they'd also be supplying insulin, vitamins, aspirin (those pesky heart attacks), anti depressants, and on and on and on .... yeah. Let's just swing open the doors of the pharmacy and let folks take what they want!!!!

albert constantine jr.| 3.12.12 @ 7:42PM

Are you all the same troll, or are the a couple of you burning up comments today?

biomuse| 3.12.12 @ 11:38PM

Trolls tend to be repetitious. Hello, troll.

cwxj415| 3.13.12 @ 2:29AM

Well said, plewis.

RJ| 3.12.12 @ 4:11PM

Frederick Bastiat knew of the likes of Sandra Fluke and the modern day liberal creed that demands the property of others when he wrote "The state is the great fiction by which everybody tries to live at the expense of everyone else.” To end this exploitation, we need to reduce the size of government to its vital core functions.

CVINCENT| 3.12.12 @ 6:29PM

It just never ceases to amaze me that you people on the far right say that you want to reduce the size of government, but then you want to have a say in what women do with their own bodies. I guess we're just too fragile and stupid to take care of ourselves, right?

RJ| 3.12.12 @ 7:17PM

Wrong, Cvincent.

Nothing I wrote even implies that I want a say on what a women does with her own body. So if you are not a troll, rethink your comment. I object to someone demanding others pay for an affordable and accessible product. The women's movement of the 1960s would be ashamed of the degree of dependency which is now being passed off as "women's rights."

biomuse| 3.12.12 @ 11:41PM

So: you're voting Democratic, then?

Otherwise, you may wish to take into account. and perhaps take responsibility for changing, the inconsistency of the platform that you do intend to vote for, which very much "wants a say on what a woman does with her own body."

RJ| 3.14.12 @ 2:50AM

Party platforms are not on the ballot, candidates are. Why would I vote Democratic when I have expressed my opposition to dependency? The Democratic party can hardly be viewed as the party of freedom and responsibility. Most of the laws that take away the daily choices in our lives are sponsored by Democrats. Of course your focus is probably limited to abortion, but that involves another life, which introduces additional factors to be considered.

albert constantine jr.| 3.12.12 @ 7:44PM

CVINCENT;

Are you all the same troll, or are there a couple of you burning up comments today?

biomuse| 3.12.12 @ 11:41PM

Oh wow, your creativity knows know bounds, does it?

biomuse| 3.12.12 @ 11:43PM

oops, no.

(Double-entendre intentional.)

Mickeybutane| 3.13.12 @ 3:22PM

And your stupidity is limitless with every breathtaking comment you make BlowhardMuse

biomuse| 3.13.12 @ 8:45PM

"huhuhhuhuhuhuh!"
"I called you a phunny name!!! ! !"

Buckley is rolling over in his grave.

Charlene| 3.13.12 @ 9:56AM

You can do whatever you want CVINCENT - just pay for it yourself, like the big girls do.

Skippy| 3.13.12 @ 11:57AM

They can't. They are helpless and wholly dependent upon the generosity of men who pay taxes.

Cpm| 3.13.12 @ 4:17PM

So women don't want anybody else involved in what they do with their own bodies, until the bill arrives, correct?

Trinacria| 3.13.12 @ 7:21PM

Precisely. I don't want you involved in what I do behind closed doors (I do, however, want you to pay for it).

I am woman; hear me beg!

plewis| 3.12.12 @ 4:11PM

He practiced in the area of federal contracts law from 1973-2001. During his years of practice, Mr. Babbin tried over 200 bid protest cases in courts across the United States, the General Accountability Office and the General Services Administration Board of Contract Appeals, as well as other cases on commercial and federal contracting matters. He has testified in state court as an expert witness on federal acquisition law.
http://www.ndbi.utk.edu/about_.....s_bio.aspx

biomuse| 3.12.12 @ 11:44PM

Then why is he posting as though he's fourteen years old?

Mickeybutane| 3.13.12 @ 3:24PM

And why are you posting like your 5? Your wealth of real knowledge just bowls me over everytime you open that crack filled mouth of yours

biomuse| 3.13.12 @ 8:46PM

"huhuhuhuhuh!"
"I can count TOO! !! See?"

SPJ| 3.13.12 @ 5:47PM

Ohh and Look he's a Georgetown University Law School graduate. Wonder if he got a free ride scholarship too. Makes one wonder if he has connections to the higher ups at the University.

Trinacria| 3.13.12 @ 7:19PM

"higher ups": n. a quaint term coined by the 99% to describe those who, unlike themselves, have attained a measure of professional and/or financial success in life.

Former Subscriber| 3.12.12 @ 5:19PM

Good Lord you people are full of hate.

I went through college with a copy of the Spectator tucked under my arm and a William F. Buckley watch that I made myself. What the hell has happened to the right?

Former Subscriber 2| 3.12.12 @ 5:36PM

Good God Sub #1 - I so agree with you. I stumbled on to this article and comments and so wish I hadn't. If this is what conservatism means, I guess I'm no longer a conservative. What a sad and bitter lot the right has become. Buckley was a God to me. These are people I no longer want any association with.

Former Subscriber 3| 3.12.12 @ 6:12PM

I completely agree with the previous commenters; and this is NOT what conservatism is.

Former Subscriber 4| 3.12.12 @ 6:28PM

This "slut" business is so disgraceful. Conservatives used to have manners, they used to value civility. Now look at them.

beebop2| 3.12.12 @ 7:14PM

You're right ... we are hoping to be as smart as all of the liberals who think they are better than everyone else. Are you suggesting it isn't working? Pity ...

dtizzle| 3.12.12 @ 8:51PM

Just call everyone a slut and a welfare-queen then. Prove those educated liberals right!

Charlene| 3.13.12 @ 10:00AM

@dtizzle
If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck......well, you know.

biomuse| 3.12.12 @ 11:48PM

This response is pathetic.

Try being as smart as the CONSERVATIVES who invented and initiated the movement you and your ilk have inherited and squandered on incoherent bile.

albert constantine jr.| 3.12.12 @ 7:45PM

FS 1-4;

Are you all the same troll, or are there a couple of you burning up comments today?

biomuse| 3.12.12 @ 11:45PM

Are you possessed of an involuntary typing disorder?

Charlene| 3.13.12 @ 10:03AM

Former Subscriber, Former Subscriber 2, 3 & 4.....ever have an original thought? Or is being a follower all you can muster?

spike59| 3.15.12 @ 6:36AM

if Buckley was a God to you, i feel nothing but pity for you-there is only one God

beebop2| 3.12.12 @ 7:55PM

So you graduated last summer?

albert constantine jr.| 3.12.12 @ 10:51PM

Now, if you made yourself into a Rolex watch, I might find some value in you.

kindness| 3.12.12 @ 5:38PM

So, let's get a couple things straight....1) Ms. Fluke was relating a story about a fellow student that needed birth control pills, not herself. 2) That fellow student was a lesbian and didn't need the bcp for pregnancy but for ovarian cysts. 3) That fellow student paid $1800 a year for Health Insurance through Georgetown, it wasn't free and it certainly wasn't government paid for.

With this in mind, the point of this post isn't true and I can't believe most you don't know these facts.

Jilli| 3.12.12 @ 7:03PM

They don't need no stinkin' facts kindness - they've got their irrational, seething resentment to carry them.

beebop2| 3.12.12 @ 7:13PM

J? Your adoring fans at Huffington are clamoring for your return ... I am sure they miss your clever repartee ...

cwxj415| 3.13.12 @ 2:42AM

Do you really believe that only HuffPo liberals are interested in factual accuracy, beebop2? That offends me, a more genuine conservative than you can ever hope to be.

beebop2| 3.13.12 @ 5:48AM

No. I am asserting quite the opposite. Any opinion that differs from the lock step of "obama good all others bad" is greeting with a deluge (somewhat like what we are seeing here actually) of vulgar, hateful and inappropriate comments. As a Hillary Clinton supporter, I could not raise a point without being shouted down. Is that what passes for "truth?" Do you still remember when your hero gave her the finger and the huffpost thought it was funny? Or 99 problems and a bitch aint one? Yeah. You bastions of liberal thought are such woman lovers. You have found one ridiculous point -- that birth control (which is available in a multitude of outlets) should be paid for from the pockets of an institution that finds it against their moral teachings. I GET that "moral teachings" is a dangerous theory to you on the left, but there are two sides to a discussion and besides? The Constitution guarantees a separation of Church and State.

SPJ| 3.13.12 @ 5:54PM

They insurance for Georgetown University staff includes birth control. Oh the hypocrisy.

biomuse| 3.13.12 @ 8:58PM

"As a Hillary Clinton supporter,"

LOLROTFL.

Yeah. Right.

And you presume that Hillary Clinton differs one iota from Obama on this issue.... why?

Trinacria| 3.12.12 @ 7:13PM

Regrettably, Kindness, you've rather missed the point. While points 1-3 above are accurate, they have no relevance to the central issue; namely, the question of whether it is constitutional for the federal government to mandate that a private company provide a good or service to a consumer without compensation.

Ms. Fluke used the example of a fellow student who used oral contraceptives for a non-contraceptive indication to argue that oral contraceptives are used to treat a variety of conditions related to women's health and, as a result, are medically necessary. In light of the vital medical necessity of these agents to ensure the health of women, Ms. Fluke further argued that it is necessary for the government to mandate that all insurance companies offer oral contraceptives free of charge (no deductable and no copay). Leaving aside for a moment the constitutionality of such a mandate, one should find it rather curious that Ms. Fluke does not advocate the provision of free non-contraceptive medications for these same conditions, despite the fact that there are indeed several safe and efficacious alternatives that have been approved by the FDA specifically for these indications.

Finally, lest you continue to cling to the notion that this isn't about contraception, perhaps you might ask yourself why Ms. Fluke would argue so strenuously that women's health will be jeopardized if they have to pay for a medication that costs $9/month and yet take no such position on treatments for ovarian, cervical, uterine, or peritoneal cancer (for which the copays alone are several thousand dollars). Surely you aren't suggesting that these aren't vital women's health issues?

biomuse| 3.12.12 @ 11:52PM

BS. You're hinging the entire argument around lack of copay. It won't bear that weight.

I'm sure the vast majority advocates of coverage would be happy with coverage with copay, as vastly preferable to no coverage. Cancer meds are obviously already covered for the insured. You've made no point.

Trinacria| 3.13.12 @ 12:06AM

No, Stephen Hawking, the point was made; you simply missed it. Pity.

biomuse| 3.13.12 @ 12:25AM

Oh look, Wilde, you brought into the discussion meds that are in every case covered. You then compared them to contraception, which isn't, and asked why the former wasn't brought up.

Because they're covered.

You somehow misunderstood your own argument. Pity.

Trinacria| 3.13.12 @ 1:50PM

In point of fact, the meds in the above referenced case aren't always covered (I have just paid several thousand dollars out of pocket for ovarian cancer treatments for a family member that were not covered by her prescription benefit plan). Perhaps the 30 seconds it would have taken you to research the issue was a bit more than it was worth to save yourself the embarrassment of looking like an uninformed ass.

Moreover, when he out of pocket costs for the uncovered portion of said medications exceeds the cash price for oral contraceptives by many hundred-fold, the net result for the patient is the same: limited access. If Patient A has ovarian cancer and her copayment for the "covered" chemotherapy is $4,000, and Patient B has PMS and her "uncovered" oral contraceptives cost $37, on what principled ground does one argue that the medical necessity of Patient B's therapy is so vital that the insurance company must provide the therapy free of charge in order to ensure access, while that of Patient A's treatment isn't? Lest you mistake the point (a risk for which you've already demonstrated a rather high propensity), I'm not suggesting that Patient A deserves to receive the drug free of charge; on the contrary, I'm simply pointing out the absurdity of the claim advanced by Ms. Fluke (and, I hasten to note, bought hook line and sinker by mopes like you who are so eager to argue your ill-informed position that you fail to actually analyze the issue in any meaningful depth and, as a result, unwittingly embarrass yourself beyond measure). Pity indeed.

Jason| 3.13.12 @ 8:37PM

NB: Oral contraceptives reduce the risk of ovarian cancer.

Trinacria| 3.14.12 @ 3:07PM

So do blueberries. Shall we call for a national mandate requiring the free provision of blueberries to all women? Why it's a goddamn outrage that my wife has to pay $4.99 out-of-pocket for a week's supply of blueberries - goddamn male dominated boards of directors of the national grocery chains are punishing women for having ovaries! It's a travesty, I tell you. Where's Gloria Alred? Honey - get Gloria on the horn!

biomuse| 3.13.12 @ 9:58PM

Sorry, but you've utterly painted yourself out of a viable argument here (twice now), and wishing that I should feel a certain way does nothing to obscure that. I'll keep it simple for you:

1. You stated that:
"Ms. Fluke further argued that it is necessary for the government to mandate that all insurance companies offer oral contraceptives free of charge (no deductable and no copay)."

- Wrong. This is entirely absent from her testimony, she argues nothing of the kind whatsoever, nor anything that could remotely be taken to resemble it. So rather than be "an uninformed ass," you may want to actually read the testimony you're critiquing rather than, you know, just making it up.

She cites a friend who had to pay $100 per month for the pill to treat polycystic ovarian syndrome. Were that to be covered EVEN WITH COPAY, it could be as little as $10-20 per month, i.e. a 5 to 10-fold reduction for the patient she mentions. Without exception, her testimony is directed to medications for which there is NO COVERAGE at all. There is precisely NO DISCUSSION of any medication which is partially covered, with or without copay.

In other words, as I stated above, your initial argument, that placed its burden on the distinction between copay vs. lack of copay, partial charge vs. free-of-charge, is uncontestably irrelevant to Ms. Fluke's testimony and everything it contains.

You therefore have three choices:

1. Change your mind about her testimony and the point it makes;

2. Shut up; or

3. Hurl invective.

Given your disrespect for fact and boorish disposition, I'll be surprised if it's anything other than 3.

More's the pity.

biomuse| 3.13.12 @ 10:01PM

Just to make it even easier for you to change your mind (I know, it's a terrible lot of work), here is the transcript of her testimony in full:

http://www.politifact.com/trut.....omens-hea/

Trinacria| 3.14.12 @ 2:44PM

BM -

I should like to think you'd be rather more rigorous in your analysis of Ms. Fluke's testimony, particularly in light of the fact that you've chosen to use it as the basis of your argument. From her testimony:

"We, as Georgetown LSRJ [Law Students for Reproductive Justice - whatever the hell that means], are 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 contraceptive coverage in its student health plan. And just as we students have faced financial, emotional and medical burdens as a result, employees at religiously affiliated hospitals and institutions 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."

I call your attention to "the new regulation" to which Ms. Fluke refers and for which she expresses her profound gratitude. The regulation in question is the newly issued HHS mandate which requires insurance companies to provide oral contraceptives and abortifacients free of charge (i.e. without copay and without having first met an out of pocket deductable). The recenently announced "adjustment" to which she refers in the last sentence is of course the shifting of the obligation to provide these drugs from the employer to the insurance company. Your assertion that her testimony makes no reference of any kind to any mandate requiring the free provision contraceptives and abortifacients is therefore incontrovertably incorrect, as she not only makes reference to the mandate, she lauds it as it as a regulation that will meet the critical health care needs of so many women.

So, while I cheerfully confess to a rather boorish disposition (a consequence of many years of engaging in a battle of wits with woefully unarmed opponents), I must contest your unwarranted assessment of my respect for facts. Indeed, as the foregoing amply demonstrates, my position has been informed by not only a respect for the facts, but a rationale analysis thereof.

Finally, speaking of facts, it is perhaps worth noting that Ms. Fluke reported that the cost of oral contraception can be as high as $3,000 during the course of one's study as a law student. As you may know, the typical course of study for a law student is 3 years; accepting Ms. Fluke's estimate as accurate, the out-of-pocket cost for contraceptives would be $2.76/day - or roughly the cost of a tall latte at Starbucks. Forgive me - perhaps it's my boorish disposition raising it's head - if you believe this represents a crisis of national proportions, well, we've already departed from the bounds of rational discourse.

biomuse| 3.15.12 @ 5:33PM

Are we done here?...

http://www.brookings.edu/repor.....homas.aspx

This is in combination with the fact that you are now confusing acceptance of relief with a demand for total relief from payment, which demand is unsubstantiated anywhere by Ms. Fluke's statement, including what you quote directly. It was nonetheless asserted by you as establishing her hypocrisy relative to copayment for cancer medications. You have erroneously abstracted a sufficient condition from a necessary one, and applied that to a tertiary issue undiscussed in any of your source material, and you then used that house of cards to claim hypocrisy.

This, my dear wheelchair-bound physicist, may seem to work rhetorically, but it does not work logically.

So yes, I think we're done here. You let the world know whenever you become interested in governance again as opposed to culture wars.

cwxj415| 3.13.12 @ 2:53AM

"is it constitutional for the federal government to mandate that a private company provide a good or service to a consumer without compensation."

A dangerous question to ask. Is it constitutional for the federal government to mandate that private companies not fire their employees for attending jury duty (as is the law), even as it clearly costs those companies financially? Is it constitutional for the feds to mandate that companies provide their employees with copies of their annual W-2? That, too, involves cost. Why shouldn't the employee be responsible for caluculating his numbers himself?

It's a whole hell of a lot more complicated than you seem to think it is, my friend.

Trinacria| 3.13.12 @ 2:00PM

Since you ask... frankly, no. Quite a bit of what the federal government mandates isn't constitutional. Interestingly, you seem to believe this supports extraconstitutional mandates; I would argue the converse. Such examples should not be viewed as precedents for subsequent uncontitutional mandates, but rather violations that should themselves be corrected.

So, you see, it's only a hell of a lot more complicated for the simple minded, ...my friend.

beebop2| 3.12.12 @ 7:19PM

Actually? A a look at the publicly available summary of Georgetown’s health care plan, and at elements of Fluke’s testimony, suggest that Georgetown’s policy is in line with the traditional Catholic teaching that allows the use of the birth control pill for reasons other than preventing pregnancy.

According to Georgetown’s student insurance handbook, available online, there are exceptions to the Jesuit school’s rule against covering birth control, which are “specifically provided in the policy.

You and Soltube O'Brien must have been separated at birth the way you completely disregard inconvenient (but easiy verifiable) facts substituting your preconcieved opinons and thinking that no one will notice. Sorry .... we are not your dumb MSNBC viewer.

qrstuv| 3.12.12 @ 8:30PM

Let's also get straight why she was "testifying" anyway, what the committee wanted to hear from here. The idea here is to bolster the idea that insurance should be forced to cover birth control, without regard to the conscience of the party paying for the insurance.

That was what the Democrats wanted out of her and got of her: a story to support the recent un-Constitutional HHS mandate.

And she most certainly invented the $1000/year figure.

Jason| 3.13.12 @ 8:51PM

An annual gynecologist visit, with the associated lab work, pap smear, etc, can easily run $300-500. Add in $30-60 a month for the pills themselves, and you can get close to $1000/year quite easily.

Yes, generic pills are available for $9 a month. But they're not a good fit for a lot of women, or their doc prescribes something different.

Trinacria| 3.14.12 @ 3:09PM

What!!!??? A thousand dollars a year to ensure one's reproductive health? It's a travesty! Why, that's ALMOST as much as my annual cost of a daily tall latte at Starbucks. The inhumanity of it all!!!!

cwxj415| 3.13.12 @ 2:37AM

Thank you for providing some facts, Kindness. Something in which the author of this post, and, sadly, too many of the comment posters, seem uninterested.

For the record, "Kindness" above is absolutely correct. (Just in case there are a few people here who value factual accuracy.)

spike59| 3.15.12 @ 6:46AM

bcp for the purposes of treating ovarian cysts IS covered under Georgetown's plan, as Fluke admitted...had you paid as much attention to her 'press event' as you have on PuffHo talking points, you would already know that

With this in mind, the point of YOUR post isn't true, but I CAN believe that a 'good progressive' would be either ignorant of the facts or unwilling to let them get in the way of the Leftist narrative

Mark| 3.12.12 @ 5:44PM

Is this the Onion?

Sean Scully| 3.12.12 @ 5:47PM

No Jed,

I think you missed the point. Sandra Fluke testified that the insurance in law school, that she paid for, i.e. it was not free and was not provided by the government, did not cover contraceptive health care. In addition she testified that individuals who were using contraceptives to treat underlying medical conditions, not related to contraception such as ovarian cystes, were denied medically necessary treatments simply because the treatment also acted as a contraceptive.
How this qualifies as welfare queen treatment, and how getting a scholarship to school qualifies as sucking on the governemnt teat, is beyond me. Your hyperbolic rantings have a very tenous graspon reality.

beebop2| 3.12.12 @ 7:31PM

She is wrong. Contraceptive medication is in fact paid for for medical purposes not related to blocking reproduction. Look at the summary of the Georgetown plan on their website. But don't let facts slow you down, there's always another "but,but," isn't there?

Dave| 3.12.12 @ 8:02PM

Oh, so you admit that Jed is just completely full of it! Interesting that you guys start out discussions by completely lying about the issues presented, heap on abuse and sexual humiliation (be honest, you just enjoy calling a single woman who seems unable to defend herself "slut", this is the main thing driving this farce ) and only when directly confronted by someone like Sean with how full of it you are do you come up with a vaguely cogent argument. Jesus, you people really make me want to take a bath.

beebop2| 3.12.12 @ 8:10PM

You might want to step back from the keyboard and take your meds ... you are not making any sense at all.

Dave| 3.12.12 @ 8:38PM

Lame response. Jed throws out a lot of b.s. about welfare queens. Sean points out that he's full of it and the best can do is make a very doubtful point about the Georgetown medical coverage. Since you haven't made any claims as to Ms. Fluke really being a welfare queen you basically agree that Sean is correct, although you apparently don't have the decency to admit to that. Then again I'm not telling you anything you don't already know. You're making such an effort to play for team R on this blog I suspect you're just a hack political operative. Proud of yourself?

beebop2| 3.13.12 @ 5:52AM

I would have no issue having a "discussion" with a cogent individual. The medical plan summary is on line. I urged him to look at it and determine the accuracy of the testimony and he slobbers out some incoherent nonsense. And you? You apparently thought it was germaine. You are worse than him to be honest.

Trinacria| 3.12.12 @ 8:14PM

Yeah! 'cause treating women disrespectfully is the exclusive domain of conservatives - you won't find any "progressives" tweeting their junk to unsuspecting women, or shoving cigars up their cooch in the oval office, or paying for sexual favors while prosecuting others for doing the same...

biomuse| 3.13.12 @ 12:00AM

In general what you won't find them doing, though, is voting to use a monopoly on the means of violence (you know: police/handcuffs/batons/tasers/guns/prison) to send desperate women back into alleys to take their chances with alcohol and wire hangers.

So the disrespect, for some reason, doesn't hit quite as hard when it comes from such quarters.

Trinacria| 3.13.12 @ 12:08AM

You see what crack does to the mind boys and girls?

biomuse| 3.13.12 @ 12:26AM

You see what craven nitwits do when they're outdebated, boys and girls?

Trinacria| 3.13.12 @ 2:18PM

Is that what you call what you're doing? Debating? One generally finds that it is customary in the art of debate to support one's position with factual evidence. In the present case, you've attempted to support you position with the following statement:

"voting to use a monopoly on the means of violence (you know: police/handcuffs/batons/ tasers/guns/prison) to send desperate women back into alleys to take their chances with alcohol and wire hangers."

I would be pleased to consider the merits of your position if you could cite a single example of an elected representative voting in the affirmative for a piece of legislation authorizing the use of force (guns, handcuffs, tasers, etc.) to prevent women from availing themselves of safe alternatives to "alcohol" and back alley "wire hanger" procedures. Alternatively, if you could cite a single documented case in which force has actually been used against a woman attempting to avail herself of safe alternatives to the aforementioned alcohol and back alley wire hanger procedures, I would be equally willing to acknowledge the merits of your position.

Balls in your court - don't let me down.

biomuse| 3.13.12 @ 10:20PM

Gee, that was hard.

http://www.nola.com/politics/i....._bill.html

Nonetheless, I have no intention of going down a rabbit hole with you wherein you attempt to define abortion out of the "safe alternatives" category and/or try to gloss over the fact that those most likely to make the unfortunate choice to abort are those least likely to be able to pay for it with private money.

So you show me a post-Snow Republican who votes inconsistently with what I've described above, and I'll admit you might have a point. Deal?

Trinacria| 3.14.12 @ 3:00PM

Must we continue this nonsense? While I carry no brief for Mr. Labruzzo (we all have our crazy aunts and uncles in the closet, unless of course you wish to defend the comportment of Messers Wiener, Spitzer, Frank, Rangel, et al. as consistent with your party's values), I hasten to note that the cited legislation makes no reference to the use of force against women wishing to avail themselves of the service in question. By way of reminder, I noted that I would be pleased to consider the merits of your argument if you could substantiate your claim that republicans supported the use of force/violence to send women in to back alleys to rely on alcohol and wire hanger procedures.

With all due respect, you're really making this rather a bore . Let's try to make it a bit more sporting, shall we? It generally makes it more fun when one's opponent actually puts forth a credible effort. (Too boorish? Yeah, I though it might be, too - but, hell, I've got a reputation to live up to - you know, nefarious woman-hating fat-cat republican and all...)

biomuse| 3.15.12 @ 5:44PM

This is the farthest thing from nonsense. It is getting those who, these days, popularly accuse others of "feeling their hopes as opposed to observing the results of their policies" to, you know, actually coming to terms with the historical results of their proposed policies.

I though my reference to Weber ("monopoly on violence") made clear that what I'm talking about here is none other than the force of law.
You said:
"I would be pleased to consider the merits of your position if you could cite a single example of an elected representative voting in the affirmative for a piece of legislation authorizing the use of force (guns, handcuffs, tasers, etc.) to prevent women from availing themselves of safe alternatives to "alcohol" and back alley "wire hanger" procedures."

What other result would you expect if abortion were outlawed (i.e., by force of law, naturally)? Whether it is abortion providers or seekers who are actually in handcuffs is irrelevant, because the result is the same.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/.....study.html

biomuse| 3.13.12 @ 12:26AM

You see what craven nitwits do when they're outdebated, boys and girls?

beebop2| 3.13.12 @ 5:55AM

You're right. They are too busy using their insider trade knowledge and plundering the riches of the business community they later decrie. They are so hip deep in hypocrisy that they don't have time for anything other than self dealing the the bread and circuses they drop like manna on the serfs they only care about when it comes to the polling place.

daddio| 3.13.12 @ 1:34PM

Ah, the back alley wire hanger argument! I was wondering when that would appear again. I guess we have come full circle now?

Trinacria| 3.13.12 @ 2:20PM

Almost as intellectually rigorous as "the rich don't pay their fair share" argument...

Trinacria| 3.13.12 @ 2:22PM

Decrie? Really, BB, I'm all to happy to engage in a battle of wits; however, in the interest of good form, I simple must insist that you come to the battlefield armed. Otherwise it really isn't very sporting, is it?

biomuse| 3.14.12 @ 12:56AM

Friendly-fire casualty. Then again, this place is a bit of a circular firing squad all around.

Trinacria| 3.12.12 @ 7:36PM

"In addition she testified that individuals who were using contraceptives to treat underlying medical conditions, not related to contraception such as ovarian cystes [cysts], were denied medically necessary treatments simply because the treatment also acted as a contraceptive."

Interesting argument; of course, it falls apart when one considers that she did not advocate that non-contraceptive treatments for these same conditions also be provided free of charge.

But you keep at it, sport. You'll get it right one day...

dtizzle| 3.12.12 @ 8:54PM

The woman that Fluke was referring to:
However, despite a letter from her doctor detailing her medical needs, she was denied coverage under Georgetown’s plan and unable to afford the high cost of birth control pills on her own. As a result of stopping her treatment, she soon developed a massive cyst on her ovary and underwent invasive surgery to remove it – a surgery which may have compromised her ability to conceive later in life.

Trinacria| 3.13.12 @ 12:09AM

It generally helps to have a point...

spike59| 3.15.12 @ 6:50AM

...accirding to Fluke-who is this woman? can Fluke document her assertions, or are we to accept at face value the word of a professional 'reproductive rights activist' who has also argued that Georgetown cover sex-change operations?

albert constantine jr.| 3.12.12 @ 7:46PM

Sean lad;

Are you all the same troll, or are there a couple of you burning up comments today?

biomuse| 3.13.12 @ 12:02AM

Gosh, you just don't react at all well to the vigorous exchange of ideas, do you?

Gabe| 3.13.12 @ 12:03AM

hey uncle albert, give it a rest man.

beebop2| 3.13.12 @ 5:57AM

You may be more accustomed to the heavy redacting of opinion that occurs at the website you get yout talking points from but you are not permitted to silence anyone here. This isn't Kos or Huffington.

biomuse| 3.13.12 @ 10:29PM

Dude, Kos or Huffington look like the Rand Corporation next to this joint.

c4Logic| 3.12.12 @ 5:49PM

The people on this thread are the American Taliban, they have destroyed Conservative politics with the majority of Americans, which is a true tragedy. They have destroyed America with their mindless allegiance to a bankrupt ideology tribal hatred, where the enemy is recognized by the totems they display, not by their behavior or their character. Bullies, Brownshirts, and Know Nothings. KYA...

albert constantine jr.| 3.12.12 @ 7:51PM

You forgot to add how we can be identified by the names we call those we disagree with ("Bullies, Brownshirts, and Know Nothings" or "American Taliban").

You can rest assured C4Logic, my disdain for you has nothing to do with any totems you display. It is based strictly on the your bad character and behavior displayed in barely more than three sentences.

biomuse| 3.13.12 @ 12:08AM

Surely you're right. After all, the current "conservative" obsession with using the force of law to exclude particular kinds of sexuality and marriage, which extends well beyond this issue, is not at all a function of reactionary moral posturing. It's purely disinterested support for government minimalism. Except where it isn't, which is most of the time.

beebop2| 3.13.12 @ 6:04AM

I have not one bit of interest in your sexual escapades nor in the relationship that you would like to call a marriage. It is your contempt for the opinions of others I find the most repugnant. If you want to make public those things that many of us believe are private matters and that are dictated by a personal morality and which has been tested by folks brighter and more articulate than you. You demand for yourself that which you deny to others and so you are exposed.

biomuse| 3.13.12 @ 10:34PM

Here's why everything you just said is wrong:

There is absolute lack of symmetry between:

A) positively denying others by law the right or capacity to make a private choice; and

B) allowing or enabling by law a choice which no individual can be forced to make one way or the other.

An inability to see the difference in outcome between A and B, how one expands the range of freedom while the other shrinks it, explains why what used to be called conservatism no longer is such.

spike59| 3.15.12 @ 6:53AM

there is no 'conservative obsession with using the force of law to exclude particular kinds of sexuality'...just because conservatives don't feel the State should be forcing religious institutions to violate their own doctrine doesn't 'exclude' anyone from doing anything-time for the Leftist tantrums to stop

abuckner| 3.12.12 @ 6:00PM

How interesting. A guy with a law degree from a 4th tier law school and 20 years of representing those on the government teat has the chutzpa to call a woman who received a scholarship to Georgetown Law a welfare queen.

beebop2| 3.12.12 @ 7:34PM

You might want to hurry up and cash that George Soros pay check. Once he realizes that he has wasted his funds, he is bound to stop payment. I mean, look at what he did to the poor Brazlian woman (who only wants the apartment he promised to buy her) who must have an amazing ability to suppress her gag reflex.

Trinacria| 3.12.12 @ 7:47PM

Funny - just re-read the article and found not a single reference to a connection between a scholarship and welfare.

By the way, which law school is your degree from?

Arzach| 3.12.12 @ 9:32PM

"Sandra Fluke is the model Welfare Queen for the 21st Century. Upper middle class to start, going to a very expensive (and very liberal law) school on scholarship, and now..."

nglaer| 3.12.12 @ 6:01PM

The kind of right-wingers who go for stuff could never date a girl as cute as Sandra--that's what fuels their animus. And she's not even especially hot.

Stan REdmond| 3.12.12 @ 6:31PM

The amazing nglaer! I wish I had your mind reading powers. You are simply amazing.

beebop2| 3.12.12 @ 7:39PM

She's closer to menopause than needing birth control, for Pete's sake. Not even especially hot? Damning by faint praise?

Trinacria| 3.12.12 @ 7:54PM

I'd do her - but only if someone else pays for her birth control.

daddio| 3.13.12 @ 1:36PM

She's cute? Sez who?

Edward| 3.12.12 @ 6:15PM

Welcome to the new Conservatism: Reactionism

beebop2| 3.12.12 @ 7:42PM

Better than the liberal projectionism!

jsfox| 3.12.12 @ 6:16PM

The absolute clap trap that gets passed off as thoughtful, fact based writing in The American Spectator these days is truly depressing.

albert constantine jr.| 3.12.12 @ 7:54PM

Do you want the taxpayers to pay for your therapist and medication, or does your school plan cover it for you?

jaime| 3.12.12 @ 6:25PM

So scholarships are WELFARE now?

beebop2| 3.12.12 @ 7:28PM

I think the point is that going through life never paying one's way but assuming that the gravy train continues to roll fueled by the labor of others is the moral equivalent of welfare. But hey? That's just me.

Sas| 3.12.12 @ 11:09PM

So by this definition, Rick Santorum must be a "Welfare King," right? After all, he got his J.D. from a state institution (Penn State) - subsidized by state taxes - then practiced law for a whopping 4 years, before running for Congress. From the House, he moved to the Senate, and stayed there until he could cash out as a lobbyist. Not exactly paying his way, is he?

biomuse| 3.13.12 @ 12:11AM

(oh no! a real argument that we don't have a talking point for! quick, hide!)

beebop2| 3.13.12 @ 6:06AM

I am not paying his way and he is not demanding that the rules be changed to make him happy.

Trinacria| 3.12.12 @ 7:50PM

Not what he said, hombre. Have someone read it to you again.

CLVINCENT| 3.12.12 @ 6:36PM

Jed: I think it's time you stepped away from your daily Republican talking points emails and go read what Ms. Fluke actually testified to, because your article is absolutely NOT based in facts. You should be ashamed that you would call a woman who worked hard to get a SCHOLARSHIP to Georgetown Law a Welfare Queen. Absolutely defamatory. It's disgusting, really.

Bob Grant | 3.12.12 @ 6:39PM

I can't think of a better description.

beebop2| 3.12.12 @ 7:36PM

Just hang on .... one will be coming your way from the DNC to cut and paste!

albert constantine jr.| 3.12.12 @ 7:56PM

While we're reading, can we look up the definition of testimony? If it is not sworn or before Congress, is it testimony, or a staged political speech?

Jilli| 3.12.12 @ 6:56PM

Impressive Mr Babbin, what are you, 12?

I hope you feel better after your tantrum.

Wow. Just wow. I sure hope you don't have children, especially girls.

beebop2| 3.12.12 @ 7:24PM

More vacuous ad hominem rhetoric from the huffington post crowd? Quelle surprise ....

libtard| 3.12.12 @ 7:04PM

I'm sure no graduate of Georgetown Law ever contributed to society... This article is beyond inept and utterly foolish.

beebop2| 3.12.12 @ 7:26PM

And yet? You lingered here to comment so I would observe that perhaps the author's intent was perfectly realized ... or ... in words that perhaps you might understand? Think you've been played?

biomuse| 3.13.12 @ 12:12AM

So you're admitting that this is just a provocateur's crapsheet designed to rack up views and sell ad space.

Good for you, it's a start.

beebop2| 3.13.12 @ 6:10AM

Good for you, its a start.

I was thinking for myself long before you squeezed out the birth canal. I worked (with regret in hind sight) for one of those groups that says its "a woman's right to choose," unless a woman CHOOSES to give birth to a child with special needs. Then? Its not a right to choose. It is a missed opportunity to abort. Being condescended to by a 20 year old with no real life experience makes me laugh while at the same time worry for the state of this nation. Whose going to pay for your stuff?

biomuse| 3.13.12 @ 10:38PM

Who are you talking to? And about what?

Sorry, but I'm not 20 (I wish) and I genuinely don't see your point. You worked in China doling out compulsory abortions??

calder| 3.12.12 @ 7:11PM

A few Republican Welfare Kings and Queens who went to Georgetown Law: Jack Abramoff, Bob Barr, Mitch Daniels, Greta Van Susteren

Trinacria| 3.12.12 @ 7:53PM

That Van Susteren fella is pretty good

Dave| 3.12.12 @ 7:46PM

Pathetic post, just a lot of name calling. Genuinely makes me sad that American political commentary has sunk to this level.

JLM| 3.12.12 @ 7:51PM

Sandra Fluke has Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome. My wife has this as well. You take birth control to limit the amount of cysts that form as a result of a normal cycle, so when you're ready to actually have children, your ovaries are as healthy as possible. Not that facts are relevant to the hate-fests and vile ugliness coming from the right wing hive cult these days. Go on hating a college student who dared to speak up for her right to health insurance without judgment from an ill-informed random boss intervening. How far the GOP has sunk. You people are truly lost.

albert constantine jr.| 3.12.12 @ 8:00PM

If you can't distinguish disagreement from hate, perhaps you are even more lost than you realize.

biomuse| 3.13.12 @ 12:14AM

"Disagreement" involves reasoned argument.

"Hate" involves terms such as "slut" and "welfare queen" with no cogent relationship to any detail under discussion.

They're being distinguished just fine.

beebop2| 3.12.12 @ 8:03PM

This is not what she testified. All she demanded was taxpayer paid for birth control I appreciate the fact that it now has to be restyled since her testimony in front of her fellow nattering nabob democrats has only take the small P president's ratings with women further down, down, down, but to quote the late Senator Moynihan, "you are not entitled to your own facts."

KnownUnknowns| 3.13.12 @ 7:51AM

Taxpayers do not pay for health coverage at GU, the students do.

Gloria| 3.13.12 @ 5:20PM

They absolutely do not, but conservatives love shaking their fists in the air claiming that they do.

Gloria| 3.13.12 @ 5:26PM

JLM: Well-spoken. And accurate. It is hate, plain and simple, and so many conservatives are blind to it. They're so quick to join the rest of the mob without even caring to check facts for themselves. Clearly there are a lot of very stupid people in our country. Conservative leaders love them, too. They're so easily led.

Trinacria| 3.13.12 @ 7:13PM

"Sandra Fluke has Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome. My wife has this as well. You take birth control to limit the amount of cysts that form as a result of a normal cycle, so when you're ready to actually have children, your ovaries are as healthy as possible."

My mother has Stage IV ovarian cancer. Should her chemotherapy be free, too?

Jason| 3.13.12 @ 9:39PM

"My mother has Stage IV ovarian cancer. Should her chemotherapy be free, too?"

Yes.

Trinacria| 3.14.12 @ 4:13PM

But you see, Jason, the problem with socialism (as the esteemed Lady Thatcher so brilliantly observed) is that eventually you run out of other people's money to spend.

JRock| 3.12.12 @ 7:54PM

I don't know what delusional world you inhabit, but it isn't this one.

MyName| 3.12.12 @ 7:58PM

If this is the new "Welfare Queen", someone who is smart, successful and not stuck hopelessly in the ghetto having kids from age 16, then America needs more Welfare Queens.

beebop2| 3.12.12 @ 8:05PM

Successful? By whose standards? Not mine. I was in college just up the road from Georgetown. I marched for some of the rights that little snots like Fluke take for granted. But? I thought the meme was that we could be whatever we wanted to be, not that we needed other people to pay for it!

albert constantine jr.| 3.12.12 @ 8:49PM

Your innate racism reveals itself with your association of welfare with the ghetto, MyName.

While you are free to define success any way you choose, however; at age 30 if you're still not paying your own way, going to school on someone else's dime, and asking that someone other than yourself be paying for your birth control, I define you as a freeloader, at best.

biomuse| 3.13.12 @ 12:18AM

Oh you're right, because, you know, MyName was the first one in history to make that move. He's not referencing any Southern Strategy of any type. Oh no.

albert constantine jr.| 3.13.12 @ 8:26AM

MyName is not the first, not the last, just the latest (though I believe the original "Southern Strategy" developed in the Democrat Party, as was known as "Jim Crow".

On a different note, though, you still haven't answered the earlier question. Are you all the same troll, or are the a couple of you burning up comments today (and now, from the original timeline, tomorrow).

Jason| 3.13.12 @ 9:45PM

Either you're being deliberately dishonest, or are historically illiterate. The original "Southern Strategy" was courtesy of Nixon and Goldwater.

The racists in the South were Democrats because Abe Lincoln was a Republican, pure and simple.

But they were able to overcome their antipathy towards the GOP when Democrats began pushing civil-rights reforms during the Truman Administration. The former Dixiecrats joined the Republic Party in droves.

homer| 3.12.12 @ 8:44PM

"Welfare Queen Fluke will never produce anything of value to society."

Really? You have a crystal ball and see exactly what the next 50 to 70 years has in store for Fluke?

So juvenile and immature to trash talk this woman. Jealous she is getting attention and no one knows who you are, Babbin?

Cpm| 3.13.12 @ 4:33PM

Well, her first 30 years have been a waste.

Hopster2| 3.12.12 @ 8:58PM

It's pretty obvious that none of you geniuses actually read the testimony. But that never stops so-called "conservatives," does it?

Gloria| 3.13.12 @ 5:18PM

Amen to that, Hopster2. For people of such "conservative" nature (characteristically those who don't like change, i.e., set in their ways), most are such sheep. They'll believe anything without checking it out for themselves.

J| 3.12.12 @ 10:02PM

man, with commentary like this, no wonder this publication needs to fundraise !

ice9| 3.12.12 @ 10:20PM

One way--among many--that you're wrong. Ms. Fluke has already produced something of value: she has produced countervalue to Rush Limbaugh. By the standards of the post, which are idiotic but they are handy, Limbaugh is so great a welfare queen that he endangers the geological underpinnings of the East Coast (nb--'belief' in plate tectonics required for that trope.) Limbaugh of course generates enormous quantities of a kind of paper money, notes drawn on the bank of outrage that can be cashed in (at diminishing returns) for votes and assorted screeches and yawps at demos and town halls, with a slight surcharge for visible firearms and illiteracy. Limbaugh generates another sort of value, which is the comfortable reassurance that strong quasi-political opinions arising from the id are correct if they make you feel good, which of course in this case is not really 'good' but more a kind of eroticized, self-assured rage. Rush helps us see that slight investments in time and in cursory networking are all that is required to validate these views as correct, and the horny anger as righteous, and any resistance or rebuttal as not only futile but crisp, certain, and vaguely sexy proof of corruption.
Enter Fluke, with impeccable timing. Though excluded from the hearings she managed to upstage them despite the presence of approved witnesses complete with orthodox headgear and opinions. What seems like a vicious, underhanded conspiracy was exactly that, if by 'conspiracy' you mean 'effective politics contrasted with the bumblings of Issa,' and by 'underhanded' you mean 'inconveniently successful according to the same First Amendment standard used but not understood by Issa' and by 'vicious' you mean 'truthful.' Suddenly Limbaugh looks like a pervert and this slut looks like a voter. It's created a run on the Bank of Rush, and a lot of his scrip is soaking up the bile in the gutters. You can tell it works because Spectators are busily spackling the mildewed walls with way more of the same soggy invective you used to get yourself into this mess. But even the trailer people and the Regular Folks aren't buying it anymore. You've doubled down and strutted and smiled up on the balconies but you're scared, and with good reason. A substantial slice of your base has stopped in the street and is reading the fine print on the money you've printed and handed out for the past generation, then doubled down and doubled down again even while your ideas have halved and halved again and your issues have puckered and retracted into the hard white stony little nodules that now pass for vitals in the viagra-soaked corpus that is the midsection of Limbaugh Land. You'll probably win an election or two--even defeat Obama--but look ahead to the day when you can count on Oklahoma and Tennessee, when the elders of your party will be bitter, tight-lipped white men, and the birthright of the Party will be worthless notes framed on a wall while people calling themselves Republicans will be sucking up to the new Tip O'Neills and wondering why they were so stupid to imagine that Rick Santorum or Rush Limbaugh were worth their faith or their investment.

Then we'll all be this contemptuous, because it will be obvious; we'll also blame you because the balance of the system has been frittered away for a few lusty daydreams and a brief, sordid sense of superiority. It's amusing in the middle of it, because you're so self-assured and jaunty, but in the long run it will be just another long history of good, important, useful stuff you wrecked that grownups will have to repair.

ice9

albert constantine jr.| 3.12.12 @ 11:00PM

"Then we'll all be this contemptuous, because it will be obvious; we'll also blame you because the balance of the system has been frittered away for a few lusty daydreams and a brief, sordid sense of superiority. "

Thankfully we'll have this brief taste of superiority, because clearly from this post you seem to be trying to monopolize the well for yourself.

I've yet to meet a grownup who identifies as a member of today's Democrat Party.

As I call the roll of Clinton, Clinton, Obama, Biden, Pelosi and on down the line, its difficult to see anyone not wearing short pants or a jumper.

Kingofthenet| 3.12.12 @ 10:29PM

Why do Conservative and Religious peoples 'Rights' and 'conscience' also seem to involve other people losing theirs? OK your against abortion and contraception, fine don't do/use it. You don't have to take MY right away to do so. Yeah but than shouldn't I get to decide what I want to pay for in my/YOURS(See it's back again) health plan? just as soon as i can take out air bags as standard equipment in Conservative Cars(i.e. i can't it mandatory) but it against MY morals? Well so might drinking be? What are you going to do when you hand a worker a pay check and he says to you the FIRST thing he is going to do this weekend is hit the bar? Do we REALLY need to go down this road?

albert constantine jr.| 3.12.12 @ 11:04PM

Your Majesty;

It appears from the poor grammar and spelling and the rambling nature of your post that you might have spent a little bit too much time at the bar yourself tonight. I don't know the rest of these obnoxious trolls, but as a regular, I say to you "Easy Does It".

John Hope | 3.13.12 @ 5:02AM

What has Jed Babbin produced that is of any value to society ?

Richard Baker| 3.13.12 @ 5:25AM

Outstanding article. The number in government who consume much and produce nothing will be swelled by the addition of Fluke after she finishes Law School. She's practicing for that role now.

John Hope:
This article. That's what he's produced and without being connected to the government tit.

Chris David| 3.13.12 @ 6:45AM

"They will be spreading their ideas to all within hearing."

They'll be spreading something :-)

MikeB| 3.13.12 @ 7:13AM

"Fluke is the Georgetown Law School student who testified against the religious right of her school..."
WRONG...press conference is not the same as testifying.

KnownUnknowns| 3.13.12 @ 7:47AM

it wasnt a press conference until Oxy-Boy turned it into one and exposed the GOP for the women-hating Neanderthals they are.

THANKS RUSH !!!

Purple Lips| 3.13.12 @ 10:59AM

Actually, a person is sworn in before giving his testimony. Fluke was never sworn-in, for the simple reason that she didn't testify. And she didn't testify because there was no hearing. Rep Issa refused to the Dems last minute bait-and-switch. So, Pelosi did the next best thing; she chaired a press conference.

SPJ| 3.13.12 @ 6:01PM

Yes the same Republicans who refused to let anyone testify, on a womem's health issue, who wasn't a white male religious clergyman. No doctors where allowed to testify no women were allowed to testify. Where is the fairness of the Right wing Republicans in this?

beebop2| 3.13.12 @ 6:35PM

Sorry you are such a dim bulb -- one of the $50 ones are you?

The Issa chaired hearing was to determine whether the president of the United States has the Constitutional power to compell a private citizen or (as in this case) organization to purchase something .... It had NOTHING to do with reproductive "rights." Not One Thing.

KnownUnknowns| 3.13.12 @ 7:37AM

As Republicans CONTINUE kicking this innocent girl in the head, women across America are watching.

Republcians will need to win this election with ONLY 53% of the white, male, Christian vote.

good luck with that.

slut spotter| 3.13.12 @ 10:52AM

another one

Purple Lips| 3.13.12 @ 11:00AM

And the Dems will need to win the election with only 75% of sluts, strippers, and sodomites. Good luck with that.

Doublespeak| 3.13.12 @ 2:04PM

Or what grown ups call women.....

beebop2| 3.13.12 @ 6:36PM

Unlike 0bama who is counting on the unions, the unemployed and minority votes? Yep. Each party has its followers.

Tigger| 3.13.12 @ 8:23AM

I'm a man. I drink. Therefore I'm fit to speak in front of congress about alcohol distribution and what I DESERVE as a citizen....

Doublespeak| 3.13.12 @ 2:01PM

So yah, i guess this confirms Americans are insane. How you forgotten how to converse like adults instead of just attacking everything you don't agree with?

Tim| 3.13.12 @ 2:17PM

That is probably the dumbest thing I have ever heard.

You're calling a socially conservative religious body imposing its beliefs on a 3rd party a "liberal school"?

You ned to stop writing stuff on the internet.

jasper3| 3.13.12 @ 2:24PM

Good!! We nee more people, and GOP senators to get on the floor and say exactly this! You sir are quite a hero in my book! Keep this in mind women.. if you speak out in congress, this is the reprecusions you face!

Bunk| 3.13.12 @ 2:49PM

Seriously? You are equating earning a scholorship and using it to go to college as being comparable to being a welfare mom?

Why does the right insist on trying to paint this issue as "the government paying for birth control"? Since when is a medical insurance company part of the government? - I'm pretty sure the Repuplicans did a pretty solid job of making sure that didn't ever happen.

Adopt Universal Health Care, and then maybe your arguement at least has a basis.

Peppermint Tea| 3.13.12 @ 3:49PM

Knock knock
Who's there?
Sandra Fluke.
Sandra Fluke who?
Sandra flukes whoever Sandra wants and bills the taxpayer.

Q: Why doesn't Sandra Fluke ask her partners to pay for contraception?
A: She'd rather screw the taxpayers.

beebop2| 3.13.12 @ 6:38PM

PERFECT!!!!!

Sexy Goth | 3.13.12 @ 4:35PM

Is this writer serious????

Jennifer| 3.13.12 @ 4:39PM

Sandra Fluke testified about healthcare, and told the story of her friend who needed birth control because of ovarian cyst.

Her testimony had nothing to do with sex, yet here the Right goes, calling her a "slut" and asking her to produce amateur pornography.

But i'm glad the GOP have hitched their wagon to this cause. It's awakening millions of women to the fact that the GOP doesn't care about their interests.

Rich D| 3.14.12 @ 10:20PM

Sorry, that person was covered under the school's insurance plan. I think that you need to a little more reading.

spike59| 3.15.12 @ 6:57AM

funny how the Left always seems to be able to determine everyone else's 'interests' for them, isn't it?

Gloria| 3.13.12 @ 5:15PM

Are you kidding me? Who spawns people like you? Poor Sandra. Garbage like this article really scares me. I worry that our country is regressing.

axel| 3.13.12 @ 5:28PM

I ask myself, why, if Conservatives believe that Mrs Fluke is wrong on the issue of birth control, all the opinions (like Mr Babbin's) written and the comments that follow quickly turn into personal attacks?

beebop2| 3.13.12 @ 6:39PM

Because that's what democrats do? Just a guess ....

Jerry| 3.13.12 @ 10:48PM

You're not serious,. this is a joke right?

luke| 3.14.12 @ 1:18AM

Just make sure you get the government out of my Medicare and we're all good.

Robert| 3.14.12 @ 10:52AM

The holder of the Title of costliest sluts in the United States to the taxpayer is still defense weapons contractors who have being effectively raping Americans for decades and former defense. Also former conservative secretaries engaged in conservative advocacy journalism are pretty big whores too.

Jack| 3.14.12 @ 4:30PM

I see all these conservative websites talk about liberals reducing freedoms and I have to wonder, have any of you people actually LISTENED to what your candidates want to do? They want to force their own ideology down the throats of every american, take the government and push it into every aspect of your lives and dictate everything you do.

beebop2| 3.14.12 @ 7:21PM

Tell you what, JACKass, name five specific plans that accomplish what you allege and tie them to the specific candidate who is has a plan that would be as obtrusive as 0bamacare and the rest of the bs your (apparent) hero has shoved up the backsides of the rest of us? Just five!

Doug| 3.16.12 @ 4:15AM

"They want to force their own ideology down the throats of every american, take the government and push it into every aspect of your lives and dictate everything you do." I do believe you have just precisely described "Obamacare," sir. (Except that every American I know has only one throat.)

prtsimmons| 3.15.12 @ 2:07PM

America is doomed if this is representative of 'conservative' thought. This post is poorly-written drivel, relying on stereotypes and insinuation to make its weak argument. The fact that rightwing pundits continue personal attacks on Sandra Fluke is proof of the utter moral bankruptcy of the right. If you have some intelligent fiscal or policy arguments to make, please make them; all these personal attacks on someone who had the courage to express an opinion and explain her reasons for it make the right look worse and worse. The Republican presidential candidates are a joke; it is impossible to imagine religious, right-wing plutocrats like Gingrich, Santorum, or Romney being seriously considered for high office in any other Western democracy. It is only because of the huge sums of money poured into the rightwing coffers that a philosophy as morally void as American conservatism (ignorant of science, incapable of math, religiously intolerant, racist, misogynist, and ignorant of the principles of secular society) has survived as long as it has. I used to enjoy debates with conservatives but they don't seem to be able to argue any more; they only have talking points, insults, and invective to offer. You guys need to get your act together and offer some legitimate policy alternatives (calling women 'sluts' and promising tax cuts to billionnaires are not legitimate policy alternatives) instead of just insults and Heritage Foundation talking points.

Marc Jeric| 3.15.12 @ 6:08PM

Here is an example of "intelectual" ignorance that I used to know well before escaping from a communist hell. Name calling is their chosen tool("ignorant of science, incapable of math, religiously intolerant, racist, misogynist, and ignorant of the principles of secular society") . Well, a have a PhD in Engineering, komrad prtsimmons, and can easily recognize the foul language of a "salon communist".

Darla| 3.15.12 @ 6:44PM

Do you see the irony in accusing rightwing pundits of relying on stereotypes and personal attacks, followed by labeling American conservatism as ignorant of science, incapable of math, religiously intolerant, racist misogynist and ignorant? As a black, female agnostic conservative with an engineering degree, I have to ask, are you serious?

Doug| 3.16.12 @ 4:19AM

"...and ignorant of the principles of secular society." It wasn't that long ago when the country was a pretty religious society. When were the rules changed, and who re-wrote them? Have they been codified?

sanford sklansky| 3.15.12 @ 5:36PM

Do you really get paid for writing such drivel?

Marc Jeric| 3.15.12 @ 6:03PM

La Fluke is being directed by Anita Dunn, whose hero is Chairman Mao - that Mao who killed 60 million Chinese in his "cultural revolution".

elizabeth| 3.15.12 @ 6:22PM

Wait - she's a welfare queen because she got a scholarship? Really?

Doug| 3.16.12 @ 4:20AM

You're late to the argument, honey. Scroll above and join in the mud bath.

The American Spectator

The Spectacle Blog

Fluke the Welfare Queen

View all comments (317) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Vern Crisler| 3.12.12 @ 10:03AM

Lesser Weevil| 3.12.12 @ 10:36AM

daddio| 3.13.12 @ 1:12PM

Jilli| 3.12.12 @ 6:56PM

beebop2| 3.12.12 @ 7:05PM

Ella| 3.12.12 @ 9:32PM

mamacancook| 3.13.12 @ 12:31AM

Tim| 3.13.12 @ 2:26PM

Trinacria| 3.13.12 @ 6:39PM

JamesJ| 3.13.12 @ 10:47AM

HVP| 3.13.12 @ 2:36PM

Jennifer| 3.14.12 @ 2:28PM

LiveFreeOrDie| 3.15.12 @ 6:35PM

Mimi Mayes | 3.15.12 @ 7:48PM

HVP| 3.13.12 @ 2:36PM

Skip| 3.13.12 @ 4:18PM

HVP| 3.13.12 @ 4:45PM

SPJ| 3.13.12 @ 5:18PM

Trinacria| 3.13.12 @ 6:44PM

Marie commenting| 3.13.12 @ 5:38PM

Trinacria| 3.13.12 @ 6:01PM

Jennifer| 3.14.12 @ 2:31PM

Mark MacInnis| 3.15.12 @ 8:25AM

Darla| 3.15.12 @ 5:17PM

Mrs. Vito| 3.13.12 @ 10:25PM

Doublespeak| 3.13.12 @ 2:05PM

Oldefarte| 3.12.12 @ 10:56AM

beebop2| 3.13.12 @ 6:19AM

Skippy| 3.13.12 @ 11:41AM

Doublespeak| 3.13.12 @ 2:08PM

wiggles| 3.13.12 @ 3:13PM

Skip| 3.13.12 @ 4:21PM

Droopy| 3.14.12 @ 8:56AM

Trinacria| 3.14.12 @ 4:03PM

Big Bob| 3.12.12 @ 11:14AM

Gabe| 3.12.12 @ 5:40PM

David W| 3.12.12 @ 11:24AM

Jilli| 3.12.12 @ 6:59PM

beebop2| 3.12.12 @ 7:09PM

cwxj415| 3.13.12 @ 2:18AM

daddio| 3.13.12 @ 1:15PM

Trinacria| 3.12.12 @ 8:06PM

cwxj415| 3.13.12 @ 2:21AM

Trinacria| 3.13.12 @ 1:31PM

Close reader| 3.13.12 @ 2:50PM

Close reader| 3.13.12 @ 2:57PM

Trinacria| 3.13.12 @ 5:26PM

Trinacria| 3.13.12 @ 5:20PM

Close Reader| 3.13.12 @ 6:23PM

Trinacria| 3.13.12 @ 7:06PM

Close reader| 3.13.12 @ 7:58PM

Trinacria| 3.14.12 @ 1:26PM

biomuse| 3.15.12 @ 5:18PM

sotto voce| 3.12.12 @ 9:12PM

Canisius| 3.13.12 @ 1:31PM

Skippy| 3.13.12 @ 11:46AM

albert constantine jr.| 3.12.12 @ 8:03PM

biomuse| 3.12.12 @ 11:27PM

Willis| 3.13.12 @ 7:11AM

ha| 3.13.12 @ 4:19PM

cwxj415| 3.13.12 @ 2:25AM

beebop2| 3.13.12 @ 5:33AM

SPJ| 3.13.12 @ 5:23PM

Marie commenting| 3.13.12 @ 5:42PM

Brandon | 3.13.12 @ 12:12PM

wiggles| 3.13.12 @ 3:19PM

Skip| 3.13.12 @ 4:25PM

Trinacria| 3.13.12 @ 7:29PM

Harpagon| 3.12.12 @ 11:55AM

Former Subscriber 3| 3.12.12 @ 5:49PM

Cpm| 3.13.12 @ 4:12PM

Skip| 3.13.12 @ 4:26PM

albert constantine jr.| 3.12.12 @ 11:55AM

Al Adab| 3.12.12 @ 2:53PM

albert constantine jr.| 3.12.12 @ 4:38PM

wiggles| 3.13.12 @ 3:22PM