“What does it say about the college co-ed Susan Fluke [sic] who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex — what does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute.” — Rush Limbaugh
With this, Rush Limbaugh ignited a firestorm.
Limbaugh made these comments in response to the kabuki theater arranged by Nancy Pelosi and other progressive women in the House to focus the Obamacare mandate announced by HHS and the Administration which would (and still) requires religious organizations to provide free contraception, sterilization, and abortafacients to their employees regardless of these services being against the beliefs of these religious organizations.
Across the vast majority of these religious organizations, and the institutions (hospitals, charities, and schools / university's) they run, complaints are being raised over this new mandate which they see as a violation of the 1st Amendment Constitutional rights.
A vast majority of conservatives agree with them. They see this as a breach of Constitutionally protected religious freedoms - 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;...'
The progressive left doesn't care about religious freedoms - their concern is the implementation of their agenda and the use of government power to further their agenda. They want to embrace their progressive roots, which include the embracement of eugenics, and ensure that these services are not only available without restrictions - but also available at no cost to the recipient. To further their political ends, and to gain political advantage, they wish to misrepresent this issue as a case of conservatives and religious organizations seeking to ban contraception - or as one hard left wag commented - 'return to the Dark Ages' in terms of the subjugation of women.
The initial House hearings involved six religious leaders across multiple faiths expressing their concerns with the unprecedented and unconstitutional step by the Obama Administration to eliminate their religious freedom and rights. Democrats, before a number walked out, made note of the panel that was entirely comprised of men - and complained they couldn't get their preferred choice on the panel to testify. That member, the Georgetown Law School student Sandra Fluke who was to speak about the need and importance for free contraceptives - and the brutally high costs of these contraceptives.
It was intended to be theater to diminish the testimony of the religious leaders. Rather than happening on the same day, it happened several days later. Fluke's testimony, which I chronicled in a QH, whined about how expensive it was ($1,000 per year) for she and her fellow students to get the contraception they NEEDED to enjoy the full and active sex lives they desired while trying to get a very prestigious law school degree at the Jesuit run University.
She was presented as a 23 year old co-ed speaking up for her rights - and the critical impact (financially and physically) she and her fellow co-ed's were facing because while they could attend a $63,000 per year institution, they could not afford the $9 per month for the pill from the local Target or WalMart pharmacy.
As JammieWearingFool notes - we're being played in this political theater...
For me the interesting part of the story has the ever evolving “coed”. I put that in quotes because in the beginning she was described as a Georgetown law student. It was then revealed that prior to attending Georgetown she was an active women’s right advocate. In one of her first interviews she is quoted as talking about how she reviewed Georgetown’s insurance policy prior to committing to attend, and seeing that it didn’t cover contraceptive services, she decided to attend with the express purpose of battling this policy. During this time, she was described as a 23-year-old coed. Magically, at the same time Congress is debating the forced coverage of contraception, she appears and is even brought to Capitol Hill to testify. This morning, in an interview with Matt Lauer on the Today show, it was revealed that she is 30 years old, NOT the 23 that had been reported all along.She knew that prior to the HHS mandate that religious organizations like the Jesuit run Georgetown University had an exemption to not provide medical services that ran contrary to their religious beliefs and teachings. All religious organizations like churches, hospitals, charities, and schools had the same exemption. One of her reasons to attend that prestigious law school, over the equally prestigious law schools of Harvard Law or Yale Law, was her intent and desire to eliminate the religious exemption - to take away their right to object on religious grounds.
In other words, folks, you are being played. She has been an activist all along and the Dems were just waiting for the appropriate time to play her.
Michelle Malkin highlights on her site how the progressive Democrats, like the DCCC, are using this theater as a new cause for political fund raising. She also highlights a note from another Georgetown co-ed, Angela Morabito, who notes that Sandra Fluke doesn't speak for her...
Sandra Fluke doesn’t speak for me. Or for Georgetown.
She doesn’t speak for those of us who worked hard to be able to choose to come to a great institution with a great tradition of faith and scholarship. She certainly can’t speak for the Jesuits who dedicated their lives to God and Education with a long established set of rules. There are only ten of them, and Ms. Fluke would do well to give them a quick read.
If she wants a more liberal sex life, she can go to Syracuse. (Syracuse, I must apologize – but we are in March and basketball matters – sorry you got caught up in this.)
Sandra doesn’t even speak for all skanks! She only speaks for the skanks who don’t want to take responsibility for their choices. That’s a tiny group of people. Hey Sandra! How about next Saturday night, you come hang out with me and my gay boyfriends! Your hair will look fabulous and you’ll get to see great musical theatre! Oh, and odds of you getting pregnant? Zero percent.
Even the oh-so-left HuffPo called Sandra out on her media sluttery: ”Fluke got the stage all to herself and was hailed as a hero by the crowd and Democratic lawmakers on the panel, all of whom rushed to appear on camera with her at the end. “Excuse me. I’d love to get a picture with our star,” Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) said as she pushed her way through the packed room to Fluke.”
Star of what? Star of the bedroom sex tape? When did Georgetown Law start admitting Kardashians?For those who believe in the religion of progressivism or liberal fascism (to use the title of Jonah Goldberg's excellent book) - and they are fervent in the desire to expand the power and reach of this religion as any jihadist or even a born-again Christian evangelist that so many progressives like to ridicule - this is part of their effort to achieve what they want, when they want, how they want. To them, it's all about rights - their rights. The rights of the religious organizations who will lose freedoms are immaterial.
Sandra, we might be on the same campus, but we are not on the same planet.
What's next? The mandate that despite religious organizations objections to homosexuality, they will be forced by the State to perform gay marriage ceremonies?
Despite the theater, this is not about contraceptive rights or women's rights. Opposing the Obamacare mandate doesn't rollback any of these rights from what they were the day before the Administration's mandate. In fact, opposing it protects the rights of religious organizations.
As Michelle Malkin notes in the same post...
I’ll tell you why Rush was wrong. Young Sandra Fluke of Georgetown Law is not a “slut.” She’s a moocher and a tool of the Nanny State. She’s a poster girl for the rabid Planned Parenthood lobby and its eugenics-inspired foremothers.
I agree. Fluke isn't a slut. She is a tool of the Nanny State. She is a poster girl for Planned Parenthood - and the morally repugnant eugenicists who founded / support that organization. She is an acolyte of liberal fascism - and an enabler of liberal fascism. Her vapid argument demonstrates the progressive left's real contempt towards rights - which are entirely based on their rights - and no one else's.
To her, and the others, the end always justifies the means.