Archive for March 2nd, 2012

…milk it for all it is worth.

Seriously, when Georgetown Law Student whined and lied to a Congressional committee about the injustice being done to female students who willingly and voluntarily applied to and enrolled in the Catholic Church affiliated law school dealing with the prohibitive costs of the contraceptives that the school doesn’t provide, she was lauded as a “hero”, and a spokesperson for the plight of women and the “war” that the right is waging on them everywhere.

However, there are a large amount of people in the country who haven’t yet undergone the brainectomies mandated by Obamacare who immediately set themselves upon the testimony and started to draw reasonable conclusions based on it.

First was the easiest to attack…the funny math. Math is a process where leftists often find themselves at a competitive disadvantage, and this testimony was no exception.

“Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school. For a lot of students who, like me, are on public interest scholarships, that’s practically an entire summer’s salary. 40% of the female students at Georgetown Law reported to us that they struggle financially as a result of this policy.

Now there is a lot in this paragraph, so we should probably break it down.

Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school.

Well, no, I know no such thing. And she would know it to not be true as well, if she bothered to look into it herself. The average student goes to law school for a 3 year span, so let’s use her numbers to come to a total of $1000.00 per year. Let’s start the analysis something easy: condoms.

Condoms might not be the favored form of birth control among those who use it, but they do have the advantage of preventing some STDs, which the pill and IUDs will not. Walgreens sells them, many in boxes of 36 at a cost of less than a dollar apiece. Wal Mart sells them at even lower prices. And if you are embarrassed to buy them in person, Amazon sells one brand in a 12 pack for $4. That is pretty economical, and by my reckoning, means that to spend $1000 a year, you have to be having sex at least three times a day, every day for a year. Unless you are a pro, or a REALLY popular “adult” film star, that’s a lot of action.

But let’s say you are in a stable relationship where both partners are disease free, and condoms “aren’t really your thing”. Or you just wanna be able to get your freak on whenever the mood hits you, and you just won’t wait for your partner to get a condom on. No problem. Both Target and Wal Mart offer generic birth control pills at the budget busting price of…$9 A MONTH, which on my planet, means $108 a year. Now even if you have to add an exam on top of that, we are constantly being told that our taxpayer dollar goes to Klanned Parenthood to help provide low-cost exams and birth control to the public. Even if “low-cost” translates to $150, you are still only talking about $258 a year, which isn’t even close to $1000 a year. And if you’re one of these numerous women who would need the pill for “medical” reasons and not as birth control, you aren’t necessarily paying any more.

For a lot of students who, like me, are on public interest scholarships, that’s practically an entire summer’s salary.

Seriously? A summer associate from Georgetown Law is only going to make $3000 in a summer? Yes, I’m saying that I do not believe it. And you shouldn’t either.

40% of the female students at Georgetown Law reported to us that they struggle financially as a result of this policy.

I’m not really buying this one either. Yes, law school is expensive. Yes, a prestigious law school is MORE expensive. But they are on scholarships…and student loans, which cover at least in part, living expenses. And when birth control doesn’t really cost as much as she just said it does, this becomes more problematic, and I have to think that she and her fellow students have more pressing needs than the cost of keeping a leisure activity consequence-free. But it also begs the question, what are you doing at a school that doesn’t provide birth control as part of its insurance services? I can only conclude that the only “choice” that matters to her and her fellow students is their own.

But it gets better.

“One told us about how embarrassed and just powerless she felt when she was standing at the pharmacy counter and learned for the first time that contraception was not covered on her insurance and she had to turn and walk away because she couldn’t afford that prescription.”

This really doesn’t commend this lawyer to be to her future clients. She made a contract and had no idea what benefits it did and did not provide? While I might not mind having someone like that as opposing counsel, I’m afraid that she would diminish the reputation of my profession, and the profession doesn’t need help with this. I’d like to think that she was actually rightfully embarrassed because she never bothered to read the terms of the contract.

“Women like her have no choice but to go without contraception.”

Because she couldn’t come up with $9 a month. Again, if you are really that destitute, given the potential consequences of sex even with birth control, you really need to address some other issues in your life before you make sex a priority.

Now there is another element which the media and their loyal following of hand-wringers have overlooked. This woman is a law student at Georgetown. She is the 1% in training. And without any shred of shame, she appears before Congress and offers testimony that implies that the school’s First and Ninth Amendment rights are subject to her sense of entitlement to having it subsidize her sex life. Now if any of her champions have stopped to consider this, they give no indication of having done so.

Enter Rush Limbaugh, a public figure who wields enormous influence and enjoys the envy and jealousy that comes with it. He sizes up her testimony, and states the following:

What does it say about the college co-ed Sandra Fluke, 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. She wants to be paid to have sex. She’s having so much sex she can’t afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex.

Now while I wouldn’t have taken that approach, I can’t fault the analysis. And he correctly nails the aspect that everyone else so conveniently ignores:

Can you imagine if you’re her parents how proud of Sandra Fluke you would be? Your daughter goes up to a congressional hearing conducted by the Botox-filled Nancy Pelosi and testifies she’s having so much sex she can’t afford her own birth control pills and she agrees that Obama should provide them, or the Pope.

Exactly. No shame, and the sense of entitlement that ate Cleveland.

But it doesn’t matter. The Left ginned up its selective moral outrage machine, and the Shameless Ms. Fluke is feted as the darling of the cause celebre of the moment, as the media, which must act collectively to have the influence Limbaugh commands individually swung into action against the talk show host, first trumpeting the OUTRAGE!!! of the woman who would violate the rights of others for the sake of funding her sex life (probably for him seeing it for what it is, and having the temerity to do so), and then relaying the denouncements of politicians and a President who will apologize to a foreign country for the proper disposal of a holy book that their citizens desecrated, but think nothing of violating the conscience rights of countless Catholic organizations here which are supposed to enjoy the protections of the First and Ninth Amendments.

This moral indignation is selective, and unpersuausive. Perhaps if this same choir was singing at all, let alone singing as loudly when the world’s unfunniest comedian, Bill Maher, was calling Sarah Palin a “cunt“, and a “twat” maybe, just maybe I might not be so outraged at their OUTRAGE!!!11!!!. At least NOW had the forethought to give themselves some cover for future expressions of outrage by registering a less than enthusiastic protest, but by and large, the women of power in the House and Senate couldn’t have been bothered to condemn Maher’s attack on a fellow female politician, and the power brokers in the Democratic Party didn’t have much to say either. But then Mrs. Palin was married, and had actually given birth to children rather than preventing them or killing them in the womb, so I can see where her family, especially her husband and father needed to hear that, while Ms. Fluke’s family needed to be spared when she went to Washington to demand that the government force someone else to yield their rights to her desires, because that’s the only reason I can see for the disparate results of these two stories.

Read Full Post »