I joined these students in speaking at a media event because I believe that stories of how real women are affected are the most powerful argument for access to affordable, quality reproductive health care services.
That is how she wants us to make public policy - she will tell her sad stories, some Georgetown representative can opine about the threat to his religious freedom and the risk to his immortal soul, and the public can decide who has told the better sob story. Babies being born to a mom that wasn't ready versus an eternity of hellfire - tricky. But who has ever seen a soul, or hellfire, and maybe God will relent if Obama forces the hand of the uncaring Jesuits.
Ms. Fluke, clearly of the Reality-TV generation, has proposed such an efficient mechanism, and with so much more human drama than a dusty reading of the Constitution or the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act. One wonders why Ms. Fluke bothered with law school rather than a school for the performing arts, but whatever.
Here is a bit of a headscratcher:
Attacking me and women who use contraception by calling us prostitutes and worse cannot silence us.
Hmm, Rush famously called her a slut and a prostitute. Is slut worse? I make these tough calls every day, but on this day I'm going to pass.
She closes with a plea for, well, I'm not sure what:
I am proud to stand with the millions of women and men who recognize that our government should legislate according to the reality of our lives -- not for ideology.
The reality of our lives? And religious freedom is what, just a random silly idea some dead white guys once took seriously?
Or, to pick another example, the reality of our lives is that people gain an immediate benefit from cheap energy. Science suggests that in the long run the environmental consequences may be problematic. However, it is really only an idea, i.e., an ideology, that we have an obligation to shoulder the prospective burdens of future generations yet unborn. It is an idea I would be happy to defend in certain contexts, as would, I presume, Ms. Fluke, but if she thinks that it is something other than an ideological position, well, its back to performing arts for her.
If I had to guess, her real view is that her preferences (and sad stories!) should take precedence over other people "ideas". Well, if she wants to argue that she truly doesn't have an idea in her head, I won't rebut her.
“But Sandra, couldn’t that same logic be applied to so many other things that health care doesn’t cover, such as gym memberships?” Cain countered. “Exercise is important to health but that’s not covered by health care insurance. Couldn’t that logic you’re using, saying access is denied because it’s not being offered to you for some reduced price, apply to so many things?”
“I think that that’s not a fair comparison!” Fluke exclaimed. “And most women would tell you that’s not a fair comparison!”
Ah hah! He can't really contribute to this debate, not being biologically equipped. Sexist much? If only she had read her own editorial she would have learned that fathers, brothers, husbands and boyfriends do have a stake in the contraception debate.
They are husbands, partners, boyfriends and male friends who know that without access to contraception, the women they care about can face unfair obstacles to participating in public life.
I infer that men are welcome to chime in in support of her view; otherwise, they should feel free to shut up since they can't understand.
As to the notion that our First Lady and her "Let's Move" anti-obesity campaign are misdirected and the real health crisis is a lack of access to contraception, my goodness.