DNC’s abortion, contraception emphasis “sheer strangeness”
The sheer strangeness of all the talk about abortion, abortion, contraception, contraception. I am old enough to know a wedge issue when I see one, but I’ve never seen a great party build its entire public persona around one. Big speeches from the heads of Planned Parenthood and NARAL, HHS Secretary and abortion enthusiast Kathleen Sebelius and, of course, Sandra Fluke.
“Republicans shut me out of a hearing on contraception,” Ms. Fluke said. But why would anyone have included a Georgetown law student who never worked her way onto the national stage until she was plucked, by the left, as a personable victim?
What a fabulously confident and ingenuous-seeming political narcissist Ms. Fluke is. She really does think – and her party apparently thinks – that in a spending crisis with trillions in debt and many in need, in a nation in existential doubt as to its standing and purpose, in a time when parents struggle to buy the good sneakers for the kids so they’re not embarrassed at school… that in that nation the great issue of the day, and the appropriate focus of our concern, is making other people pay for her birth-control pills.
That’s not a stand, it’s a non sequitur. She is not, as Rush Limbaugh oafishly, bullyingly said, a slut. She is a ninny, a narcissist and a fool.
And she was one of the great faces of the party in Charlotte. That is extreme. Childish, too.
~ Peggy Noonan, The Wall Street Journal, September 7
[Photo via catholicmoxie.com]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
The link shows an invalid. Still, thanks for the heads up. I’ll see if I can find it at PJ Media, Human Events, or some other such.
There was a link to this article from Drudge, I believe.
My idea for why this is such an issue goes toward the radical. I believe that they are looking for population control, and that being a solution to future economic crises….food, jobs, resources, housing. Less people means less problems, in other words. Obbviously I think this is hideous, but I believe in my heart that that’s where this is headed.
…and in the strain of Margaret Sanger, less of they deem to be the infirm, unintelligent, immoral, and irresponsible…will lead to better society. I really think that is what they are thinking, honestly. I think they are racist and biased. I believe that Obama and his camp are thinking if we can just get all these poor, uneducated people on birth control, we will reduce their offspring. Crazy…but I think that’s where they are pushing this, look at Planned Parenthood’s involovement, in line w.its founder. I believe they are that radical and crazy, and disrespectful of life and diversity….despite the front they put up otherwise.
I agree Chattykimmy,
Their mantra is “Less of you, more for me.”
I recall watching Ms. Fluke on C-SPAN one Saturday afternoon when Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, a Catholic, paraded a bunch of Catholic university students before the media to tell how they were being “discriminated against” by their schools. I texted my pastor and told him how outrageous it was. He replied that there are evil forces at work in the world. How well he knew!
I encourage Sandra Fluke to contracept.
Courtnay,
I encourage her to keep her pants on till she evolves beyond the mentality of an unemancipated minor.
The employees and faculty of Georgetown (oh, not a Catholic college!!!) are provided with free birth control coverage. The students, who also pay for their health care insurance, don’t. How fair is that?
“I encourage her to keep her pants on till she evolves beyond the mentality of an unemancipated minor.’
Wow the old women should keep their pants on or put aspirin between their knees for birth control. The misogyny of the anti-choice movement rears its ugly head once again. You folks are funny. While you seem to be fine with insurers paying for Viagra, you do have a problem with insurers paying for birth control. It’s all about that evil sex. Right?
no, cc, it is YOU who are OK with viagra. Do you protest? Not a peep. You spend your time carping on pro-lifers instead. As long as babies die, you’re ok with whatever your cronies do.
CC, do you not see the difference between Viagra and the Pill?
BTW, I support men keeping their pants until they are married as well. In your world, is Tim Tebow a misogynist?
I really do not care what insurers choose to offer.
But I will defend their freedom to choose which treatments they will cover.
“Republicans shut me out of a hearing on contraception,” Ms. Fluke said. But why would anyone have included a Georgetown law student who never worked her way onto the national stage
This was the first thing I thought when she said that. Why on earth WOULDN’T they have “shut her out?” I didn’t get invited either. And if I showed up on Capitol Hill and said, “I really really want to be part of this, can I come in?” I think they’d say no. I may be wrong. Regardless, I would never really think of myself as having been “shut out.” I just WASN’T THERE. There’s a difference.
“And if I showed up on Capitol Hill and said, “I really really want to be part of this, can I come in?”
FYI – “Ranking committee member Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., wanted to invite third-year Georgetown Law Center student Sandra Fluke to testify, telling Issa it was important to have at least one woman at the witness table because the issue involved health repercussions for women. Read Fluke’s full testimony here. Issa’s staff sent a letter to the Democrats, saying, “As the hearing is not about reproductive rights but instead about the administration’s actions as they relate to freedom of religion and conscience, he believes that Ms. Fluke is not an appropriate witness.”
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/rep-darrell-issa-bars-minority-witness-a-woman-on-contraception-2/
“no, cc, it is YOU who are OK with viagra. Do you protest?”
I’m fine with coverage of Viagra which is for happy sex. But I’m not fine with non-coverage of birth control which is also related to sex that’s made happier because it eliminates the possibility (right, sometimes it fails) of pregnancy. It’s not fair that men get to have coverage for their sex whilst women don’t – especially women who take birth control pills for medical reasons totally unrelated to sex. Insurers are fine with the new policy as paying for birth control is far cheaper than paying for an unintended pregnancy. This policy was already law in 29 states. And did you know that California Catholic Charities lost its lawsuit against the mandatory coverage for birth control?
And as far as Tim Tebow, whatever gets him through the night is allright.
The number of pro-choicers on the podium and in the hall show that we’re not going away any time soon. We’re pro-choice and we vote!
CC, keep talking. Explain to me why people with the mentality of unemancipated minors should be having sex?
CC: “Insurers are fine with the new policy as paying for birth control is far cheaper than paying for an unintended pregnancy.”
Let it be known that progressives are in favor of demographic winter brought on by greedy capitalists cashing in on the infertility-industrial complex.
”Explain to me why people with the mentality of unemancipated minors should be having sex.”
Only in the strange fantasy land of the fetus fetishist is a Georgetown law student, who stands up for women’s rights, thought of as an unemancipated minor. Ewww, women standing up for equality of contraception access. Ewwww….And BTW, even minors have sex (I had way back in the early 60’s). But if you fetishists had your way, unemancipated minors would have no sex education other than abstinence. But they would have STD’s and babies, so it’s all good.
One more time “truthseeker.” Is it unfair that Georgetown doesn’t provide contraception, without co-payment, to students while providing it to their employees and faculty?
“Let it be known that progressives are in favor of demographic winter brought on by greedy capitalists cashing in on the infertility-industrial complex.”
But all is not lost. The “pro-life” quiver fill movement and Catholic Church will be encouraging their cult members to breed like rabbits. And those of us, who see our health premiums go up to accommodate this fecundity, will be so grateful.
Feeling entitled to others paying for your contraception is adolescent. Being 28 and in law school and expecting it is even more ridiculous. Should we also buy dinner and drinks for Sandra and her lover cause it helps them get into the mood?
“Feeling entitled to others paying for your contraception is adolescent. Being 28 and in law school and expecting it is even more ridiculous. Should we also buy dinner and drinks for Sandra and her lover cause it helps them get into the mood.”
Unless you pay for the coverage that Georgetown University provides to its employees, you don’t have a dog in this fight. One more time, Fluke was not talking about taxpayers supporting contraceptive coverage which they do for women on public assistance. Up until August of 2012, many women who paid for their own health coverage were responsible for the cop-payments. Now thanks to the new HHS policy, they will have the same advantage as Viagra takers.
But “Truthseeker” – please explain how “you” will be paying for the birth control coverage for those students who attend Georgetown. Cuz if that’s true, you’re already paying for the birth control of their employees and faculty?
BTW, if you bothered to read Fluke’s testimony, she talked about how the denial of birth control coverage impacted the health of a Georgetown student who – ready for it – is a lesbian. But you didn’t read her testimony so you don’t know and all you do know is right wing propaganda.
One more time – You are not paying for anybody’s birth control.
And “Truthseeker” are you a man or woman. And if you’re a woman, do you use birth control? And if so, will you, as a matter of conscience, be paying for it rather than allowing your health insurance to cover it. And if you’re a married man, does your wife have health insurance that NOW covers birth control. Oh, nooooooo…..
Show of hand for all the ladies out there. How many have health insurance through your employers? If you do, are you protesting about their covering birth control and urging them to file lawsuits?
“Should we also buy dinner and drinks for Sandra and her lover cause it helps them get into the mood.”
But if she has a baby, then you will be more than happy to foot the bill!!!!! Or will you!!!!!!!
CC, hormones can be prescribed for a number of reasons. If somebody is prescribed hormones to fix a ‘problem’ with their menstrual cycle (uncontrollable bleeding for instance) then that is not a prescription for contraceptives. I know you can grasp this if you try. Read this slowly “If somebody is prescribed the hormones in order to disrupt their fertility then that is a prescription for contraceptives.” They may need hormones. And they may tale hormones in the same dose that others are prescribed for contraception; but they don’t need nor do they get prescribed contraceptives. Only a liberal mind could bend far enough to insist that lesbians need contraceptives.
But “Truthseeker” – please explain how “you” will be paying for the birth control coverage for those students who attend Georgetown.
I can explain it with one word… “OBAMACARE”
Everybody will be paying for anybody’s birth control under Obamacare.
CC says: But all is not lost. The “pro-life” quiver full movement and the Catholic Church will be encouraging their cult members to breed like rabbits. And those of us, (sic) who see our health premiums go up to accommodate this fecundity, will be so grateful.
Well, CC, you better be grateful. Who do you think is going to be supporting you in your old age? Who is going to pay for your social security when you get old? That’s right, the Catholic’s kids and the dreaded children of that horrible quiver full movement. It certainly won’t be your children, because you probably aborted them all.
Don’t worry, Marmot. I’m sure CC’s picking out her ice flow to shove off on and is planning for the trip any year now.
What is wrong is the government mandating insurers cover birth control without co-pay, something not done for asthma medication or insulin.
It is just as wrong if the government mandated insurance companies to cover oil changes.
So then Georgetown University gets to choose whether or not to offer contraceptive coverage with co-pay, without co-pay, or no contraceptive coverage at all?
Sweet Marmot: I was a bit stunned when CC replied with snark that was utterly oblivious to the point you, then, needed to drive home. Weird that I ran out of gas, I thought I’d filled up . . .