Being 30 years old has not stopped Sandra Fluke from acting a lot like a spoiled little brat. You know, the child that doesn’t get her way so she throws a tantrum until she does get her way; the child who always points her finger to another person and lays blame on them for an accident she committed herself; the child who will lie and lie and lie until she gets her way. That’s Sandra Fluke!
Sandra Fluke enrolled into Georgetown University for one reason, by her own admission, solely to make her case as to why the religious university ought to provide contraception to its students, and why it ought to be provided for free. Sandra was smart enough (psychopaths generally have a high intelligence level) to know that Georgetown would rebuke, rebuff and flat-out deny her “request”.
Enter the contraception mandate and Obamacare. An opportunity came along for Sandra to put Georgetown’s thumbs to the screws, so to speak, by engrossing herself in a public forum to humiliate and embarrass the university in front of congress, in a way she believed would cause Georgetown to fold and buckle under an immense pressure from the students of Georgetown, from congress and from the American public. This flagrant display was intended to be her masterpiece. Why then, did it not go as planned?
What Sandra hadn’t counted on was the fact that conservatives in America are far more powerful, far more influential, far more organized than she ever gave us credit. She also did not factor in that a majority of Americans oppose Obamacare, which includes the contraception mandate and forcing religious institutions to provide services and procedures that go against their moral and religious convictions. (Psychopaths, while highly intelligent, are also exceedingly arrogant and full of themselves. Too conceited to pay attention to, or look beyond, their own ego.)
This miscalculation, which has been a major backlash against Sandra, against Obamacare, against liberalism, has caused Sandra to become even more outspoken, and deeply entrenched in her own lie – that she is merely fighting for contraception for students who need it for health and medical issues like “ovarian cysts, hormonal imbalances, endometriosis”, which she reiterated at an event at Georgetown University.
But we are not talking about contraception for “a lot of medical issues.” That has never been the debate, and that has never been what Sandra herself has been fighting to achieve for female students at Georgetown. Sandra has always been fighting for free contraception for use in promiscuous sex, which, sadly, many people engage in. And while conservatives are not about to enter into a debate as to whether consenting adults, or even teenagers, ought to be prohibited by law from engaging in promiscuous sex (it’s futile and we recognize American citizens have the right have sex with whom they choose), we, as conservatives, are very willing to make certain that those men and women who do engage in sex, for the sake of sex, do so on their own dime and accept the consequences of that decision.
Sandra Fluke, among other liberals, opposes that. She demands that, while consenting Americans of all ages have a fundamental right to have sex with whom they choose, they ought to have those choices subsidized by American taxpayers and institutions that provide healthcare and health related services, including religious institutions. As conservatives, we obviously strongly and absolutely disagree with that. In doing so, however, we are by no means attempting to say that women with health issues, clearly and specifically diagnosed by a professional and competent doctor, ought to unduly suffer because she cannot afford the cost of the medication she needs to help offset the pain and suffering.
But – is that really why these students/women are using contraception? To offset enduring and persistence pain and suffering? And, could there be some other medication they could take, other than contraception or birth control that helps alleviate and end the pain?
Here is the problem with that. Sandra specifically targeted Georgetown University. She enrolled in it, and paid the cost of tuition and all expenses included, which was over $40,000/year. Why did she have to enroll and spend that much money simply to shed light on a compelling issue that affects not only female students at Georgetown, but millions of American women? And – why Georgetown? In other words, if all Sandra was trying to do was find a solution to how women with otherwise less of an economical means could pay for contraception and birth control and have it provided for them for legitimate and specific health issues – why the elaborate scheme of enrolling in Georgetown? Why the long-about rouse of thinking she had to be a student of Georgetown in order to be heard?
Obviously Sandra had an ulterior motive. It had to be a religious college, for one; and it had to be a prestigious one so that when it caved under public pressure (per Sandra’s plan) the smaller, less prestigious, less noteworthy religious colleges would feel compelled to cave as well. And not only religious colleges, but all religious institutions that provide healthcare. Sandra delved into this complex strategy to discredit religion itself. What else makes sense? That part of her plan failed.
And what do psychopaths usually do when a part of their plan fails? They dig in deeper. Sandra is no exception. That is why she is back at Georgetown still insisting the college needs to provide contraception and birth control to students because:
Most students don’t realize that contraception coverage will not be on their insurance when they arrive at Georgetown. We’re used to having contraception readily available.”
This is an another incredible statement coming from Sandra. What she is saying is that “most students” are not researching Georgetown University as thoroughly as they ought to before they decide to send in an application for enrollment. Is that really true? Also puzzling, and damnably so, is the fact that if a student can afford the high cost of enrollment, why then could they not afford the small pittance of the price for birth control and contraception without having to beg for it to be subsidized by the university? And why, if Sandra is only urging for birth control and contraception for “medical issues” is she not insisting, publicly, that she would accept Georgetown University’s prohibition on these when used only for sex?
Sandra is demanding Georgetown provide birth control and contraception, free of charge to all students, regardless of why they actually want it. How does that make sense? And who picks up the cost if Georgetown is forced to acquiesce? Wouldn’t that have to be passed on to all Georgetown students in the form of higher tuition and other costs associated with being a student as Georgetown?
“Prevention of pregnancy is a public health need. When we’re talking about public policy, we need to look at reality, rather than [Church] ideology.”
In other words, Sandra is not really advocating for birth control and contraception for “medical issues” at all. That is a cover story for her real intentions. Sandra really is, and always has been, advocating for women to engage in promiscuous sex (all part of the women’s liberation movement and liberal feminism) and for “prevention of pregnancy” that often results in that sex, i.e. – abortion. And she is demanding the cost for the “prevention of pregnancy” be picked up by Georgetown, which she has known long before she actually enrolled, opposed such a policy. Sandra knew, long before she enrolled at Georgetown, that it is a religious college with a strong commitment to its religion. Sandra sought to break that strong bond. She is still trying.
Sandra has never once denounced the use of birth control and contraception for non “medical issues”. If she was challenged directly to take a position; if Sandra was challenged to assert whether or not she is merely in favor of Georgetown University having a better health plan and coverage for those students who actually and legitimately are suffering from real “medical issues” like “ovarian cysts, hormonal imbalances, endometriosis” – would Sandra be willing to concede Georgetown’s right in prohibiting birth control and contraception for all other “issues”, like promiscuous sex and to end an unwanted pregnancy? Knowing that, is where we can begin to unravel the mystery that is the psychopath, Sandra Fluke. But only if we press her to answer the right questions.
- Georgetown “Coed” and Reproductive Financing; Ron Paul’s Counterpoint (thepatriotperspective.wordpress.com)
- Georgetown Law Student Thinks Taxpayers and the University Should Foot the Bill For Her $3000 Contraception (sfcmac.wordpress.com)
- President Obama and Sandra Fluke – Are Contraceptive Yahoo’s! (catholicglasses.com)
- Sandra Fluke Does Not Speak for Me (thecollegeconservative.com)
- Contraceptive Misdirection (vernacularofthelayman.wordpress.com)
- Women Do Use Birth Control And Contraception To Be Irresponsible Also (neosecularist.com)
- Sandra Fluke’s Irrational Demand (markamerica.com)
- Promiscuity Tour: Georgetown Invites Far Left Activist Sandra Fluke to Speak About Horrors of $9 Birth Control With Undergrads (theconservativetreehouse.com)
- Vetting Sandra Fluke Not a Fluke. (longversion.wordpress.com)