Sandra Fluke Compares BC Coverage To Leukemia Meds

(crossposted at Acts of the Apostasy)

The pertinent portion:

“If you take a step back and think about that, you work at a restaurant or you work at a store, and your boss is able to deny you leukemia coverage or contraception coverage or blood transfusions or any number of medical concerns that someone might have a religious objection to … So the folks who are still objecting [to the mandate] have some very extreme ideas about religious freedom and employee health care in this country.”

(transcript courtesy of NRO)

Religious objections to paying for people’s leukemia treatments? Since when? Didn’t Ms. Fleukemia’s 15 minutes expire hours – or perhaps months – ago?

Apparently not.

38 Responses to Sandra Fluke Compares BC Coverage To Leukemia Meds

  • That whore Sandra Fluke knows no bounds of lunacy. Yes, I say whore, for any woman who demands her sex drugs to be paid for so that she can wallow in filth like a mindless baboon is no different than any common whore.

  • People like Fluke are a problem for humorists like you Larry. How do you possibly parody Fluke, parody incarnate?

  • Don, it ain’t easy. I tried with Fleukemia. It sorta rolls off the tongue. Flew-key-me-aaaahh.

  • For Flukes Sake; “Better to keep your mouth shut than open it and remove all doubt.”
    Yes an imbecile at best. Whore is sugar coating it.

  • The luekemia comparison makes sense (in their way of twisted thinking) when you consider how these people treat pregnancy as a disease.

  • “Your boss is able to deny you, because your boss might have a religious objection.” Since your boss is paying for it. Yes. Most cases like Fluke mentions were family matters and beliefs like blood transfusions were the Jehovah’s. If Obamacare renders complete and total care for every citizen, it still cannot be allowed, because the money is not Obama’s. The money belongs to the taxpayers, and the taxpayers were not informed, nor did the taxpayers consent to this HHS Mandate. Fluke’s campaign to normalize an abnormal government intrusion into the conscience of its citizens, and Obamcare’s violation of the legislative and the judicial branches of government will remain long after Obamacare is settled as a way of life, if that ever happens.

  • Suppose you were a liberal. And, suppose you were an idiot. But, I repeat myself.

    Obamacare is great!

    It means you can have health insurance when you don’t have a job.

    Which is great! Because you won’t have a job because of ruinous Obamacare costs.

  • I assume she’s making reference to the prohibition of blood products by Jehovah’s Witnesses. She doesn’t realize it’s a different sort of issue. JW’s don’t receive blood transfusions for purely religious reasons. Contraception isn’t a religious issue, but a moral issue which our religion speaks to.

    At any rate, JW’s shouldn’t be forced to pay for anyone’s blood transfusions either. Perhaps we should ask for Sandra Fluke to pay for insurance that covers ritual female genital mutilation in the hospital, which would be far safer than using rusty razor blades in the home. I’m sure she’d be very happy to fund this advancement in women’s health that would benefit women in some ethnic groups.

  • So, the meds are equally needed for two deadly illnesses, leukemia and sexual activities; except one may save lives and the other prevent them plus enable countless sexually transmitted diseases or mental illness to worry about later.
    Does she have a leukemia patient nodding along?

  • I wish she would just go away – this useful idiot has done enough harm. It’s catholics like her that are destroying the church from within. How much longer Lord, how much?

  • Those who stoop to calling her a whore are pathetic. I wonder how many of your relatives and friends, by the criteria you establish, are also whores.

  • “We can’t afford to buy rubbers so JL’s family can, and while their at it they can deposit some funds in P. P. just so my slutty friends in Georgetown can kill the mistake growing in her belly.”

    Whore is to kind a word JL.

  • Seems slandering as hysterical, homicidal hordes 4,000,000 NRA members and 50,000,000 law-abiding gun owners is perspicacious, public policy, while calling a whore a “whore” is “pathetic.”

    “I see.” said the blind man as he picked up his tools and walked away.

  • “Those who stoop to calling her a whore are pathetic.”

    A whore only disgraces herself by her actions. Fluke is a nasty totalitarian who wishes to coerce people who view contraception to be immoral to have to pay for it. That is precisely why she chose to go to Georgetown law school, a purportedly Catholic university. I could care less about Fluke’s sexual habits. It is her desire to use the State as a scourge against those who have the temerity to disagree with her that makes her a perfect symbol of the Age of Obama.

  • The woman is a case study in the ineffectuality of contemporary elite education as well as making a string of the most wretched occupational choices you can betwixt and between the ages of 18 and 32. First she elects an expensive private university, then she squanders her time (and family money and credit) studying not merely arts and sciences but a worthless ‘discipline’ like ‘women’s studies’. Then she spends a half-dozen years as a functionary of a series of advocacy groups. After that she enrolls at a law school – also an expensive elite school – with the auxilliary purpose of harassing its administration for no defensible purpose. She graduates just in time to face a massive glut in the market for attorneys. So here she is at age 32 with no trade, no husband, no children, a manifest capacity for making witless remarks, and a bad haircut to boot.

  • Those who stoop to calling her a whore are pathetic. I wonder how many of your relatives and friends, by the criteria you establish, are also whores.

    She said there were women in her circle of acquaintances were spending several thousand dollars a year on Trojans. Suggests an awful lot flowing through their sluice-boxes (as well as some fairly accommodating johns). Is it pathetic to point out she hangs with whores?

  • “I see.” said the blind man as he picked up his tools and walked away”.
    You know T Shaw I was thinking of course that I heard that old saying this way:
    “I see.” said the blind man as he picked up his hammer and saw.”

    but I finally got how apropos your version is, considering that men may take their “tools” and walk away from responsibility, and how many women are willing to play that game, asking him not to leave: ” please I’ll take care of it, then will you love me and maybe even promote me in the workplace”

    also the JW issue is different because no one is considering requiring people to use birth control. JWs don’t want to be required to take or use medicine on their children. Even though they are upside down of each other, the two issues do share questions of the locus of authority: government or person?

  • I stand – er, sit – corrected. “A whore only disgraces herself by her actions. Fluke is a nasty totalitarian who wishes to coerce people who view contraception to be immoral to have to pay for it.”

    No worse title can be ascribed to Sandra Fluke than liberal, progressive Democrat.

  • JL, I can’t help but wonder if the reticence to apply descriptive titles to certain behaviors ends up being interpreted as an acceptance of such behavior. It used to be that people would care about their reputations, and so would avoid immoral behavior. Now that we have avoided labeling immoral behavior as such, no one’s reputation must suffer if they are immoral. Without that barrier to immorality, it becomes that much easier to engage in. I remember when divorce was shocking. Now, not so much. I remember when shacking up was extreme behavior. Now, it’s practically expected. Little by little, we’ve come to accept immorality, until the curve once again shifts and the condemnation of something as immoral meets with greater opprobrium than the immorality itself.

    Which is worse, whorish behavior, or the statement that the behavior is whorish? According to you, point out whorish behavior is unacceptable. If we can’t point out to our children an example of unacceptable behavior using strong words, what are we communicating to our children.

    I’ll say it loudly. The woman is a whore, in the sense of a loose woman rather than a prostitute, and she will continue to be until she stops fornicating and repents. And then she will no longer be a whore. Just as a person is a thief when they steal, and a liar when they spread untruths. Do we try to abolish the terms liar and thief? Of course not because they are descriptors of immoral behavior. To abolish the word “whore” on the other hand is to try to say that it’s just a mean thing to say, and unjustified. This of course, implies that fornication is acceptable. But it’s not, and so the term is both accurate and acceptable.

  • @T Shaw

    ” Seems slandering as hysterical, homicidal hordes 4,000,000 NRA members and 50,000,000 law-abiding gun owners is perspicacious, public policy, while calling a whore a “whore” is “pathetic.” ”

    I’m confused as to the relevance of this response to me. Did I ever condemn gun-owners, a group in which I am firmly entrenched? No. So then it would seem you are suggesting that because others have hysterically attacked gun ownership, you are justified in stooping to such a pathetic low as petty name-calling. Bravo.

  • Siobhan – according to her Wikipedia page, Sandra is a Protestant. Which, you know, makes perfect sense.

  • @Art Deco.

    “She said there were women in her circle of acquaintances were spending several thousand dollars a year on Trojans. Suggests an awful lot flowing through their sluice-boxes (as well as some fairly accommodating johns). Is it pathetic to point out she hangs with whores?”

    Referring to a female’s reproductive organ as a “sluice-box” is disgusting, demeaning, and, again, pathetic.

  • @Alphatron

    “Little by little, we’ve come to accept immorality, until the curve once again shifts and the condemnation of something as immoral meets with greater opprobrium than the immorality itself.”

    You falsely equivocate condemning calling someone a whore with condemning immorality. The Pope is certainly capable of articulately and comprehensively condemning sexual immorality without stooping to calling those who engage in such practices as “whores.” His seems like an example to follow.

    “Which is worse, whorish behavior, or the statement that the behavior is whorish?”

    Which is worse? How is that relevant at all? What is your (and others who’ve similarly commented on this issue) obsession with essentially saying “Well they did THAT bad things so that justifies me doing THIS bad thing”? How petulant.

    “According to you, point out whorish behavior is unacceptable. If we can’t point out to our children an example of unacceptable behavior using strong words, what are we communicating to our children.”

    No, I have a problem with using such pejorative language. And if your ability to communicate the realities of sexual immorality is dependent on the usage of the word “whore,” I’d suggest you need some remedial parenting skills.

    “I’ll say it loudly. The woman is a whore, in the sense of a loose woman rather than a prostitute, and she will continue to be until she stops fornicating and repents. And then she will no longer be a whore.”

    You are such a braver, wiser man than the Pope is.

    “Just as a person is a thief when they steal, and a liar when they spread untruths. Do we try to abolish the terms liar and thief? Of course not because they are descriptors of immoral behavior. To abolish the word “whore” on the other hand is to try to say that it’s just a mean thing to say, and unjustified. This of course, implies that fornication is acceptable. But it’s not, and so the term is both accurate and acceptable.”

    Well, then why stop at “whore.” What about c-m-dumpster? Or just good old-fashioned c-nt? Maybe sl-t bag?

    Whore is bad because it’s a demeaning and pejorative term. The ability of a word to describe someone is not necessarily justification for its use.

  • JL, I will readily admit that the word is in poor taste in most social situations. As a parent, I have yet to use it. But it does have its use, and I will reserve the right to use that word if appropriate.

    Yes, it is pejorative, but so what? The words “traitor”, “liar”, and “idiot” are also pejorative. That in and of itself is not a reason to use those words. In some circumstances we really ought to disparage someone for their behavior and the failure to do so emboldens them. In fact, you have disparaged me, mildly, in your response. You suggest I need remedial parenting skills and mockingly indicate I’m wiser than the Pope. You do these things with a purpose in mind. You wish to shame me, mildly and with an admittedly good but misguided purpose, into changing my behavior. When you do this, you use the same means that someone uses when they use the word “whore”, namely you are providing social opprobrium for certain behaviors with an eye towards changing that behavior.

    This is not the same as calling someone degrading names, which you have described. The degrading names you mentioned are meant to degrade someone and establish some form of social dominance over them. Not so with “whore”. This is why you will see the word “whore” used in the Bible, but not the degrading names you mentioned. While it can be used that way, that would be akin to using the word “liar” in a way to disparage someone, which might be done falsely or hypocritically.

    At any rate, if you want others not to use social disparagement as a means of discouraging immoral behavior, consistency would suggest that you also do not use social disparagement. And you have done so, but again mildly and with a good intent.

  • How old is she and she is still a Georgetown law student?

    Far too many Americans are educated far beyond the point of stupidity.

  • Referring to a female’s reproductive organ as a “sluice-box” is disgusting, demeaning, and, again, pathetic.

    To the world’s poseurs, it is.

  • When a female like Sandra Fluke behaves like a mindless baboon rutting in heat, and uses her reproductive organ as a sluice box for mere carnal pleasure, and then expects you and me to pick up the tab and pay for her contraceptives and abortions, then she deserves to be called exactly what she is: liberal, progressive, Democrat. Again, no worse description can be used, for no form of human life can possibly be lower.

    Now if she repents, then that’s a different matter. But it ain’t a’gonna happen.

  • “JW’s don’t receive blood transfusions for purely religious reasons. Contraception isn’t a religious issue, but a moral issue which our religion speaks to.”

    I thought that for Jehovah’s Witnesses, blood transfusion IS a moral issue because it violates the Old Testament prohibition against consuming blood (as they interpret it). They do believe it’s wrong for everyone, it’s just that no other major religion (that I can think of) agrees with them. And if that is their belief, then yes, I would say a JW employer should not have to pay for blood transfusions — but they should make that clear in advance to anyone contemplating working for them.

    Personally, I think a better analogy to contraception would be amphetamine-based diet pills. Should those have to be provided free of charge to any obese person who wants them, despite all their potential dangers and side effects, when adhering to proper diet and exercise is a perfectly viable alternative? (I say this as someone who is struggling with chronic weight problems and the sin of gluttony herself.)

    The main difference between leukeimia treatment and contraception is that leukiemia is not a problem one can prevent or avoid by exercising self-discipline; unwanted pregnancy is, except for the (relatively) rare cases of pregnancy caused by rape.

  • “The ability of a word to describe someone is not necessarily justification for its use.”

    Also the context in which it is used. St. Paul wasn’t a wimp and he didn’t hesitate to call a spade a spade, but he also admonished Christians: “No foul language should come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for needed edification, that it may impart grace to those who hear.” Pointing out where Sandra Fluke is wrong may be edifying to people who wouldn’t otherwise understand what the problem is, but I’m not so sure that applying graphic sexual epithets to her “imparts grace” or edifies anyone. My personal opinion: save those words for the secular political blogs.

  • Pointing out where Sandra Fluke is wrong may be edifying to people who wouldn’t otherwise understand what the problem is, but I’m not so sure that applying graphic sexual epithets to her “imparts grace” or edifies anyone.

    The terms in question were ‘prostitute’ (Limbaugh) and ‘sluice-box’ (your’s truly). Both are about as bland as you can get describing an ugly reality. Applying contrived and prettifying languages is not edifying.

  • The lying liberals (I repeat myself again) own the press and therein deploy superior euphemisms, e.g., paying an MD to disembowel and dismember your unborn baby in your womb is a “choice.”

    Because only an evil extremist would oppose choice.

  • “Applying contrived and prettfying languages is not edifying”

    Well, then, I suppose telling one’s wife “Yes, that dress makes you look like a sow wallowing in Pepto-Bismol” is more edifying than saying “Actually, honey, I would suggest a different style and color….”

  • “St. Paul wasn’t a wimp and he didn’t hesitate to call a spade a spade, but he also admonished Christians: “No foul language should come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for needed edification, that it may impart grace to those who hear.”

    Point taken Elaine.

  • “St. Paul wasn’t a wimp and he didn’t hesitate to call a spade a spade, but he also admonished Christians: ‘No foul language should come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for needed edification, that it may impart grace to those who hear.'”

    St. Paul told the circumcisers at the Church in Galatia that they should cut it all off. We know what he was referring to.

    St. Paul gives a list of people in 1st Corinthians 6:9-10 who are not making it into heaven. For one group he uses the word malakos and for the other arsenokoites. Malakos, translated as effeminate, means literally receiver of penetration and goes into the modern Greek pejorative malaka which means anal orifice (the reader can guess the English pejorative). Arsenokoites, translated as sodomite, means literally penetrator and the reader can figure out the modern pejorative equivalent.

    St. John the Baptist called the Pharisees a brood of vipers.

    There are many, many more examples.

    The fact of the matter is that Sandra Fluke uses her genitals as a sluice box, and publicizes it with braggadocio. She is a promiscuous sexual pervert who expects the government and the Church to pay for her sex drugs. Just as St. Paul handed over to Satan for the destruction of his flesh that man at the Church in Corinth who was sleeping with his father’s wife, so also does the Church need to order Georgetown University, an ostensibly Catholic Institution, to kick Sandra Fluke out onto the pavement hard, handing her over to Satan for the destruction of her flesh for the same reason that St. Paul recommended 2000 years ago: conversion and repentance.

    I say again: no dirty, more filth title can be given her than liberal, progressive Democrat. Disgusting, filthy, dirty, putrid, rotten snakes, the lot of them.

  • Well, then, I suppose telling one’s wife “Yes, that dress makes you look like a sow wallowing in Pepto-Bismol” is more edifying than saying “Actually, honey, I would suggest a different style and color….”

    1. I’ve never seen a sow wallowing in Pepto-Bismol.

    2. Sandra Fluke is not my wife.

  • Donald McClarey: “A whore only disgraces herself by her actions. Fluke is a nasty totalitarian who wishes to coerce people who view contraception to be immoral to have to pay for it. That is precisely why she chose to go to Georgetown law school, a purportedly Catholic university. I could care less about Fluke’s sexual habits. It is her desire to use the State as a scourge against those who have the temerity to disagree with her that makes her a perfect symbol of the Age of Obama.”
    Perfectly said: “the Age of Obama.”

  • The only truly rational reason to surrender one’s virginity is another virgin. Another virgin, newly begotten, sovereign person, morally and legally innocent, the standard of Justice and the compelling interest of the state, and the glory of God and man, who by his/her very existence at the hands of the God of Existence praises and acknowledges his/her Creator. There are, of course a multitude of circumstances that emanate from the gift of human sexuality, and all of them good, but the procreation of another virgin in sovereign personhood, made in the image and likeness of God, is the quintessence of joy.
    Behaving like an animal in heat, in dominance, in homosexual practice is spiritual suicide and very depressing. And the heart and mind asks: “For what?” Go watch another vampire movie, or better yet, go catch up with the zombies.
    In reality, only the devil is completely and forever soulless, without a soul. The personification of evil preying on virtue is more cunning than any human being. Only Saint Michael, the Archangel can take the devil out.
    Anybody who chooses to ignore God, cannot ignore the evil one, because the devil already has that person’s immortal soul in his claws.
    Virginity is the only virtue that throws the devil back into hell and seals the brimstone hole from rim to rim. Brimstone, by the way, is molten sulfur, which burns into the flesh, and never ceases, unless the molten sulfur strikes virginity. All men were created in virginity. Let us return to our original innocence and retake our virginity and leave the devil to his molten sulfur.

  • Paul W. Primavera: “No worse title can be ascribed to Sandra Fluke than liberal, progressive Democrat.”
    Paul: People believe that Democrats are “good”, that liberals are “good”, that progressives are “good”.
    Donald McClarey’s term: “nasty totalitarian” “using the State as a scourge against those who have the temerity to disagree with her that makes her a perfect symbol of the Age of Obama.” depicts the situation Sandra Fluke is imposing on people who need to believe that the liberal Democrats are for the poor people.

Follow TAC by Clicking on the Buttons Below
Bookmark and Share
Subscribe by eMail

Enter your email:

Recent Comments
Archives
Our Visitors. . .
Our Subscribers. . .