Sandra Fluke: I will not be silenced

posted at 3:05 pm on March 13, 2012 by Tina Korbe

Sandra Fluke is clearly not concerned about the risk of overexposure — but she might not need to be. Liberal outlets continue to praise her as the mainstream voice that will end sexual shaming and usher in a new era of respect for the “reproductive rights” of women. For those of us who disagree with her, though, this debate is getting old primarily because it’s going nowhere.

Most recently, Fluke authored an op-ed for CNN to restate the case that she thinks has been so distorted by talkers and writers on the right. Here’s an excerpt:

These attempts to silence women and the men who support them have clearly failed. I know this because I have received so many messages of support from across the country — women and men speaking out because they agree that contraception needs to be treated as a basic health care service.

Who are these supporters?

They are women with polycystic ovarian syndrome, who need contraception to prevent cysts from growing on their ovaries, which if unaddressed can lead to infertility and deadly ovarian cancer. They are sexual assault victims, who need contraception to prevent unwanted pregnancy.

They are Catholic women, who see no conflict between their social justice -based faith and family planning. They are new moms, whose doctors fear that another pregnancy too soon could jeopardize the mother’s health and the potential child’s health too. They are mothers and grandmothers who remember all too well what it was like to be called names decades ago, when they were fighting for a job, for health care benefits, for equality.

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. And yes, they are young women of all income levels, races, classes and ethnicities who need access to contraception to control their reproduction, pursue their education and career goals and prevent unintended pregnancy. And they will not be silenced.

It’s a well-written op-ed, but, for those who saw her testimony or who have followed the subsequent controversy, it’s not worth reading in its entirety. Why? It says nothing new.

Fluke doesn’t seem to grasp that anyone could have heard her arguments and actually disagreed with them. Her premise is still that women have a right to insurance that covers contraception because they have a right to have sex without the fear of pregnancy.

Fluke shows very little respect for reality. The reality is that (a) the exercise of a right generally doesn’t cost somebody else something and, if it does, that might be a clue the so-called “right” is not actually a right and (b) the only completely foolproof way to prevent pregnancy is to abstain from sex. The possibility of pregnancy — even with contraception — is part of the reality of sex.

Fluke thinks objectors don’t understand that she’s not asking taxpayers to directly subsidize her birth control. She’s asking insurance companies to include contraception coverage in the plans they develop for clients (a.k.a. religious employers) that don’t want contraception coverage included in the plans. That shows little respect for the prerogative of the insurance company to include in its plans whatever it wants to assume risk for — and no more. It shows little respect for the prerogative of an employer to negotiate for a group rate for a plan that doesn’t violate his conscience. If Fluke and her Georgetown classmates want to purchase insurance that covers contraception, they are free to do so — such plans exist to meet the demand — but they are not then free to avail themselves of the group insurance rate negotiated for by an employer that opposes contraception for religious reasons. Simple enough.

Women who have sex when they’re not in a position to become pregnant are engaging in a risky behavior that triggers the need for contraception. Women like that on an insurance plan that does cover contraception are driving premiums up for everyone on that plan. As a woman who is not engaging in that risky behavior, I’d like to have the option to purchase an insurance plan that doesn’t cover contraception.

***

Like Fluke, I am not alone. Who are the people who share my opinion?

They are women with polycystic ovarian syndrome, who use one of the many other forms of medication available to treat their condition. They are sexual assault victims, who, in the midst of the horror and trauma they’ve experienced, find healing in the embrace of life and the love of a child.

They are Catholic women who affirm the Church’s teaching on contraception, recognizing that openness to life in all its fullness is the fundamental posture from which to engage reality. They are new moms who use natural methods or breast feeding to space the births of their children — and exult in how “in tune” with their bodies they become as a result. They are mothers and grandmothers who remember all too well what it was like to be denigrated by their fellow women for their decision to be at-home wives and the primary caretakers of their children.

They are husbands, partners, boyfriends and male friends who respect a woman’s fertility, who recognize that pregnancy is a possibility even with contraception and are ready and willing to embrace the responsibility of fatherhood and/or committed to forgoing sex if they’re not. And yes, they are young women of all income levels, races, classes and ethnicities who choose to wait to have sex until they are prepared for whatever the consequences of the decision to have sex might be. And we will not be silenced.

***

This is not a plea for Sandra Fluke to become like me. It is a plea for her and for others like her to recognize that (a) some men and women legitimately object to contraception on religious grounds and (b) to recognize that some women — even women who don’t object to contraception in general — legitimately do not think all insurance plans should be made by the federal government to cover contraception. It is a plea for her to respect that.

Before Rush Limbaugh called Sandra Fluke a “sl-t” and a “prostitute,” I watched the video of her testimony. Based on the evidence of that testimony, I didn’t think she was either of the words Rush Limbaugh used, but I thought she was unbelievably spoiled and disdainful of the opinions of others. Nothing that I have seen or read since then has changed my opinion of her. How I’d love for something to change it now!


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6

I am tired of the 1% ruling the 99%.
(In the case of Fluke deciding how I shall live my sexual life)
I’m tired of liberals demanding that one rule (theirs) suits all.
Does she have ovarian cancer? Does she have any medical need for contraception? Fluke is 30 yrs old. That means she was on birth-control for at least 12 yrs.

How dare she push on me, her morality (or lack thereof).
I am not an angel, but I am responsible for my own actions.
I will not walk in lock-step.
I will not be pushed into group-think.
I will not back-down.
Remember, birth-control’s main use is to prevent births.
They do not prevent STDs. Her main goal is to get exposure (and a good position on Os admin). She was hand-selected, she had an agenda to push her Lesbian/gay rights ‘wants & needs’.
She could care less about ‘the little people’.
Rush was right, she is a SLUT, for the Obama Administration.

askwhatif on March 14, 2012 at 11:33 AM

Always supposing you have had sex with anything other than your blow-up doll or a hooker.

str8tface on March 14, 2012 at 12:24 AM

These type of personal attacks are permitted now?

zoyclem on March 14, 2012 at 11:48 AM

Christian Women > Sandra Fluke

apocalypse on March 14, 2012 at 12:08 PM

Every examply you gave is directed at ONE SPECIFIC Woman. Not all women in General.

This is another tactic of the Left, to extrapolate the one into the many. To make the Speicific into the General.

Bolshevik!

Every quote from this thread is of people who are exhibiting a Hatred of Ms. Fluke’s ACTIONS and STATEMENTS.

And weather or not Poster’s have a Real, Abiding, and Genuine Hatred for Sandra Fluke has no corelation or bearing with weather or not the Poster’s have a Hatered for All, Many, or even any other women.

Nice try though.

jaydee_007 on March 14, 2012 at 11:33 AM

So, if what you say is right, the words Bill Maher infamously used to describe Sarah Palin are not misogynistic, because he was exhibiting a “Hatered” only for her alone and not “All, Many, or even any other women?”

Sorry, comrade. Your logic is as faulty as your spell-checking software. A misogynistic insult is a misogynistic insult by its very nature, regardless of the number of targets the insulter was aiming for. Rush, Maher and all those commenters I quoted are all “examplys” of that.

Drew Lowell on March 14, 2012 at 12:14 PM

It was not Congressional Hearing testimony it was a Press Conference called by nanny Nancy. Produced to look like a Congressional Hearing.

Please call it what it was, Political Theater, and treat it as such.

1791 on March 14, 2012 at 12:38 PM

Mandy Duke? Hasn’t she flushed through the drive-by media yet?

8thAirForce on March 14, 2012 at 12:51 PM

Sandra Fluke: I will not be silenced never actually work for a living….

Go America!!!

BigWyo on March 14, 2012 at 12:55 PM

Dear Drew,

If you are going to challange me, do so on something I’ve said.

Nowhere will you find me saying ANYTHING about Bill Mahr.

Your misdirection to conclude my logic is flawed is limp at best.

Oh; and my thumbs don’t have a spell checker attached. But go on, attack the vessel and ignore the ideas, that’s what liberals do best.

Squirrel!

jaydee_007 on March 14, 2012 at 3:01 PM

Fluke has now demanded that Georgetown provide her with satin sheets, scented candles, a Barry White CD, and a three-year supply of K-Y Jelly.

Fluke her.

Colony14 on March 14, 2012 at 4:27 PM

It was not Congressional Hearing testimony it was a Press Conference called by nanny Nancy. Produced to look like a Congressional Hearing.

Please call it what it was, Political Theater, and treat it as such.

1791 on March 14, 2012 at 12:38 PM
**********
wrong.

She was scheduled by Democraps to appear before a Congressional Committee headed by Darrell Issa, the republicans declined her as a witness. Several days later Pelosi had her speak before the Dem Conference.

Get your facts straight.

str8tface on March 14, 2012 at 11:27 PM

Sandra Fluke: I will not be silenced never actually work for a living….

Go America!!!

BigWyo on March 14, 2012

**********

Really? She is in her third year at Georgetown law School, which is extremely selective and competitive. When she graduates, I think she will be able to get a very high-paying job.

And you?

str8tface on March 14, 2012 at 11:31 PM

Tina makes all good points. But my question is: how in the world did Ms. Fluke come up with the figure of $3,000 for the cost of contraceptives for the three-year period of law school? That is a grossly exaggerated number for which Ms. Fluke can rightly be criticized.

Phil Byler on March 14, 2012 at 11:35 PM

**In either case, no one is paying for her sexual activities, whatever they may be.

str8tface on March 14, 2012 at 2:41 AM

Seriously dude? What kool aid flavor are you mainlining?

Fluke testified before a Democrat kangaroo court that she attends a $50,000 a year university AND she’s too cheap to buy her own $20 condoms.

She does not have to attend Georgetown, and she does not have to live beyond her means.

Roy Rogers on March 14, 2012 at 6:39 AM

***

First of all, I’m not a dude. Second, Fluke’s testimony was prepared to be delivered before a Congressional Committee headed by Darrell Issa (you do know that Reps control Congress, now, right, genius?).

Republicans declined to hear her as a witness. If you have evidence to the contrary, bring it up, won’t you? (Byron York has a good piece about this in the Washington Examiner. Read it and get back to me) Later Pelosi brought her before the Democrap Conference or Study Group or whatever.

Secondly, what is the fixation on condoms you gents have? You strike me as rather low-rent in your sexual partners. Fluke never mentioned condoms in her testimony or her op-ed. She is clearly talking about oral contraceptives, the pill. Try to keep up.

str8tface on March 14, 2012 at 11:52 PM

Fluke has now demanded that Georgetown provide her with satin sheets, scented candles, a Barry White CD, and a three-year supply of K-Y Jelly.

Fluke her.

Colony14 on March 14, 2012

************

Ha ha.
More likely Indigo Girls or Sarah MacLachlan. Also, what need for the KY jelly? Maybe for the dildo?

Blown away by the sexual sophistication here at the Hot Gas..

str8tface on March 14, 2012 at 11:59 PM

Str8tface,
You seem to be going out of your way to make the point that Ms Fluke was not talking about herself. While you may find this admirable, I have a problem with it. If I am to believe you, I would also have to believe that Fluke has had absolutely NO PERSONAL EXPERIENCE regarding what she is talking about. All secondhand stories. Heresay, in legal terms.
In short, she is telling OTHER people how she thinks they should live and be taken care of.
I am not wired that way and disagree with that thought process.

Jabberwock on March 14, 2012 at 6:46 AM

***

Thank you, Jabberwock. That is the point I am trying to make. She is not talking about herself. However, you are wrong if you think I find this admirable. I don’t. I find it true.

for the record, i oppose the government intrusion into religious doctrine vis a vis birth control. I oppose obama’s healthcare mandate. However, Fluke did not talk about herself or her own sex life or contraceptive use in any way. My point is that if we are going to oppose her we need to do it intelligently.

Again, thanks, for your response.

str8tface on March 15, 2012 at 12:12 AM

I’ll help you out. You need to place something Fluke said, or wrote, within quotation marks. If you can’t do that you’re shooting blanks. As I suspect you do in life. Always supposing you have had sex with anything other than your blow-up doll or a hooker.

str8tface on March 14, 2012 at 12:24 AM
Isn’t this a clear violation of the terms of the comments section?

“We will, however, usually do so if you post something that is, in our good-faith opinion, (a) off-topic; (b) libelous, defamatory, abusive, harassing, threatening, profane, pornographic, offensive, false, misleading, or which otherwise violates or encourages others to violate these terms of use…”

I’m all in favor a logical, well-presented argument without ad hominem attacks. As far as str8tface’s contention that he or she knows more about Tina’s sex life than Sandra’s based on their testimony, blogs, articles, etc., I’ll give him or her one point on that. However, how one can reach a conclusion that Tina is a slut is beyond me. While I agree that we know nothing of Sandra’s sex life, only that she believes in fake rights such as the right of the government to force religious institutions to violate tehir consciences. Tina also provided no evidence that she participates in actions that would lead someone to conclude that she is a slut, “someone who is considered to have loose sexual morals or who is sexually promiscuous.” To call her a slut based on the fact that she says she does not participate in recreational sex is a tremendously flawed argument.

****

Well done.
Someone who actually read my post and understands my point. I am a woman, incidentally, and a conservative.

In my comments re Tina (a lovely woman who I admire) and Sandra Fluke, I was, of course, doing what Limbaugh frequently claims to be doing, namely illustrating absurdity by being absurd. Of course Tina is not a slut. My point was, if talking about your sex life, use or not use of contraceptives, etc, makes you a slut (the accusation from Limbaugh and his bots) then how is it that Sandra Fluke (who has said nothing about her own contraceptive use, if any) is a slut?

That was my point.

And, when people respond to my request for quotes, etc, by calling me a tool, I get annoyed.

str8tface on March 15, 2012 at 12:46 AM

Thank you, Jabberwock. That is the point I am trying to make. She is not talking about herself. However, you are wrong if you think I find this admirable. I don’t. I find it true.

for the record, i oppose the government intrusion into religious doctrine vis a vis birth control. I oppose obama’s healthcare mandate. However, Fluke did not talk about herself or her own sex life or contraceptive use in any way. My point is that if we are going to oppose her we need to do it intelligently.Again, thanks, for your response.

str8tface on March 15, 2012 at 12:12 AM

I could go on for a while on this. But I’ll start with this :
1)Fluke is expressing her viewpoint on how others should be taken care of. She offers NO consideration for other points of view. She totally disregards the spiritual or ethical beliefs of others.
2)She lumps ALL women into the a catagory of needing free B/C. Such a govenmental mandate would wipe out ANY responsibility men have re : protected sex.
3)With all women with B/C, a significant justification for protected sex would vanish and the potential for STD would flurish.

I am pretty sure that 2&3 are counter to any programs presently being promoted by government or other social programs.

Jabberwock on March 15, 2012 at 7:16 AM

We may not know specifics about Sandra’s sex life, but we do know she can’t manage a budget – I wonder who is paying that big tuition??? – and her mentality is typical of what’s wrong with this country, the latter being the point to be emphasized, lovingly of course, on the campaign trail.
Her parents must be proud.

one free individual on March 15, 2012 at 12:15 PM

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6