Liberal Forum

Now, here's what a REAL Georgetown lawyers says about Sandra Fluke. Limbaugh and Our Phony Contraception Debate A student demands that a Catholic school give up its religion to pay for her birth-control pills.. By CATHY CLEAVER RUSE Last week Sandra Fluke, a student at Georgetown University Law Center, went to Congress looking for a handout. She wants free birth-control pills, and she wants the federal government to make her Catholic school give them to her. I'm a graduate of Georgetown Law and former chief counsel of the House Subcommittee on the Constitution. Based on her testimony, I wonder how much Ms. Fluke really knows about the university or the Constitution. As a law student 20 years ago, I wasn't confronted by crucifixes in the classroom or, in truth, by any religious imagery anywhere. In that respect the law school has a different "feel" than the university. The law school chapel was an unadorned, multipurpose room in the basement used for Mass when it wasn't used for Gilbert and Sullivan Society rehearsals and club meetings. Among the clubs while I was there, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance was particularly vigorous. I was not Catholic when I attended Georgetown Law, but I certainly knew the university was. So did Ms. Fluke. She told the Washington Post that she chose Georgetown knowing specifically that the school did not cover drugs that run contrary to Catholic teaching in its student health plans. During her law school years she was a president of "Students for Reproductive Justice" and made it her mission to get the school to give up one of the last remnants of its Catholicism. Ms. Fluke is not the "everywoman" portrayed in the media. Georgetown Law School has flung wide its doors to the secular world. It will tolerate and accommodate all manner of clubs and activities that run contrary to fundamental Catholic beliefs. But it is not inclined to pay for or provide them. And it has the right to do so—to say "this far and no further." When congressional committee counsels plan hearings, they look for two kinds of witnesses: "experts" and "victims." The experts are typically lawyers or law professors who can explain the constitutional authority for the new law and its legal impact, and the victims illustrate why the law is needed. At the hearing of the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee chaired by Nancy Pelosi, Sandra Fluke testified as a victim. Having to buy your own contraception is a burden, she said. She testified that all around her at Georgetown she could see the faces of students who were suffering because of Georgetown's refusal to abandon its Catholic principles. Exactly what does the face of a law student who must buy her own birth-control pills look like? Did I see them all around me and just not know it? Do male law students who must buy their own condoms have the same look? Perhaps Ms. Fluke should have brought photos to Congress to illustrate her point. In her testimony, Ms. Fluke claimed that, "Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school." That's $1,000 per year. But an employee at a Target pharmacy near the university told the Weekly Standard last week that one month's worth of generic oral contraceptives is $9 per month. "That's the price without insurance," the employee said. (It's also $9 per month at Wal-Mart.) What about Rush Limbaugh? I won't defend his use of epithets (for which he's apologized), but I understand his larger point. At issue isn't inhalers for asthmatics or insulin for diabetics. Contraception isn't like other kinds of "health care." Yes, birth-control pills can be prescribed to address medical problems, though that's relatively rare and the Catholic Church has no quarrel with their use in this circumstance. And the university's insurance covers prescriptions in these cases. Still, Ms. Fluke is not mollified. Why? Because at the end of the day this is not about coverage of a medical condition. Ms. Fluke's crusade for reproductive justice is simply a demand that a Catholic institution pay for drugs that make it possible for her to have sex without getting pregnant. It's nothing grander or nobler than that. Georgetown's refusal to do so does not mean she has to have less sex, only that she has to take financial responsibility for it herself. Should Ms. Fluke give up a cup or two of coffee at Starbucks each month to pay for her birth control, or should Georgetown give up its religion? Even a first-year law student should know where the Constitution comes down on that.Ms. Ruse, senior fellow for legal studies at the Family Research Council, received her J.D. from Georgetown Law in 1989. http://online.wsj.co...l?mod=djemTMB_tSandra Fluke isn't a private citizen. She made herself a lightning rod and now doesn't like the fact that there's a storm outside. Tough ****!!How's it going today, MistyHeffer? LOL

I don't know why you guys don't get it. I'm just not that into you.Still not getting it are you boys?The two of you always seem to show up here together.I have no desire to be tag teamed by a couple of right wing flying monkeys.Maybe Burnt Toast is following you Puss.

Still not getting it are you boys?The two of you always seem to show up here together.I have no desire to be tag teamed by a couple of right wing flying monkeys.Still not getting it, are you. Everyone on the board can see that you're unable to defend your moonbat opinions and endless lies.Could a sane, honest person hold the following opinion?Freedom of religion.Another founding principle that Clem doesn't believe in.

Still not getting it, are you. Everyone on the board can see that you're unable to defend your moonbat opinions and endless lies.Could a sane, honest person hold the following opinion?Of course! However, a sane, honest person would have trouble understanding why you think you do support freedom of religion.

Still not getting it, are you. Everyone on the board can see that you're unable to defend your moonbat opinions and endless lies.Actually what they're seeing is that you've gone completely 'round the bend with your insane obsession with Bill Clinton.Could a sane, honest person hold the following opinion?Freedom of religion.Another founding principle that Clem doesn't believe in.Why did you cut out the first sentence?People are free to worship wherever they choose in America.Freedom of religion.Another founding principle that Clem doesn't believe in.First of all, that is sarcasm, and second of all I said that because you went on for months and months about where Obama went to church, so what other conclusion could I draw other than that you don't believe that people in this country have the freedom to attend which ever church they choose, not just the ones that you like?

Have You No Shame, Rush?By MAUREEN DOWD Published: March 3, 2012 AS a woman who has been viciously slashed by Rush Limbaugh, I can tell you, its no fun. At first you think, if he objects to the substance of what youre saying, why cant he just object to the substance of what youre saying? Why go after you in the most personal and humiliating way? Then, once you accept the fact that he has become the puppet master of the Republican Party by stirring bloodlust (earning enough to bribe Elton John to play at his fourth wedding), you still cringe at the thought that your mom might hear the ugly things he said. Now hes brutalizing a poised, wholesome-looking 30-year-old Georgetown law student as a slut, a prostitute and round-heeled simply for testifying to lawmakers about wanting the school to amend its health insurance to cover contraception. Sandra Fluke goes before a Congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex, what does that make her? Limbaugh coarsely ranted. It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. Shes having so much sex she cant afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex. What does that make us? Were the pimps. The johns. Isnt this the last guy who should be pointing fingers and accusing others of taking pills for recreational purposes? He said insuring contraception would represent another welfare entitlement, which is wrong tax dollars would not provide the benefit, employers and insurance companies would. And women would not be getting paid just to have sex. Theyd be getting insurance coverage toward the roughly $1,000 annual expense of trying to avoid unwanted pregnancies and abortions, and to control other health conditions. This is something men and conservatives should want too, and not just because those outcomes actually do cost taxpayers money. Limbaugh leeringly suggested that were taxpayers to be stuck with the bill, Fluke and other Feminazis should give them something back: spam words. We want you to post the videos online so we can all watch, he said. Fluke was lobbying Georgetown University to change its policy for three years before she became a cause clbre outcast when the Republican congressman Darrell Issa barred her from an all-male panel on contraception. But her conflict with her Jesuit school did not stop its president, John DeGioia, from eloquently defending his student (who ended up testifying for Nancy Pelosis all-Democratic panel). She provided a model of civil discourse, he said in a letter to the school. This expression of conscience was in the tradition of the deepest values we share as a people. One need not agree with her substantive position to support her right to respectful free expression. He branded the reaction of Limbaugh and some other commentators as misogynistic, vitriolic and a misrepresentation of the position of our student. Given this seasons lava spill of hate, it was fitting that DeGioia evoked St. Augustine: Let us, on both sides, lay aside all arrogance. Let us not, on either side, claim that we have already discovered the truth. Its hard to believe that not that long ago, Bob Dole, the former G.O.P. leader and presidential nominee, was a spokesman for Viagra. (Mother Jones pointed out that Rush, a Viagra fan, might be confusing the little blue pill and birth control, since when and how much sex you have is unrelated to the amount of birth control you need.) Rush and Newt Gingrich can play the studs, marrying again and again until they find the perfect adoring young wife. But women pressing for health care rights are denigrated as sluts. On Thursday, the Senate narrowly voted down a puritanical Republican attempt to let employers and insurance companies deny coverage for contraceptives on any religious or moral grounds they could dream up. Only a last-minute media glare caused Virginias Republican governor, Bob McDonnell, and its Republican-led Legislature to modify a shockingly punitive law aiming to shame and in many cases penetrate women seeking abortions. The version that passed on Thursday is still harsh enough to damage McDonnells vice presidential prospects. By Friday, President Obama, who had started out fumbling the contraception issue, and the Democrats were taking gleeful advantage, raising $1.6 million to combat the G.O.P.s war on women. Mitt Romney reacted to Limbaugh for days with craven silence before finally allowing on a rope line on Friday night that its not the language I would have used. Is there a right way to call a woman a slut? Rick Santorum, whose views on women are medieval, said an entertainer can be absurd. Speaker John Boehner offered a tepid comment through a spokesman that Limbaughs words were inappropriate. President Obama called Fluke and bucked her up, probably hoping to get Limbaugh to double down. El Rushbo, as he calls himself, obliged. Did you ever think of backing off the amount of sex youre having? he demanded of Fluke on Fridays broadcast as some advertisers were fleeing: Sleep Train Mattress Centers, Quicken Loans, Select Comfort and AutoZone. The law student got the call from the president as she was about to go on Andrea Mitchells show on MSNBC. She darted into an empty office to talk to Obama and closed the door; soon Chris Matthews was wondering who was inside and sending a staffer to check it out. The president just wanted to make sure I was O.K., she said. And I am O.K. Im pretty level-headed. The childless radio yakker wondered snidely how Flukes parents, who live in rural Pennsylvania, would feel about her crusade. Fluke, a Methodist Democrat, said she was particularly touched that the president told her, speaking as the father of two daughters, that her parents should be proud. My parents and I dont always agree politically, she said, but about the issue of insuring contraception, we see eye to eye.

Still not getting it, are you. Everyone on the board can see that you're unable to defend your moonbat opinions and endless lies.Actually what they're seeing is that you've gone completely 'round the bend with your insane obsession with Bill Clinton.Bulls***. Anyone who isn't concerned that a president committed many felonies and impeachable acts in office is a complete fool or a dishonest partisan hack.You're not a complete fool.Could a sane, honest person hold the following opinion?Why did you cut out the first sentence?Because it has nothing to do with the lie you told about me.First of all, that is sarcasmOh my, another fig leaf to hide behind. Bulls***, as usual.If the worst you did was engage in sarcasm once in a while, I'd concede that, but piled on top of your blatant lies, not a chance.and second of all I said that because you went on for months and months about where Obama went to church, so what other conclusion could I draw other than that you don't believe that people in this country have the freedom to attend which ever church they choose, not just the ones that you like?Which is more bulls***. He has the right to attend any wackjob left church he wants, even one run by a racist, anti-semitic, anti-American, Marxist-Communist, and I have just as much of a right to criticize that choice.It has nothing to do with the Constitution, as you lied.I have no problem with Obama's church or his pastor.Which exposes your lie that you're no where near the fringe.

......The childless radio yakker wondered snidely how Fluke’s parents, who live in rural Pennsylvania, would feel about her crusade. Fluke, a Methodist Democrat, said she was particularly touched that the president told her, speaking as the father of two daughters, that her parents should be proud. “My parents and I don’t always agree politically,” she said, but about the issue of insuring contraception, “we see eye to eye.”I can see why. If I was her parent, I wouldn't want any more like her running around either. LOL

Could a sane, honest person hold the following opinion?You have never engaged in substantive debate with me from the day I started posting here.I have the posts to prove it, so don't try me.Geez, that's down to skeptic-level depths of dishonesty.

The so-called "purchasing across state lines" notion that the parrots have been trained to repeat is nothing but a thinly veiled attempt to castrate individual states' powers to regulate insurance companies, which would result in a "race to the bottom" between all 50 states. This is just another republican assault on states' rights.

The so-called "purchasing across state lines" notion that the parrots have been trained to repeat is nothing but a thinly veiled attempt to castrate individual states' powers to regulate insurance companies, which would result in a "race to the bottom" between all 50 states.This is just another republican assault on states' rights.Partly correct, but the purpose of the Commerce Clause was to facilitate business between states; to prevent them from putting up artificial barriers.So allowing interstate purchase of health insurance is fully in keeping with the spirit of the Constitution.It wouldn't be a "race to the bottom," unless you think Americans are stupid. It would be a race to provide what they want without the interference of politicians and Special Interest Groups, including insurance companies themselves.

Could a sane, honest person hold the following opinion?You have never engaged in substantive debate with me from the day I started posting here.I have the posts to prove it, so don't try me.Geez, that's down to skeptic-level depths of dishonesty.My only question is how a sane, honest person *COULDN'T* hold the opinion you quote?Obviously, you're neither honest nor sane, so you don't count, clem-bat.

Could a sane, honest person hold the following opinion?MistyBlue, on 28 February 2012 - 03:33 PM, said:You have never engaged in substantive debate with me from the day I started posting here.I have the posts to prove it, so don't try me.Geez, that's down to skeptic-level depths of dishonesty.Here's a piece of advice Puss, take it for what it's worth.You really need to stop asking the question, "Could a sane, honest person hold the following opinion?"Because you are neither of those things, it's just sets you up to be humiliated.Anyone who has been around this forum for any length of time knows that you have some kind of a strange fixation on me and have 'targeted' and 'followed' me (your words) since I started posting here.I have the posts to prove it Puss. Please don't make me post them.I really do not enjoy humiliating you.Okay.....that was a lie.

Could a sane, honest person hold the following opinion?MistyBlue, on 28 February 2012 - 03:33 PM, said:You have never engaged in substantive debate with me from the day I started posting here.I have the posts to prove it, so don't try me. Geez, that's down to skeptic-level depths of dishonesty.Here's a piece of advice Puss, take it for what it's worth.You really need to stop asking the question, "Could a sane, honest person hold the following opinion?"Because you are neither of those things, it's just sets you up to be humiliated.Anyone who has been around this forum for any length of time knows that you have some kind of a strange fixation on me and have 'targeted' and 'followed' me (your words) since I started posting here.I have the posts to prove it Puss. Please don't make me post them.I really do not enjoy humiliating you.Okay.....that was a lie. Wow, more empty rhetoric and empty threats from the, snicker, "ball breaker."That's so, so impressive.Not to mention completely absurd. What, because you can quote some of my jokes or something, it negates the many, many, many substantive posts I've left?Almost all of which you've ignored like a coward? Edited by RichClem, 07 March 2012 - 05:09 PM.

....the many, many, many substantive posts I've left?My, my, we are prone to exaggeration now aren't we Puss?To the extent that you've 'left' many, many, many substantive posts, none of them were ever directed at me.All I ever get from you are accusations of lying, name calling, and some crazy rants about me having defended a rapist.A lot of 'bleating'......not much substance.

There's been lots of whining from right wingers around here about people having the audacity to boycott the sponsors of poor misunderstood Rush Limbaugh. I've seen a lot of people mocking Libs about these boycotts.I was just browsing the internet and came across this from 2008:Dunkin Donuts has pulled an online advertisement featuring Rachael Ray after complaints that a fringed black-and-white scarf that the celebrity chef wore in the ad offers symbolic support for Muslim extremism and terrorism. Critics, including conservative commentator Michelle Malkin, complained that the scarf wrapped around her looked like a kaffiyeh, the traditional Arab headdress.LinkApparently Michelle Malkin got the conservative blogosphere buzzing about a potential boycott of the donut chain, and Dunkin' Donuts caved.These are also the same people who are now boycotting JCPenney for using Ellen DeGeneres (a lesbian) as a spokesperson.

Weak sauce MB, real weak. Is it hard to walk with panties wadded up all the time?

Weak sauce MB, real weak. Is it hard to walk with panties wadded up all the time?Every time I see that you have posted in my thread, I know that when I click on it, all I'm going to see is some lame-*** post.You never disappoint.If my 'sauce' is so weak, why do you keep coming back to my thread?Do you think I live and die by your opinion of my posts?I don't.

Cause I am poking and knowing I am hitting some of your buttons. I can read between the lines onyour responses pretty damned good these days

Cause I am poking and knowing I am hitting some of your buttons. I can read between the lines onyour responses pretty damned good these daysThat's pretty damn WELL. Looks like microeconomics isn't the only course you cut classes in. Sorry. I couldn't avoid it. The door was too wide open.