A Conversation With Sandra Fluke
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-10-09/conversation-sandra-fluke
Last February, a House committee held a hearing on the new mandate that all insurance plans cover the cost of contraceptives. Republicans said the exemption for religious groups was too narrow and violated the First Amendment. Third-year law student Sandra Fluke was called by Democrats to testify at that hearing, but was turned away. Her testimony before a Democratic committee a week later was criticized by conservative talk-radio shows and thrust Fluke into the national spotlight. She went on to speak at the Democratic National Convention last month. A conversation with women's rights and social justice activist Sandra Fluke.
Guests
Sandra Fluke
women's rights and social justice advocate
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
climatewiz:
Would you be able to explain how this is a black and white issue, or are you just going to assert that everyone agrees with you? I think you need to prove that the religeous organizations are harmed in some real, tangible way before we allow them to use the first amendment to justify harming real people in an easily demonstrable manner.
Here's a radical idea: wait until the show airs before making a comment.
part-insane politics,
You should be on the Maury Povich show.
When Maury opens the big manila envelope, he would say to you, "You ARE the problem!"
You and your burnt earth ilk are the basic reason the US has not solved its problems........your entries are always hated based and ad hominem. You never express a cogent idea or engage in serious dialogue. You always assume you have the right to denigrate all others. In some sense you are to be pitied, as you blow your top there in your lonely cell. We will continue to pray for your recovery.
Good God!
This has really got the right-wing extremists/haters going!
They hate being called "TROLLS", but aren't they exactly that?
Otherwise, why do they spend their time listening to Diane Rehm? Cause they enjoy the free exchange of ideas?
Right.
They fancy themselves as warriors in the rightwing army, like wanna-be Andrew Breitbarts.
@Jim Gamble: Jim my "black & white" comment was in direct reference to the constitution and 1st ammendment. In this instance, religious organizations represent people. People who can prove tangible, invested interests in groups or organizations participate in "class action suits" every day of our lives. Admittedly, this could be a long and litigious process in this particular instance, and this is really, really reverse thinking here... I sincerely hope that we do not reach that base position in our great nation. Have a great day Jim!
Morning Cli,
I'm not disputing that people- in the form of religeous organizations- have the right to worship in their own way, but how exactly are they being prevented from doing so here? No one is forcing them to do anything, not even pay for it. We can easily demonstrate that denial of BC hurts women. How does providing it hurt you or anyone else? Can you imagine the cost to our nation if BC were outlawed, as many on the right would like to do? We don't allow people complete and unfettered religeous freedom no matter what the Constitution says. Mormons are not allowed the practice polygamy, Muslims cannot perform "honor killings", Satanists cannot sacrifice animals, and Catholics cannot sexually abuse children. None of this is protected under the first amendment. So why should anyone have the right to force women to risk their health by denying them BC? This is NOT a black and white issue.
Arleen M wrote: "If a Catholic University (or any other private school) is receiving partial government funding, don't you think they they need to abide by federal laws?"
Your question should be, should the federal government be forced to follow the Constitution and not enforce or enact illegal unconstitutional federal laws.
I am confident that if Obamacare is not overturned this mandate will be overturned.
Jim Gamble wrote: "So why should anyone have the right to force women to risk their health by denying them BC? This is NOT a black and white issue."
No one is denying them birth control, it is widely available on the open market at little or no cost. There is no harm inflicted by allowing the Catholic church to not supply birth control through it's insurance policy.
It is a "black and white issue". It's either constitutional or it's not.
Removed
pee pee tic:
No one is forcing the Catholic Church to provide BC. ALL insurance companies are required to cover it. The Catholic Church is inserting itself where it doesn't belong. They should stay out of it. This a health issue, not a religeous one.
@Jim Gamble: If it were just a matter of religious freedom it would be a non-issue. The media, and the left/right partisans elevated it to another level. Ms. Fluke and her friend were not "forced" to risk their health. They have the same option as anyone else. If the plan you belong to does not offer the services you request, then change to an insurance program that WILL provide them to you. They were not forced to enroll. Not to minimiize the BC issue and it's importance, but what Ms. Fluke did is like a man who likes beer with his pizza protesting and lobbying against the owner of the pizza parlor because they don't serve beer... Perhaps the owner doesn't WANT to serve beer because he doesn't want to deal with those who can't hold their beer... That's his right too. Take the religion out of it and look at it from a different perspective.
Jim Gamble wrote:
"No one is forcing them to do anything, not even pay for it."
Of course religious institutions must pay through higher insurance premiums. Do you think insurance companies will just eat the cost?
"We can easily demonstrate that denial of BC hurts women."
No. You could easily demonstrate that denial of BC hurts women who have recreational sex I suppose - if anyone were actually denying them. But no one is.
"Can you imagine the cost to our nation if BC were outlawed, as many on the right would like to do? "
This is known as the "strawman" argument. You set up a premise that SOUNDS like it might be right, but really is not the argument the other side makes. In this case, the strawman is "many on the right would like to outlaw BC". Nice try.
Part II
"We don't allow people complete and unfettered religeous freedom no matter what the Constitution says. Mormons are not allowed the practice polygamy, Muslims cannot perform "honor killings", Satanists cannot sacrifice animals, and Catholics cannot sexually abuse children. None of this is protected under the first amendment. "
First, Mormons gave up polygamy in a political deal with the U.S. government in exchange for Utah statehood.
Second, the fact that you do not see the qualitative difference between "honor killings" and animal sacrifice and the requirement that BC be provided free to women is just bizarre. As for the shot at the Catholic church, when you find a reference to child sexual abuse in church doctrine, you let us know, 'k?
"So why should anyone have the right to force women to risk their health by denying them BC?"
This is what is known as "non sequitur"; literally: does not follow. It starts with the premise that BC for women so that they can have unfettered recreational sex is a "right". When you find a reference to that in the Constitution, you let us know, 'k?
This IS a black and white issue. NO ONE is denying women BC. They can buy all they want. Women do not have a "right" to BC under the Constitution. You can't get more black and white than that.
Show me an insurance plan that is exempt from providing BC. Why do you have to twist the truth to make your argument? The church has no business getting involved with health issues. A reasonable person could conclude that this is both a health issue AND a religious one. The fact that its a health issue is undeniable. You still haven't proven its a religious one, despite numerous attempts, all of which have failed. You can't just say, "Its a religious issue because we want it to be one". The fact that you been unable to prove it is, proves it isn't.
It's just flat out amazing the effort it takes to get liberals to focus on the facts, having said that I doubt that goal has been achieved.
Mr/Mrs./Ms ecgberht:
Hormonal forms of birth control such as "the pill" are used for
medical conditions and not solely to prevent pregnancy. I thought you should know /that/ is the reference to the statement that lack of access to this MEDICAL TREATMENT hurts women.
Jim Gamble wrote:
"You still haven't proven its a religious one, despite numerous attempts, all of which have failed. You can't just say, "Its a religious issue because we want it to be one". The fact that you been unable to prove it is, proves it isn't."
How is it NOT a religious issue under the first amendment! The Church's doctrine, like it or not, prohibits the use of birth control. Under the "free exercise" clause, they cannot be compelled to pay for it. Got it?
They just played Limpys clip demonstrating how Limpy doesn't know how Birth Control works. Whats Limp think? A woman takes a pill after every encounter? Really?
Limpy Akin?
Anyhow, Arleen M wrote: "If a Catholic University (or any other private school) is receiving partial government funding, don't you think they they need to abide by federal laws?"
Actually Arleen, once any entity becomes an employer they should become subject to employment law, State, Federal and otherwise.
For me there is no way around it.
.
I am a woman with severe endometriosis, a chronically painful disease. Birth control pills are essential to my treatment, for pain control, and to slow the progression of the disease. I am one of that percentage that needs this medication. However I think this situation speaks to a broader question...Why must women justify their health care decisions? It absolutely should not matter why I need this medication. I need it. My doctor feels that I need it. That should be the end of the story.
Orange Sunshine wrote:
"Hormonal forms of birth control such as "the pill" are used for
medical conditions and not solely to prevent pregnancy. I thought you should know /that/ is the reference to the statement that lack of access to this MEDICAL TREATMENT hurts women."
Mr/Mrs/Ms Orange:
Oh, I get that. So let them get a perscription for that purpose and go buy BC the same as they would get one for any other condition. When perscribed for those purposes, insurance companies might even cover it. But religious institutions must not be compelled to include it in their plans if their doctrine speaks against the use of BC. That's what this is about - the force of government in the Church. It's the last bastian of government intrusion, pure and simple.
ecgberht wrote:
"How is it NOT a religious issue under the first amendment! The Church's doctrine, like it or not, prohibits the use of birth control. Under the "free exercise" clause, they cannot be compelled to pay for it."
The Catholic church prohibits the use of birth control to its members... Isn't it the members who chose to follow the churches "diktat" who have the guaranteed freedom to do so?
So, the first amendment addresses the freedom of individuals, it seems to me. Would it allow, for instance, a church (any church) to deny its members food under the "free exercise" clause?
Ah, Rush Limpbaugh- with every word he uttered proved: he has no idea how birth control works (or if he does, because he has been married 4x but has no children, chose to lie), his dittoheads don't realise just how demeaning the moniker really is; and that he, his dittoheads, and others who followed his line of 'reasoning?' 'logic?' just don't listen.
Thank you!! It's about time women's issues are up front!! I was put on birth control at 16 because my periods were so irregular and awful it helped me regulate and have less severe menstrual cycles. Not because i was a slut and disnt want babies. I was a virgin at that time. My friend was put on them as she was trying to get pregnant but her cysts were so bad that she had to take birth control to have them shrink before they could burst. It is a HEALTH thing. We should have the same ability to take care of our bodies as a men can take pills to get an erection.
Last night (8 Oct) I checked to see what was going to be discussed on Dianes show today and saw there were already double digit comments. How unusual, so I checked the comments.
The comments had already gone off the rails.
Even gun control shows aren't that rabid.
Interesting to see people justify their rude and boorish behavior by citing the First Amendment as though the First Amendment justifies acting badly.
What the hell has happened to us?
.
No surprise the Constitutional issue is being ignored in the interview, I guess anything that distracts from the "victimization" of Sandra is off the table.
It has been mentioned that birth control pills were not being covered by the Catholic Universities insurance plan for other medical ailments, I heard this was not true. Anyone have some info on this??
Ferdnam wrote:
"The Catholic church prohibits the use of birth control to its members... Isn't it the members who chose to follow the churches "diktat" who have the guaranteed freedom to do so?
So, the first amendment addresses the freedom of individuals, it seems to me. Would it allow, for instance, a church (any church) to deny its members food under the "free exercise" clause?"
Of course they would allow that. Just like it allows the prohibition of the use of BC. But because they did, it would not mean that members individually MUST obey. Members need not starve themselves any more than they need not eschew BC. But would you require the Church to PAY for its members food if it had a prohibition against it? Thanks for making my point.
Yes, the church consists of individuals and they have individual rights. But those members come together and are represented collectively by the policy, tenets of their Church as well.
Jim Gamble wrote:
"pee pee tic:
is it your contention that the "left wing" does not have first amendment rights, and is therefore "stealing our freedom" by expressing their opinions?"
----------------------------------
You accidently expressed Sandra Fluke's inane argument. Fluke said her critics were trying "to silence women's voices." She said this on ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, NPR and a number of other national media outlets.
Let me get this straight. Conservatives do not want women to have full and fair access to birth control. They want to make abortion illegal. And they want to cut social programs that help poor single mothers and their children born into poverty. That is not only immoral and heartless, it is fiscally -- excuse the term -- just plain stupid.
Good grief. Why on earth is Diane Rehm trivializing her normally excellent programming by having Sandra Fluke on?? With all the critical issues facing the world.
I just switched to the C-Span radio webcast; excellent energy discussion.
I was a single mom without insurance about 30 years ago and I was barely able to buy groceries. However, I went to the Dr. for a prescription and bought my BC pills myself each month because that was a priority for me.
I would like to know how many women who are receiving BC pills paid for by the taxpayers own cell phones, IPads, etc. Personal responsibility - what happened?