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.
juliewoody wrote:
"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. "
-------------------------
You couldn't be more crooked in your assessment. Conservatives do not believe birth control should be paid for by taxpayers. Conservatives do not believe abortion should be paid for by taxpayers. No matter how much birth control is made available to those in "poverty," the decision to have children that you cannot afford to take care of is , to coin your phrase, "just plain stupid."
I agree that birth control should be covered only because the doctor sees it as a medical treatment only.
As a mother of four, I have paid for my own birth control, whether absentance outside of marriage or as a form of family planning. I don't ask others. I have planned every child to be financially and emotionally capable to rise them, finished my education and married. This is what intelligent woman do. If you want to put you body at risk to get pregnant then pay for that. Possibly choose to cut back to pay for it as I have (have no cell phone b/c I choose to put that money to other things).
The simple solution is to make health insurance more like car insurance, more competition and allow it across the states. That way health insurance becomes individual instead of from employers.
ecgberht wrote:
"Diane,
Please ask Ms. Fluke to comment on the following:
With the exception of rape, women have sex for one of two reasons; procreation or recreation. Procreation and/or recreation. That's it. Isn't it the case that Ms. Fluke would like to enjoy the latter, but have someone else pay for preventing the former?"
An astounding comment. Men, of course, have sex only for procreation and always pay for their own.
Thank you, Ms. Fluke, for speaking out on this issue! Despite hateful and misleading comments and even personal attacks, you continue to shed light on this issue and raise its importance - please know that millions of women and men who love them support you!
The money paid to an employee remains the property of the employer.
Money paid by, an employer to a risk-sharing company, for the benefit of an employee, remains the property of the employer.
Employers may require that employees not smoke tobacco, not drink alcohol, not eat more calories than the number required to maintain a certain body weight, etc.
Employers may attach a list of items to an employee's pay check which particularly describes either items which the employee may not purchase or items which the employee shall purchase.
As long as you work for an employer, you must do everything you are told; you must buy everything you are told to buy; and you may NOT buy anything you are told NOT to buy.
Conservative employers enforce this ancient rule and Liberal employers may, instead, allow their employees to spend their money as they wish.
The option of how an employee may spend a pay check remains with the employer.
I just want to say that I am so inspired by Sandra. It gives me hope that sometime I actually be able to vote for an intelligent woman. Women need to so involved in all issues that affect women.
SpecialForcesVet wrote:
"Good grief. Why on earth is Diane Rehm trivializing her normally excellent programming by having Sandra Fluke on??"
----------------------------
Diane couldn't book a real deal heroine on her show, so she was resigned to put on a famous phony one.
I assume Mrs. Rehm will host the president of Georgetown or Notre Dame or Catholic University tomorrow, as it's clear she didn't want to balance today's program out? A representative of the Conference of Bishops? Anything? Ms. Fluke is speaking as if she's an authority in the Church, but it would be interesting if a real authority could also respond.
Charlotte A wrote:
"I just want to say that I am so inspired by Sandra. It gives me hope that sometime I actually be able to vote for an intelligent woman."
-----------------------
I can understand your frustration. In the meantime, you have to settle for Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, Elizabeth Warren , etc .
mam2 wrote:
"An astounding comment".
Thanks, mam! I appreciate the support.
"Men, of course, have sex only for procreation and always pay for their own".
Oh, not at all, and women should REQUIRE men to be as involved in the contraceptive process as they are.
I would rather pay for the pills than the children the pills prevent.
Then there is the thing about insurance companies covering erection pills but not covering the pills reducing the consequences of erection pills.
You mean there are other uses for erection pills than erections? Really? Same for BC, but that will be conveniently ignored.
I don't get what this is all about, it's almost as though there is a group of people in this country who want to go back in time and chain Woman to the stove. Keep Woman barefoot and pregnant.
Almost as though they want to impose a Fundamentalist Islam belief on the Women in this country.
.
SFV,
Actually I thought Ms. Fluke was quite fascinating to listen to.
Don't let anybody ever tell you she's not smart. She is EXPERT at conflating the medical requirements of women for birth control with the desire of other women for free access in order to be able to enjoy recreational sex.
Also, I was astounded that nobody has commented on her statement that "the Affordable Care Act is not taxpayer funded"! Does Ms Fluke not realize that EVERYTHING the Government pays for is taxpayer funded! Wow!
While I disagree with so many of Ms. Fluke's causes, I am very impressed with her articulate words in handling the dirt that has been thrown her way through personal attacks.
Thank you so much for your show, Ms. Rehm.
And we commend you, Ms Fluke, for your tenacity.
The Catholic Church should have no control on our government's policies on a women's rights. And a Catholic is entitled to choose. But this argument is about creating a healthy society. If we focus pragmatically, we know that studies show violence in our country went down 18 years after Roe Vs Wade was passed.
I live in Jacksonville where we have one of the higher rates of young men in prisoner. It is incredibly taxing.
If we want a better more productive society, we need mothers that want children.
Thank you for helping women and working for our personal rights.
Sarah C.
Jacksonville, FL
I found it disparaging not to hear any discussion of conscience rights. Businesses and Universities that don't pay for contraceptives, don't do it to be bad; they do it because they feel ethically obligated to.
What kind of society are we building when we demand individuals act outside of their code of ethics? Does it make it right just because 51% of people think it's a good thing? (what about 80% or 95%) I can't help but wonder how Ms. Fluke would respond if she were asked, by the President, to do something she felt was ethically improper.
I can't help but feel that there are better ways than this to offer controversial care.
Some of the comments on this board coming from the left today are so absurd as to be beyond comment, but I just can't let this one pass ...
Sarah C. wrote:
"The Catholic Church should have no control on our government's policies on a women's rights. And a Catholic is entitled to choose. But this argument is about creating a healthy society. If we focus pragmatically ..."
So this is about "a healthy society" and "pragmatism" and to h--- with the first amendment?! Are you kidding me? Read about the history of the Bill of Rights - agreed upon to put in CHECK the powers granted to the FG in the Constitution proper precisely so we would be protected from the intrusive arm of government policies! Ugh!
HonestAbe wrote:
"part-insane politics,"
(note the ad hominem opening)
"You should be on the Maury Povich show.
When Maury opens the big manila envelope, he would say to you, "You ARE the problem!"
(note the denigrating, derogatory statement)
"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."
So HA, your post amounts to 1) ad hominem attack (while decrying same), 2) denigration of others (while decrying same), and 3) "you are entitled to my opinion".
Brilliant! Thanks for the eloquent contribution to the board!
I am so impressed with Sandra Fluke's demeanor in the face of such ugliness and disinformation, I think that even if her opinion differed from mine, that I would at least respect her self discipline.
I do not understand the incredible angst about sex and birth control that is sometimes associated with conservatives. Sex is a very natural part of mature life in humans, it helps relationship bonding, emotional stability, in short it is part of being healthy. Why should this be belittled? If I go to my doctor and tell her that I have no sex life, she will rightly tick that as pointing to potential issues with my health, and emotional life.
The pat answer about taxes is illogical, and proven false, so even though that is the answer given, I can't believe that is the actual reason for the incredible outpouring of anger over this subject. If that were the reason, and biblical law were the problem, the immense amount of actual tax money used to murder thousands if not millions of humans, during the last 10 years of war should have those same people marching in the streets in fits of rage.
Why is there so much rage towards women? and such a huge urge to impose incredibly arcane control and removal of rights from our own women. It is illogical for someone to be screaming about personal freedom, and then decide that because of their religious belief, that women should not make a decision about their personal own life.
Statistical analysis, is a good way of getting a larger perspective on a subject, rather than letting personal myths rule emotional responses to a subject.
ecgberht wrote: "CHECK the powers granted to the FG in the Constitution"
We are commenting in an alternate universe, one that operates without any basis in history or law.
ecgberht wrote: Brilliant!
I wondered what happened to that?
ecgbergt:
"And that's not judgmental!!!??? Are you people kidding me!!!??? Do any of you think through what you are spitting out on your computers before hitting the "Save" key?! AAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!"
Ok. Yes. I was passing judgment on the Duggars. I confess. But it's a judgement based on facts, not assumptions. And I'm not insinuating that their sleazes (as did the comment I was replying to). i just disagree with their reproductive choices.
p.s. it's an ipad
I applaud Ms Fluke's efforts to advocate for access to health care for women. As a nurse practitioner and professor of obstetric nursing, I have seen first hand the importance of access to reproductive care for women. However, I was concerned when Ms Fluke referred to health care decisions as a private matter between a woman and her doctor. Nurse Practitioners, Nurse Midwifes and Physician's Assistants provide health care to women as well. As a health care activist with the ear of the public I hope that Ms Fluke uses provider neutral language in the future. Advanced practice nurses and PAs are providing high quality care and increased access, two important issues as the Affordable Care Act is implemented.
Janice Lazear, DNP, CRNP, CDE
I applaud Ms Fluke's efforts to advocate for access to health care for women. As a nurse practitioner and professor of obstetric nursing, I have seen first hand the importance of access to reproductive care for women. However, I was concerned when Ms Fluke referred to health care decisions as a private matter between a woman and her doctor. Nurse Practitioners, Nurse Midwifes and Physician's Assistants provide health care to women as well. As a health care activist with the ear of the public I hope that Ms Fluke uses provider neutral language in the future. Advanced practice nurses and PAs are providing high quality care and increased access, two important issues as the Affordable Care Act is implemented.
Janice Lazear, DNP, CRNP, CDE
Thank you Ms. Fluke on behalf of those of us who live with poverty everyday as well as those of us who have children. Please continue to use your position and influence to speak about these important issues that these ridiculous attitudes towards sex brought on by the belief in the agenda of magical Gods, ignorance of human biology, bigotry, and etc. and the like may change in my daughter's future for the sake of her free pursuit of personal, peaceful happiness promised to her by this country. I would very much like to see Rush Limbaugh say such things about someone's daughter on the street where he can be heard and held accountable for the sound of it.
Sincerely, Jason
Jason Bennett wrote:
"Thank you Ms. Fluke on behalf of those of us who live with poverty everyday as well as those of us who have children."
-----------------------
If you live in poverty, why would you have children that you cannot afford to take care of when contraception is readily available to you?
Ms. Fluke said that 30% of BCP are taken because they are medically necessary. Does that mean they are precribed by a doctor. Has anybody fact checked that number? I can't seem to find it.
ecgberht wrote:
"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."
So, since we are debating the issue of health insurance, are you suggesting that the Nixon strategy of insuring individuals through their employer actually ought to be replaced by a system where each individual has the right and the responsibility to insure him or herself with a health insurance providing institution of his or her choice independently of who employs him or her? This would resolve the issue of the employer refusing to pay for insuring certain procedures. This would also maximize the freedom and the right to privacy of each individual. Is this what you have in mind?
What I find most offensive about Ms. Fluke is how she originally portrayed herself as a young, deprived, college student at Georgetown University when in fact she is (was) a 30 year old activist who had been president of "Law Students for Reproductive Justice". It was very duplicitous of her to present herself before Congress in such a disingenuous manner. We were led to believe she was a "victim" of the policies of the Catholic Church and the university which she attended. In actuality, she was an activist who was looking to make a name for herself - and now we see her true colors. Funny how the liberal establishment media heaps accolades upon such behavior and misdirection.
visually augmented wrote:
"What I find most offensive about Ms. Fluke is how she originally portrayed herself as a young, deprived, college student at Georgetown University when in fact she is (was) a 30 year old activist who had been president of "Law Students for Reproductive Justice". It was very duplicitous of her."
I would agree that misrepresenting oneself is duplicitous and deceitful. But I think that the underlying issue is whether congress should have a committee session on reproductive rights with no women present. That, it seems to me, is considerably more duplicitous. I am a man and I find it outrageous.
Equally deceitful was Romney performance at the debates. It was shameful. And I am not partisan. I am just an observer...
Please talk about the fundamental objections that religious groups have to contraception because that is what really drives their passion to oppose anything to do with reproductive medicine.
thanks Rick