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.
Ferdnam wrote: "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"
The original hearings were about the constitutionality of the mandate of forced insurance provided contraception by religious institutions. It was not about contraception per se. You have been fooled into believing a false narrative.
Actually, I took a short cut in my writing... I understood the essence of the discussion...My objection remains... There were no women present... I recall, a long time ago, a Jesuit priest explaining that the church was "not a democracy..." Ergo, the church rules and members have to follow its precepts... They have no choice... There is a sovereign and the sovereign has subjects. I disagree.
Women must be present when the discussions concern them.
@visually...I believe that was Rush Limbaugh who improperly portrayed her that way and in other ways. After listening to Ms. Fluke, it totally amazes me how wrong Limbaugh and O'Reilly were about her. There personal attacks on her not substantiated by fact. I am totally impressed with Ms. Flukes intelligence. She does not lower herself to their level. Her dignity under this type of offensive slander and pressure just goes to prove that she is miles above them in integrity. The far left conservative commentary here makes me wonder if the listeners of Limbaugh and the like actually think for themselves. Their comments prove they did not listen to this interview with Ms. Fluke.
Paul M,
My sister and I both take birth control pills that were specifically prescribed by our doctors to ease incredibly painful menstrual cramps. Without this medication, the pain is so bad I would have to miss work. I have several friends who take contraception for this exact same reason.
@visually augmented: Agreed... see my original and subsequent posts. She is what she is and not as the left leaning media would portray her. (a defender of the poor downtrodden masses) She is a liberal legal hack.
It seems like this all comes down to "I don't want to pay for your immoral sex habits" which is what Fox News has spouted for a long time (even claiming they should receive the sex tapes..........).
What conservatives are unwilling to accept is the mountain of evidence in the form of conservative families (teens, lets be honest) having babies that were not expected. They're not educated and they don't have access to birth control so guess what - they have babies. Texas is the best example of this right now.
You may not pay for the [lack of] condoms in Texas but you're sure as heck paying for those babies MANY times over what you would have paid to give those people condoms.
http://www.freakonomics.com/2005/05/15/abortion-and-crime-who-should-you...
Ferdnam wrote: "Women must be present when the discussions concern them"
The democrats had the opportunity to have anyone they wanted too that was "qualified" to address the congressional hearing committee about the "constitutionality" of the mandate. They chose at the twelfth hour a political contraception activist for political reasons, not someone capable of addressing the matter at hand. Any special consideration for "women" on this issue would be relegated to how the U.S. Constitution affects their lives, not the availability of insurance provided contraception. It is not a woman's issue.
See my first link in the very first post.
Ferdnam wrote:
"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?"
You bet! And I have advocated for same on this board. Tying HI to employment is at the root of many of our problems today. And, if we untied it, and employees were paid the difference of what their employers pay in premiums, if it were made nationally competitive, which it is not, the President would have been able to keep his promise that, If you like your plan, you can keep it. When HI is tied to employment, that statement was ridiculously impractical to begin with. People can still be protected vis a vis pre-existing conditions under law, which I think everybody agrees is a good idea. My Dad always said, "Insurance companies are in the neck-stickin'-out business, but they don't want to stick their necks out". Insurance reform needs to include a little more neck-stickin'-out from the insurers. That would be a natural outgrowth of nationally competitive HI.
Another show I have to stop listening to. I don't object to the content of most of the interview. In fact, I agreed with much that was said. I have a problem with this show becoming all about telling women not to vote for Romney. I believe this was a calculated effort to sway women voters. Shame on public radio and Diane.
I do want to thank Limbaugh for his erroneous presumptions regarding Ms. Fluke. If not for the mainstream media picking up on his diatribe (maybe drug induced?), I would not have heard of her.
When did "activism" become a bad word? Is this another word to add to the fear mongers vocabulary like (gasp) "liberal"?
Ms. Fluke, please keep up your activism, and your liberal mindedness. :)
ecgberht wrote:
Ferdnam wrote:
"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?"
You bet! And I have advocated for same on this board. Tying HI to employment is at the root of many of our problems today. And, if we untied it, and employees were paid the difference of what their employers pay in premiums, if it were made nationally competitive, which it is not, the President would have been able to keep his promise that, If you like your plan, you can keep it. When HI is tied to employment, that statement was ridiculously impractical to begin with. People can still be protected vis a vis pre-existing conditions under law, which I think everybody agrees is a good idea. My Dad always said, "Insurance companies are in the neck-stickin'-out business, but they don't want to stick their necks out". Insurance reform needs to include a little more neck-stickin'-out from the insurers. That would be a natural outgrowth of nationally competitive HI."
Then, we are "totally in agreement...."
partisan politics wrote:
"The democrats had the opportunity to have anyone they wanted too that was "qualified" to address the congressional hearing committee about the "constitutionality" of the mandate. They chose at the twelfth hour a political contraception activist for political reasons, not someone capable of addressing the matter at hand"
The key word here is "qualified"... The issue then is to prove that the men who were brought in to provide testimony were in fact "qualified. " It would also be interesting to demonstrate in what ways they were "qualified." Were they in fact more "qualified" than any woman (who might even be a lawyer). Is a priest, or a rabbi, or a mufti more qualified than a woman (member of a church, synagogue, or mosque) or a woman lawyer?
Incidentally, I read your first post on this topic and went to visit your links... With all due respect, these links lack credibility because they are too partisan... I am trying to understand. I am not trying to become a faithful of any political current...
@ Cathy Garrett: You stated "I have a problem with this show becoming all about telling women not to vote for Romney. I believe this was a calculated effort to sway women voters. Shame on public radio and Diane."
Kind of like Planned Parenthood handing out condoms with anti Romney/Ryan propaganda on the packaging and Florida high schools allowing unauthorized people in to register 18 yr old students to vote as long as they were registering as a Democrat... then when this was found out, they refused to allow the authorized Republican registrars in to do the same thing. "wouldn't be prudent" don't you know.... That's ok though... with Ms. Fluke's and Diane's help perhaps Big Bird can get a federally funded sex change operation and finally lay an egg.... this show surely did lay one today.
Ferdnam wrote:"Were they in fact more "qualified" than any woman " "Incidentally, I read your first post on this topic and went to visit your links... With all due respect, these links lack credibility because they are too partisan... I am trying to understand. I am not trying to become a faithful of any political current..."
You seem unable or unwilling to steer yourself clear of the false narrative that this is a woman's issue. It is a first amendment issue regarding the federal governments ability to force certain behaviors that are contrary to the teachings of a given religion and are harmful to no one, on religious institutions.
It is telling that finding an honest assessment of a political media event is sometimes difficult if not impossible to find when relying on the mainstream media. Trying to thread the needle for someone who themselves is politically biased as to what is an acceptable media source can prove insurmountable. Your refusal to disengage the gender bias that you have applied to this topic clearly shows a partisan leaning.
I was especially dismayed to hear Ms. Fluke say that abortion and contraception are necessary so that women can pursue education and careers, becoming productive and contributing members of society. Traits such as ambition, career-mindedness, and competitiveness, are traditionally masculine. Fluke promotes a feminism which has us valuing these masculine traits more than feminine traits. Women's bodies must also become more like men's; consequence-free sexual behavior is defined as "freedom" for women, like it is for many men. To become truly "free", women must embrace contraception and abortion.
For the good of society, the feminine traits and capabilities of women must be recognized. How could society come to value uniquely female abilities and characteristics? By offering flex work time, paid maternity leaves, 8 hour work days, promotion based on competence rather than quantity of output, etc., in short, recognizing the importance of parenting and family life over economic productivity (ask any 2nd or 7th or 10th grade teacher whether home life is important). Instead, Fluke rails on about the "need" to avoid or destroy dependent new lives. Writer Sidney Callahan, in 1986, "women will never climb to equality...over mounds of dead fetuses.", as true now as then.
A powerful message, Deborah. Thank you.
@ Deborah M: I congratulate you on weeding thru the distractions on this issue and for recognizing the great values of "uniquely female abilities and characteristics". Well done and well stated.
The cost of covering contraception for every woman who wants it is negligible compared to the cost of allowing religious organizations to continue to exist and exert influence in this society without the responsibility of paying taxes.
I'd rather pay for someone's harmless recreation (sex without risk of pregnancy) than subsidize religious organizations with their histories of repression, brutality, sex abuse, etc.
The individuals arguing individual responsibility often fail to consider the social impact of u wanted pregnancy and stds. It is a statistical fact that there will be a number of people who will have an unwanted pregnancy whose child will weigh upon social services. It is also a fact that there will be a percentage of people who will get an STD which would weigh on social health. It's us also a fact that insurance and social support for contraceptives LOWERS these odds and IMPROVES the economic and social detrimental aspects of these two things. For the simple reason that we create a more stable, less dependent, and achieve a healthy society with less cost should be reason enough to support these programs.
Danielbyrne - why do you focus only on the social impact of unwanted pregnancies? What about the social impact of sex without consequence? When women (and men) approach sex as inconsequential and casual, the impact this has upon relationships and self-worth is much worse than the economic impacts of potential births. It's just harder to measure the moral, psychological, and spiritual damage of "carefree" sex. Trust me that this is a bigger weight upon our nation than a few million more babies. Besides the fact that having a baby can often be a great stabilizing force in many lives as it often brings about new-found responsibility in the mothers and fathers. I grow tired of the liberal mantra that imposing these "unwanted" children upon the mothers and fathers would be utter disaster. I contend this the exception instead of the rule and the majority in this country has been brainwashed by this lie...
visually augmented, evidence strongly indicates that many measures of a healthy society are strongly correlated with the ability of woman to control their own fertility. Despite the claims of some religious conservatives, for the vast majority of people on this planet, life is significantly better than it was 100 years ago (better health, longer life, lower crime, higher standard of living), and this is due in no small way to the availability of contraception and abortion. It is absurd to argue that the "spiritual damage" of "carefree" sex is a bigger weight upon the nation than millions of unwanted babies.
There is actually a reasonable counter argument that sexually repressed societies are the ones that suffer dysfunction (e.g., young man who are willing to crash airplanes into buildings, man who sexually molest young boys, girls who are not permitted to attend school, etc.)
I take it you're a man? (*Please disregard this, men who actually care and RESPECT the women in your lives and women of the world.) This is a not a "critical" issue to you, but to some of us WoMeN, whose livelihoods can be and are directly affected by the costs of rearing children, it is AN ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL ISSUE. Maybe in the next life, I can be born an uncaring male who is not shouldered with the burden of reproductive responsibility, and free of a world where (male) lawmakers are OBSESSED with the goings-on of my genitals and bodily functions. As for your "excellent energy discussion"--you do realize that it ties in with the reproductive rights discussion, don't you? Or should it be spelled out?
@CelestialTeapot: you wrote "Despite the claims of some religious conservatives, for the vast majority of people on this planet, life is significantly better than it was 100 years ago (better health, longer life, lower crime, higher standard of living), and this is due in no small way to the availability of contraception and abortion"
You are making a HUGE assumptive leap in trying to tie all of the above positives to "the availability of contraception and abortion." You can state your own opinion freely, but you are not entitled to your own "facts"... (Unless you work for Planned Parenthood) and then you can print whatever you want and pass it off to the world as an "educated informed and enlightened" study.
@climatewiz1: The correlation between the measurable positives and the ability of women to control their fertility is seen both over time as well as at the present time between developed secular nations (e.g., Sweden) and underdeveloped more devout nations (e.g., Pakistan). You can argue that it is not possible to rigorously prove that the availability of contraception and abortion are the direct cause of these better outcomes. However, you cannot dispute the fact that societies that permit women to have control over their reproduction exhibit a set of characteristics that make them more desirable places to live. It is also compelling to note that the women (and men) who fought for reproductive rights certainly believed they were doing so in order to improve their lives.
@ planetEarth: You wrote "but to some of us WoMeN, whose livelihoods can be and are directly affected by the costs of rearing children"
Question: Is your opinion so low of men everywhere that you believe that ONLY women are "responsible for the costs" and responsiblity of rearing children and that the only way you are going to get respect and freedom is for it to be mandated by law?
@CelestialTeapot: Please see CIA demographic reports for Sweden's population stats. Note the significant population swings in 1867 and 2003 and their root causes. If you want a valid comparative study, Sweden should not be used as one of the polar factors due to the volatility of a very, very small population when viewed on a world wide scale. Please understand: I don't believe the answer to the issues of contraception and abortion lies in evaluating statistics and demographics or in litigation as Ms. Fluke and countless others would have us believe. I believe that the answer to this lies in the hearts of men and women everywhere. These matters are (and should be) very personal to each individual. Not only to women but to the men who care for and love women and children. My personal belief is that these are matters best left to the decision of individuals and couples and that they should not be either mandated or prohibited by force of law or religion. When considering the rights of the unborn, who have no voice in this matter, but who do have a hearbeat that is very much alive and human... God bless them and forgive those who do not take into consideration their value, and their rights to have a place on this earth and to decide for themselves...just like us... Good night!
The only reason Sandra Fluke is relevant is because Obama bombed his debate and worshiper DR needed to line up a education/women's health policy day to support her idol-in-chief. I think it's over-reaching for govt to require insurers to provide payment for services for a condition that could have been avoided (pregnancy). I pay more because women are irresponsible. If they are going to make the decision to engage in sexual activity they need to be able to afford to raise a child or buy their own birth control. Coverage of the drug for other conditions, when prescribed by a doctor and verified through lab results, seems reasonable to me.
I am an Obama supporter, and tend to agree that contraception and perhaps even some degree of abortion services should be a part of a comprehensive health insurance program, but I am personally opposed to abortion in most cases on moral grounds. Ms. Fluke made a kind of Freudian slip at one point in her discourse that really revealed the sort of agenda she supports. Does anyone else recall her commenting on current laws with respect to abortion when she mentioned “life of the mother,” and then apologized and changed the statement to “life of the woman”? What a cold statement! Right there she revealed that she completely divorces the concept of motherhood from pregnancy. She went on to define the need to include birth control as part of a wider program of social engineering; again, completely separating the concept of human reproduction from motherhood or family. I in no way endorse what Rush Limbaugh said about Ms. Fluke. Limbaugh is a crude provocateur who is out to make money with his outrageous statements. Unlike Limbaugh, Diane Rehm has allowed Fluke to speak for herself and to reveal her truly alarming agenda for all to hear. Thank you Diane Rehm.
CelestialTeapot wrote:
"visually augmented, evidence strongly indicates that many measures of a healthy society are strongly correlated with the ability of woman to control their own fertility...It is absurd to argue that the "spiritual damage" of "carefree" sex is a bigger weight upon the nation than millions of unwanted babies".
First, it would appear that your view of women is that they have no ability to control their own fertility without contraception or abortion, that somebody else pays for. They're, what? A bunch of rabbits that can't help getting pregnant? Seems like a pretty low view of women to me.
Second, it is impossible to measure the weight of moral damage that "carefree" sex has inflicted on our society. It carries costs in the dissolution of the family structure - which you can't possibly deny - that cannot begin to be measured.
Meohmy wrote:
"Ms. Fluke made a kind of Freudian slip at one point in her discourse that really revealed the sort of agenda she supports. Does anyone else recall her commenting on current laws with respect to abortion when she mentioned “life of the mother,” and then apologized and changed the statement to “life of the woman”? What a cold statement! "
Yes! Thanks for bringing that up. I noticed immediately. It remains a mystery to me what the mind set is of people like Ms. Fluke. I guess it is just the case that they feel forced to sacrifice motherhood on the altar of "choice". It is sad. And, yes, Meohmy, it is cold.
partisan politics wrote:
"You seem unable or unwilling to steer yourself clear of the false narrative that this is a woman's issue. It is a first amendment issue regarding the federal governments ability to force certain behaviors that are contrary to the teachings of a given religion and are harmful to no one, on religious institutions.
It is telling that finding an honest assessment of a political media event is sometimes difficult if not impossible to find when relying on the mainstream media. Trying to thread the needle for someone who themselves is politically biased as to what is an acceptable media source can prove insurmountable. Your refusal to disengage the gender bias that you have applied to this topic clearly shows a partisan leaning."
I consider this issue fully as one of "applied constitutional law." As far as my personal proclivity towards one side or another, there are things I know and things I do not know. And I try very hard to make sure that I, in fact, really know what I think I know and that I start to understand what I know I don't know... This is why I ask questions. My questions do not seek a party line as an answer.
As I stated above, I reject the notion that a religion owns its members, that a hierarchy knows better than the common faithful... Religious hierarchies, in general, have provided us with enormous miseries in the form of religious wars, terrorism, and other forms of abuse of power in the name of "GOD."
This is why a debate concerning the issue at hand cannot be simply left to the "officers" of the religious institutions.
I am a bit surprised that I was not able to make that point clearly enough.