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.
CelestialTeapot said: "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."
This is one of the most biased, unsupported statements I've read in quite some time. Do you truly believe that the "advances of the last 100 years" are attributed to birth control and abortion availability? Are you saying that the last 100 years of human existence are morally, spritually, and culturally superior to the entire history of humans prior to the existence of birth control?
I will grant you that we have seen great medical advances to improve the quality of life in the past century but it would be utterly ridiculous to state that contraception is the root of it all.
And how is it "sexual repression" to suggest that sex between a man and woman can (and should) produce life? That sounds like biology 101. When men and woman look upon sex as ONLY recreation, they negate the very basis of what this act accomplishes. This would be akin to saying food consumption is ONLY for pleasure and not nutrition. The pleasure of eating makes it something to enjoy but certainly not the primary goal. Contraception and abortion is analogous to the eating disorder bulemia. Perhaps you should add that to your causes to champion??
@ecgberht: Contraception is the most reliable way to prevent unwanted pregnancy even for a married woman involved in a competely monogamous relationship. Because of demonstrable benefits to families and society in reducing unwanted pregnancy, it is reasonable to expect that a health insurance policy would include coverage for contraception, just as they do for many preventative health measures. It is illegal for an employer to force their religious beliefs on their employees in many situations; I believe that employer-provided health insurance should be one of these.
Forgive me if I find it hard to take seriously ideas like "moral damage" that are "impossible to measure". Indeed I would offer a counter argument that it is sexually repressed societies and organizations that are far more dysfunctional than sexually liberated ones. I offer just one example: pederasty seems to be common within the male clergy of the Catholic Church and in places like Afghanistan.
Ferdnam wrote: "I am a bit surprised that I was not able to make that point clearly enough"
Your debating technique is one of not taking a stand and retreating, exhausting the opponent with ever changing unrelated minutia. The original comments you made are lost in a tangled mess that has nothing to do with your previous assertions. You did the same thing in the previous hour on education. Since you are unable to defend your original assertions in both arguments, the conclusion can only be that you lost.
You made it clear that you thought this was a woman's issue about contraception and that there was a deliberate gender bias by congress by not allowing Sandra Fluke to testify. Look at how far you drifted away from your original assertions in your last post, the relationship is unrecognizable.
CelestialTeapot wrote:
"Contraception is the most reliable way to prevent unwanted pregnancy even for a married woman involved in a competely monogamous relationship. Because of demonstrable benefits to families and society in reducing unwanted pregnancy, it is reasonable to expect that a health insurance policy would include coverage for contraception, just as they do for many preventative health measures".
-Red wine, in moderation, has been found to contain powerful substances that benefit the heart, the nervous system, and even your teeth, and it may even offer some cancer protection.- from "Everyday Health".
Wow! Who knew?! Because of demonstrable benefits to my health, it is reasonable to expect that a health insurance policy would include coverage for my Cabernet, just as they do for many preventative health measures.
Think I can get Aetna to pay for that?
"It is illegal for an employer to force their religious beliefs on their employees in many situations; I believe that employer-provided health insurance should be one of these".
Name one - particularly if the "rules" are known before employment is initiated. Businesses run by Jewish people may be closed on Yom Kippur. That's the choice of the owner, not the employee. Businesses run by Muslims may be closed on Kwansa - again, the choice of the owner, not the employee. I have known of small businesses that have Bible studies over lunch hour with the employees. As long as that is known at the time of the employment, the employee may have no objection. You can "believe" what you want, but the first amendment, which guarantees free exercise, trumps your belief, and that includes the right of religious institutions who object to it, not to include birth control coverage in their insurance policies. Sorry.
partisan politics wrote:
"Ferdnam wrote: "I am a bit surprised that I was not able to make that point clearly enough"
Your debating technique is one of not taking a stand and retreating, exhausting the opponent with ever changing unrelated minutia. The original comments you made are lost in a tangled mess that has nothing to do with your previous assertions. You did the same thing in the previous hour on education. Since you are unable to defend your original assertions in both arguments, the conclusion can only be that you lost.
You made it clear that you thought this was a woman's issue about contraception and that there was a deliberate gender bias by congress by not allowing Sandra Fluke to testify. Look at how far you drifted away from your original assertions in your last post, the relationship is unrecognizable."
This is a very interesting post, Partisan...
You view this as a situation where there are opponents, one of whom is going to win, one of whom is going to lose...
This is not the way I frame the issue. I value differing view points as a way to get to understanding... It is not about winning...
It is true that I view a discussion (a conversation) as constantly evolving. But strangely enough, the starting point of my inquiry has not changed from my first post on either topics.
If it makes feel good to have won, so be it... If you are so certain to be right, good for you...
I am personally more inclined to search for something beyond fixated opinions...
Perhaps it is a matter of cultural difference...
"There is an idea of a Patrick Bateman; some kind of abstraction. But there is no real me: only an entity, something illusory. And though I can hide my cold gaze, and you can shake my hand and feel flesh gripping yours and maybe you can even sense our lifestyles are probably comparable... I simply am not there."
Reductionism has a lot of appeal... Doesn't it?
One simple explanation to which one sticks as if life depended on it... because it is the truth, the only truth... There is no paradox, no ambiguity, no shade of grey, no possible contradiction...
"There are trivial truths and the great truths. The opposite of a trivial truth is plainly false. The opposite of a great truth is also true."
Niels Bohr
@ecgberht: The health benefits of red wine are coincidental to its primary use as a beverage. Contraception is strictly used to treat certain illnesses and more commonly as prophylaxis to prevent unwanted pregnancy. Red wine and contraception are not equivalent. Similarly there is a difference between a business that closes on Yom Kippur and one that checks whether or not its employees are attending synagogue (or the right synagogue for that matter). There are certainly limits to how much religious "freedom" one can claim. And these limits are and should be stricter for institutions that serve the public and receive public funds (like Catholic hospitals and universities).
@CelestialTeapot:
"The health benefits of red wine are coincidental to its primary use as a beverage".
The health benefits of the pill are coincidental to its primary use as a contraceptive.
"Red wine and contraception are not equivalent"
Yeah. They pretty much are. Except that wine has had medicinal usage for thousands of years longer than the pill.
"Drink no longer water only, but use a little wine for your stomach's sake and your frequent illnesses." 1 Tim 5:23
"Similarly there is a difference between a business that closes on Yom Kippur and one that checks whether or not its employees are attending synagogue (or the right synagogue for that matter). "
Not if it is a condition of employment. Employers have wide latitude in the conditions they can place on employees before hiring. Other than minimum wage and some laws on working conditions, they have a lot of leeway.
Look, the bottom line here is that the use of the pill is primarily to prevent pregnancy while enjoying recreational sex - even if it's "for a married woman involved in a competely monogamous relationship". I have no problem with that - just don't make me pay for her privilege. If a woman needs the pill for other reasons, her doctor can perscribe it and, with specific diagnoses, her insurance can cover it if she has private insurance, or if her insurance is through her employer and the employer opts for a plan that covers it - just like with anything else. Endometriosis, adenomyosis, and PCOS are diseases. Pregnancy is not.
Some have made the argument that it is fiscally sound to provide BC (the pill at least) for all women - maybe through Planned Parenthood, whatever. That's a better argument than you are trying to make in forcing religious institutions to provide payment/coverage against their religious teaching. Conflating the medical need of some women with the recreational desire of others is dishonest, but is precisely what Ms. Fluke is trying to do ... and so are you.
You said, " If, however, Ms. Fluke and those in her corner choose to push those same opinions in the face of Americans and then try to enact laws that force everyone, regardless of belief to act (and pay) just in accordance with those beliefs or opinions, "
Sorry. We do not have an a la carte tax system? The way it works is we all contribute in accordance with the law and the money gets spent to benefiting a broad spectrum of our society--not just people who agree with you. How about a little tolerance?
@bobjcohen: How about a little understanding for what is being discussed? Ms. Fluke originally contended that a private university and insurance plan should pay for her every need. If she (and you) were talking about benefits derived directly from tax coffers then you would be correct, but this was not the case. If that were the case, then Ms. Fluke could stand in line on with the rest of the poor schmucks on capitol hill and lobby for her cause. You can argue that because the University receives some federal funding that they should be forced to comply with her wishes. That's the same convoluted thinking that Obama has with his statement "YOU DIDN"T BUILD THAT". In his thinking, people and businesses are only succesful and should be enslaved to government because we all drive on roads and bridges that were built using federal funding (built by taxes we all pay). Ms. Fluke's case was elevated to the national stage (by Pelosi) because they know that this will be a point of contention with Obamacare... plain and simple.
Superior reply, climate. Even at that, the ability of Congress to tax, which lies at the heart of bobjcohen's argument (whether legitimate or not) does not trump the first amendment provision of "free exercise". In fact, just the opposite. The Bill of Rights is specifically designed to RESTRICT the intrusive powers of government.
@ ecgberht: And our president studied constitutional law???
@climatewiz1, reading is fundamental. I wrote "but to some of us WoMeN"--this does not negate the contributions of--or the possibility that there are--men who also shoulder said responsibilities. I am focusing on the WoMeN, because WE are the childbearers, the ones who for the most part interrupt our careers, and come home from work to do the second shift. Don't like the truth of it, keep your head in the sand, or better yet, change it. Then women will stop complaining. I can't do it by myself, nor can other women, and many men seem to only listen and take cues from other men. And, apparently, yes--the only way will to gain this respect and freedom is for it to be mandated by law, since these (overwhelmingly male) dinosaurs would eliminate contraception if they could. SpecialForcesVet's glib comment is indicative of the entitlement present when you have no idea what it means to have your civic and HUMAN rights threatened. It is 2012 and people are debating what a woman should and shouldn't do with her body--evolution, WHAT EVOLUTION? Can you imagine this type of debate over whether or not men should be allowed to have vasectomies, take Viagra, donate to sperm banks, etc??? Oh, that's right--nowhere.
@ PlanetEarth: So in short, I see by your comments that your view of men in general is so jaded that even though you say you don't lump us all together in our behavior, the lump you put us in is a pretty HUGE lump...
You also said: " And, apparently, yes--the only way will to gain this respect and freedom is for it to be mandated by law"
I'm truly sorry for your life experience that has led you to what appears to be a sad, sorry outlook on life and on mankind in general. You don't get "hope and change" by mandating it by law. You get it by working together...regardless of if we are talking about political parties or family relationships... I hope for a happier future for you and for us all.
@climatewiz..so how long should women cross their fingers and hope?? Why do you think legislation is necessary? Because the hoping/crossing fingers/praying is not working--in other words, too many men are resistant to getting with the times. And yes, there are some women, as well. And I'm not jaded, just unwilling to sit around and wait for said change to just magically appear. Not lumping anyone together, but where are the men standing up for women's rights? Too few to name, unfortunately. It seems that men only seem to listen and take cues from other men, so unless i want to hold my breath and wait for other men to fight this battle for women, I'll just go ahead and take part. HUmankind generally is a good lot, but the rotten ones are spoiling it for a lot of people--women, especially. I, too, am hoping for a happier future, but i won't sit around and pretend that everything is puppies and rainbows.
@planetEart: I have no problem with availing ourselves and our causes (or Ms. Fluke) thru the legislative process. What I take issue with is those who intentionally try to subvert that process. Which has been a nasty habit of this administration. If it were not the case, Nancy Pelosi would never have said the words "we have to pass the bill so we can find out what's in it"...