American Elephants

The Headline of the Day! by The Elephant's Child

From Jammie Wearing Fools: ” Woman Who Can’t Afford Her Own Birth Control Scrapes Up Money to File for Congressional Run.”

Surely you remember Sandra Fluke (rhymes with Cluck) who appeared before the nation in a pretend Congressional hearing, set up to  look as if it was official after the committee in question (I can’t remember which committee) refused to have her as a witness since they didn’t think she had any testimony worth hearing.

Her testimony was a protracted whine about the vast expense of contraceptives which she thought taxpayers should pay for so she didn’t have to. It emerged that a month’s supply was available for around $9.00, which made her demand that taxpayers spring for it seem remarkably silly. But silly me. There it is in ObamaCare, and everybody is paying for it. If you wonder why you can no longer see your doctor, or afford health care — it’s because the Democrats stuck in all sorts of little goodies to reach favored voting groups, in this case radical feminists.

With the retirement of Henry Waxman, Ms. Fluke has filed with the California state Democratic Party to seek its endorsement in the race for the Waxman seat. She has not yet officially announced her campaign, nor filed with the Federal Election Commission. But California is known for some of the dumbest women in Congress, so why not? The idea that someone should work their way up in politics seems to have gone by the wayside. Experience is no longer necessary.

Jammie adds: “Just what Congress needs, another attention whore.”



5 Comments so far
Leave a comment

Read Fluke’s testimony again.

She never said that SHE couldn’t afford contraceptives. The closest she came to that was saying “Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school. For a lot of students who, like me, are on public interest scholarships, that’s practically an entire summer’s salary. Forty percent of the female students at Georgetown Law reported to us that they’ve struggled financially as a result of this policy.”

The whole bulk of her testimony is that of somebody claiming to speak on behalf of others. (To the extent she really was, we cannot know.)

And what she seems to me to have been arguing was for forcing Georgetown University’s student medical plan to cover contraceptive pills, not for taxpayers per se to pick up the bill.

That somebody who was once pinching pennies might several years later run for Congress does not seem to me to be a crime — certainly not something that merits calling the person ” another attention whore.” If political activism prior to running for public office makes somebody an “attention whore”, then I guess that Ronnie Reagan was, too.

Shame on Jammie Wearing for using such a phrase.


Comment by Subsidy Eye

Surprise, Subsidy, I agree with you for once. Calling her an attention whore is in the same category as Rush Limbaugh’s rant about when it was all going on. But probably not for the reason you think. Both instances are cheap shots that distract from the main issue, which is that Fluke was and is a a zealot for her cause (birth control and abortion), and is willing to misrepresent and be misrepresented (you might even say lie and be lied about) in the furtherance of that cause. She was a recipient of a “public interest scholarship”, true, but she was also working in a law office while attending Georgetown Law School (I also had a public interest scholarship supporting my graduate work at Georgetown). She was not broke, nor anywhere near destitute – Georgetown Law is expensive. She served as president of the Georgetown Law Students for Reproductive Justice student organization, which, strangely enough, did not exist before she became a student there. She research and applied for Georgetown Law School INTENDING to challenge the school’s stance on birth control (Georgetown is a private university, owned by the Jesuits and operated by the Jesuits and the Archdiocese of Washington, DC), and she was well aware of the Georgetown Law’s policies before she was accepted. Regarding the cost of contraceptives in the DC area (she specifically referenced this) to say that she exaggerated would be to put it mildly. She claims contraception “can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school” – the pill generally costs $9-15 dollars a month at pharmacies in DC and Arlington, VA. Other forms may cost more, but the typical program at Georgetown Law is 2 years… $3000 is a little excessive to claim.

The reason she was rejected from testifying before the committee had little to do with her beliefs and a lot to do with that she was brought in at the last minute by Nancy Pelosi, in violation of the rules for such appearances and substitutions (usually, 48 hours are required to vet any witness for security purposes and to determine the testimony’s relevance to the subject). Pelosi knew this, and deliberately staged the whole thing. Fluke was also aware of this, and was also willing to let descriptions of her as a “Georgetown University co-ed” stand (Georgetown Law School is a separate and distinct program from the University, and “co-ed” implies undergraduate status – it may be nit-picking from your perspective, but it would have been a simple thing to correct had she wanted to). In addition, the testimony that she gave to Pelosi’s faux committee had little to add to what the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee was discussing – the Conscience Clause exception to Obamacare.

Fluke is nothing more than a rabble-rouser who showed up at a politically convenient time for the Democrats. Let her run for Waxman’s seat. Win or lose, she’ll still be the same thing.


Comment by Lon Mead

Thanks, Lon. I know Georgetown quite well, including their rules. And I’m not defending Pelosi (of whom I am definitely not a fan).

However, I would again stress that Fluke never said that SHE couldn’t afford contraceptives. She may have been fudging her own situation (by not mentioning her other job), but the point she was making was about other students, such as those ONLY getting money through something that she had, a public interest scholarship.

Whether somebody is a rabble-rouser is in the eye of the beholder. I’m sure that Bobby Kennedy (for example) was considered one in his time.


Comment by Subsidy Eye

No, never “stated” she couldn’t afford it… just implied it and let others think it. And the fellow students she used as examples… she did not (and I would expect that she COULD not) give any names or supply any proof of any of those students. I have no particular problem with a rabble-rouser; MLK was considered a rabble-rouser. I have problems with one that lets themselves be used in such a dishonest fashion.


Comment by Lon Mead

“I have problems with one that lets themselves be used in such a dishonest fashion.”

Fair enough.


Comment by Subsidy Eye

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: