Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

News & Politics News & Politics

Do you think Sandra Fluke would be a good addition to Congress?

Posted by   + Show Post

Birth Control Activist Sandra Fluke Is Seriously Considering a Run for Congress

by Jenny Erikson 

The woman who became semi-famous after Rush Limbaugh asked if she was a slut for demanding government-sponsored birth control looks to be very seriously considering a run for Congress.

Sandra Fluke has filed and paid the fee to obtain the endorsement of the California Democratic Party, although she has not officially entered the race to replace the retiring Henry Waxman in his west L.A. district.

A representative for Fluke told The Daily Caller, “It does not mean she is definitely running … it was a procedural step she had to take with the state party if she would want to be considered for their endorsement, it is not indicative of a final decision.”

More from The Stir: Rush Limbaugh Apologized for Slut Comment ... Now Get Over It

The Georgetown grad moved to California and passed the bar exam two years ago, so she’s a legit candidate. And in the super liberal district she’s running in, she actually has a shot at winning. Think Malibu, Brentwood, and Beverly Hills. I mean, they’re probably not clamoring for free birth control in those neighborhoods, but they’re definitely Obama-voters, and you know how much Obama-voters love their promises of free stuff paid for by other people.

I kid, I kid. Er, um, well let’s just say there’s humor in truth.

No word yet on whether the former candidate for Time magazine’s “Person of the Year” is planning to fund her own race, or if she’ll want that paid for too.

Do you think Sandra Fluke would be a good addition to Congress?

by on Feb. 5, 2014 at 9:09 AM
Replies (11-20):
Pema_Jampa
by 2HotTacoTini on Feb. 5, 2014 at 1:14 PM
1 mom liked this

Alright here :


Leader Pelosi, Members of Congress, good morning, and thank you for calling this hearing on women’s health and allowing me to testify on behalf of the women who will benefit from the Affordable Care Act contraceptive coverage regulation. My name is Sandra Fluke, and I’m a third year student at Georgetown Law, a Jesuit school. I’m also a past president of Georgetown Law Students for Reproductive Justice or LSRJ. I’d like to acknowledge my fellow LSRJ members and allies and all of the student activists with us and thank them for being here today.

Georgetown LSRJ is here today because we’re so grateful that this regulation implements the nonpartisan, medical advice of the Institute of Medicine. I attend a Jesuit law school that does not provide contraception coverage in its student health plan. Just as we students have faced financial, emotional, and medical burdens as a result, employees at religiously affiliated hospitals and universities across the country have suffered similar burdens. We are all grateful for the new regulation that will meet the critical health care needs of so many women. Simultaneously, the recently announced adjustment addresses any potential conflict with the religious identity of Catholic and Jesuit institutions.

When I look around my campus, I see the faces of the women affected, and I have heard more and more of their stories. . On a daily basis, I hear from yet another woman from Georgetown or other schools or who works for a religiously affiliated employer who has suffered financial, emotional, and medical burdens because of this lack of contraceptive coverage. And so, I am here to share their voices and I thank you for allowing them to be heard.

Without insurance coverage, contraception 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 female students at Georgetown Law report struggling financially as a result of this policy. One told us of how embarrassed and powerless she felt when she was standing at the pharmacy counter, learning for the first time that contraception wasn’t covered, and had to walk away because she couldn’t afford it. Women like her have no choice but to go without contraception. Just last week, a married female student told me she had to stop using contraception because she couldn’t afford it any longer. Women employed in low wage jobs without contraceptive coverage face the same choice.

You might respond that contraception is accessible in lots of other ways. Unfortunately, that’s not true. Women’s health clinics provide vital medical services, but as the Guttmacher Institute has documented, clinics are unable to meet the crushing demand for these services. Clinics are closing and women are being forced to go without. How can Congress consider the Fortenberry, Rubio, and Blunt legislation that would allow even more employers and institutions to refuse contraceptive coverage and then respond that the non-profit clinics should step up to take care of the resulting medical crisis, particularly when so many legislators are attempting to defund those very same clinics?

These denials of contraceptive coverage impact real people. In the worst cases, women who need this medication for other medical reasons suffer dire consequences. A friend of mine, for example, has polycystic ovarian syndrome and has to take prescription birth control to stop cysts from growing on her ovaries. Her prescription is technically covered by Georgetown insurance because it’s not intended to prevent pregnancy. Under many religious institutions’ insurance plans, it wouldn’t be, and under Senator Blunt’s amendment, Senator Rubio’s bill, or Representative Fortenberry’s bill, there’s no requirement that an exception be made for such medical needs. When they do exist, these exceptions don’t accomplish their well-intended goals because when you let university administrators or other employers, rather than women and their doctors, dictate whose medical needs are legitimate and whose aren’t, a woman’s health takes a back seat to a bureaucracy focused on policing her body.

In sixty-five percent of cases, our female students were interrogated by insurance representatives and university medical staff about why they needed these prescriptions and whether they were lying about their symptoms. For my friend, and 20% of women in her situation, she never got the insurance company to cover her prescription, despite verification of her illness from her doctor. Her claim was denied repeatedly on the assumption that she really wanted the birth control to prevent pregnancy. She’s gay, so clearly polycystic ovarian syndrome was a much more urgent concern than accidental pregnancy. After months of paying over $100 out of pocket, she just couldn’t afford her medication anymore and had to stop taking it. I learned about all of this when I walked out of a test and got a message from her that in the middle of her final exam period she’d been in the emergency room all night in excruciating pain. She wrote, ‘It was so painful, I woke up thinking I’d been shot.’ Without her taking the birth control, a massive cyst the size of a tennis ball had grown on her ovary. She had to have surgery to remove her entire ovary. On the morning I was originally scheduled to give this testimony, she sat in a doctor’s office. Since last year’s surgery, she’s been experiencing night sweats, weight gain, and other symptoms of early menopause as a result of the removal of her ovary. She’s 32 years old. As she put it: ‘If my body indeed does enter early menopause, no fertility specialist in the world will be able to help me have my own children. I will have no chance at giving my mother her desperately desired grandbabies, simply because the insurance policy that I paid for totally unsubsidized by my school wouldn’t cover my prescription for birth control when I needed it.’ Now, in addition to potentially facing the health complications that come with having menopause at an early age— increased risk of cancer, heart disease, and osteoporosis, she may never be able to conceive a child.

Perhaps you think my friend’s tragic story is rare. It’s not. One woman told us doctors believe she has endometriosis, but it can’t be proven without surgery, so the insurance hasn’t been willing to cover her medication. Recently, another friend of mine told me that she also has polycystic ovarian syndrome. She’s struggling to pay for her medication and is terrified to not have access to it. Due to the barriers erected by Georgetown’s policy, she hasn’t been reimbursed for her medication since last August. I sincerely pray that we don’t have to wait until she loses an ovary or is diagnosed with cancer before her needs and the needs of all of these women are taken seriously.

This is the message that not requiring coverage of contraception sends. A woman’s reproductive healthcare isn’t a necessity, isn’t a priority. One student told us that she knew birth control wasn’t covered, and she assumed that’s how Georgetown’s insurance handled all of women’s sexual healthcare, so when she was raped, she didn’t go to the doctor even to be examined or tested for sexually transmitted infections because she thought insurance wasn’t going to cover something like that, something that was related to a woman’s reproductive health. As one student put it, ‘this policy communicates to female students that our school doesn’t understand our needs.’ These are not feelings that male fellow students experience. And they’re not burdens that male students must shoulder.

In the media lately, conservative Catholic organizations have been asking: what did we expect when we enrolled at a Catholic school? We can only answer that we expected women to be treated equally, to not have our school create untenable burdens that impede our academic success. We expected that our schools would live up to the Jesuit creed of cura personalis, to care for the whole person, by meeting all of our medical needs. We expected that when we told our universities of the problems this policy created for students, they would help us. We expected that when 94% of students opposed the policy, the university would respect our choices regarding insurance students pay for completely unsubsidized by the university. We did not expect that women would be told in the national media that if we wanted comprehensive insurance that met our needs, not just those of men, we should have gone to school elsewhere, even if that meant a less prestigious university. We refuse to pick between a quality education and our health, and we resent that, in the 21st century, anyone thinks it’s acceptable to ask us to make this choice simply because we are women.

Many of the women whose stories I’ve shared are Catholic women, so ours is not a war against the church. It is a struggle for access to the healthcare we need. The President of the Association of Jesuit Colleges has shared that Jesuit colleges and universities appreciate the modification to the rule announced last week. Religious concerns are addressed and women get the healthcare they need. That is something we can all agree on. Thank you.

Show me where she so much as mentions her own sex life once. The correct answer is she doesn’t. She talks about the experiences of friends and other women who came to her in her capacity as a member of Law Students for Reproductive Justice. And the logo of said organization appears right there on the PDF! So not only does Limbaugh and all the rightwing lie-o-sphere completely misrepresent her testimony, they act as if her role as an activist was a huge, sinister secret when it was there, in plain sight, all along!

Of course, I always knew right-wing media and politicians wouldn’t know the truth if it kicked them right in their mendacious mouths, but few things make it quite so…obvious as this.

So in addition to the Limbaugh advertiser boycott campaign, stick another finger in his eye - and those of misogynistic GOPers - by making sure as many people as possible know what Sandra really said.


Read more at http://littlegreenfootballs.com/page/271051_Full_Transcript_of_Sandra_Fluk#zihu3yFoHpJqGqYw.99

Quoting vic270:

  i did not make any false statements against her if i did you point them out and i will make corrections. i do not have any use for her and that is my opinion. i'm entitled to that and i do nt lie. please tell me where i'm wrong.

Quoting Pema_Jampa:

Obviously you didn't watch it. Maybe doing so would help be more informed on what was really said instead of making false statements in regards to Sandra Fluke.

Quoting vic270:

 i did not watch her speech the first time, she made it about her and getting her birth control paid for when obamas adm. was passing obamacare. i thought she made a big idiot of herself then and first impressions do count.

Quoting Pema_Jampa:

You need to watch her speech she gave again. It was not about her. 

Quoting vic270:

she needs to get out of poitics and endorse her own birth control pill. she has done had a lot of success with that. and as long as she is on the pill mayby she won't reproduce.oh i forgot to answer the question NO.






vic270
by Vic on Feb. 5, 2014 at 1:31 PM

 you don,t understand that this means nothing to me. i watched her run around with obama during his last election and basically saying the same things. she even made her little speech at the dnc. i think of all the things in this world there is to worry about miss fluke's birth control is  not one of them. i'm sorry call me heartless i don't care. i think with us paying for her birth control or if we don't she will be just fine.

Quoting Pema_Jampa:

Alright here :

 

Leader Pelosi, Members of Congress, good morning, and thank you for calling this hearing on women’s health and allowing me to testify on behalf of the women who will benefit from the Affordable Care Act contraceptive coverage regulation. My name is Sandra Fluke, and I’m a third year student at Georgetown Law, a Jesuit school. I’m also a past president of Georgetown Law Students for Reproductive Justice or LSRJ. I’d like to acknowledge my fellow LSRJ members and allies and all of the student activists with us and thank them for being here today.

Georgetown LSRJ is here today because we’re so grateful that this regulation implements the nonpartisan, medical advice of the Institute of Medicine. I attend a Jesuit law school that does not provide contraception coverage in its student health plan. Just as we students have faced financial, emotional, and medical burdens as a result, employees at religiously affiliated hospitals and universities across the country have suffered similar burdens. We are all grateful for the new regulation that will meet the critical health care needs of so many women. Simultaneously, the recently announced adjustment addresses any potential conflict with the religious identity of Catholic and Jesuit institutions.

When I look around my campus, I see the faces of the women affected, and I have heard more and more of their stories. . On a daily basis, I hear from yet another woman from Georgetown or other schools or who works for a religiously affiliated employer who has suffered financial, emotional, and medical burdens because of this lack of contraceptive coverage. And so, I am here to share their voices and I thank you for allowing them to be heard.

Without insurance coverage, contraception 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 female students at Georgetown Law report struggling financially as a result of this policy. One told us of how embarrassed and powerless she felt when she was standing at the pharmacy counter, learning for the first time that contraception wasn’t covered, and had to walk away because she couldn’t afford it. Women like her have no choice but to go without contraception. Just last week, a married female student told me she had to stop using contraception because she couldn’t afford it any longer. Women employed in low wage jobs without contraceptive coverage face the same choice.

You might respond that contraception is accessible in lots of other ways. Unfortunately, that’s not true. Women’s health clinics provide vital medical services, but as the Guttmacher Institute has documented, clinics are unable to meet the crushing demand for these services. Clinics are closing and women are being forced to go without. How can Congress consider the Fortenberry, Rubio, and Blunt legislation that would allow even more employers and institutions to refuse contraceptive coverage and then respond that the non-profit clinics should step up to take care of the resulting medical crisis, particularly when so many legislators are attempting to defund those very same clinics?

These denials of contraceptive coverage impact real people. In the worst cases, women who need this medication for other medical reasons suffer dire consequences. A friend of mine, for example, has polycystic ovarian syndrome and has to take prescription birth control to stop cysts from growing on her ovaries. Her prescription is technically covered by Georgetown insurance because it’s not intended to prevent pregnancy. Under many religious institutions’ insurance plans, it wouldn’t be, and under Senator Blunt’s amendment, Senator Rubio’s bill, or Representative Fortenberry’s bill, there’s no requirement that an exception be made for such medical needs. When they do exist, these exceptions don’t accomplish their well-intended goals because when you let university administrators or other employers, rather than women and their doctors, dictate whose medical needs are legitimate and whose aren’t, a woman’s health takes a back seat to a bureaucracy focused on policing her body.

In sixty-five percent of cases, our female students were interrogated by insurance representatives and university medical staff about why they needed these prescriptions and whether they were lying about their symptoms. For my friend, and 20% of women in her situation, she never got the insurance company to cover her prescription, despite verification of her illness from her doctor. Her claim was denied repeatedly on the assumption that she really wanted the birth control to prevent pregnancy. She’s gay, so clearly polycystic ovarian syndrome was a much more urgent concern than accidental pregnancy. After months of paying over $100 out of pocket, she just couldn’t afford her medication anymore and had to stop taking it. I learned about all of this when I walked out of a test and got a message from her that in the middle of her final exam period she’d been in the emergency room all night in excruciating pain. She wrote, ‘It was so painful, I woke up thinking I’d been shot.’ Without her taking the birth control, a massive cyst the size of a tennis ball had grown on her ovary. She had to have surgery to remove her entire ovary. On the morning I was originally scheduled to give this testimony, she sat in a doctor’s office. Since last year’s surgery, she’s been experiencing night sweats, weight gain, and other symptoms of early menopause as a result of the removal of her ovary. She’s 32 years old. As she put it: ‘If my body indeed does enter early menopause, no fertility specialist in the world will be able to help me have my own children. I will have no chance at giving my mother her desperately desired grandbabies, simply because the insurance policy that I paid for totally unsubsidized by my school wouldn’t cover my prescription for birth control when I needed it.’ Now, in addition to potentially facing the health complications that come with having menopause at an early age— increased risk of cancer, heart disease, and osteoporosis, she may never be able to conceive a child.

Perhaps you think my friend’s tragic story is rare. It’s not. One woman told us doctors believe she has endometriosis, but it can’t be proven without surgery, so the insurance hasn’t been willing to cover her medication. Recently, another friend of mine told me that she also has polycystic ovarian syndrome. She’s struggling to pay for her medication and is terrified to not have access to it. Due to the barriers erected by Georgetown’s policy, she hasn’t been reimbursed for her medication since last August. I sincerely pray that we don’t have to wait until she loses an ovary or is diagnosed with cancer before her needs and the needs of all of these women are taken seriously.

This is the message that not requiring coverage of contraception sends. A woman’s reproductive healthcare isn’t a necessity, isn’t a priority. One student told us that she knew birth control wasn’t covered, and she assumed that’s how Georgetown’s insurance handled all of women’s sexual healthcare, so when she was raped, she didn’t go to the doctor even to be examined or tested for sexually transmitted infections because she thought insurance wasn’t going to cover something like that, something that was related to a woman’s reproductive health. As one student put it, ‘this policy communicates to female students that our school doesn’t understand our needs.’ These are not feelings that male fellow students experience. And they’re not burdens that male students must shoulder.

In the media lately, conservative Catholic organizations have been asking: what did we expect when we enrolled at a Catholic school? We can only answer that we expected women to be treated equally, to not have our school create untenable burdens that impede our academic success. We expected that our schools would live up to the Jesuit creed of cura personalis, to care for the whole person, by meeting all of our medical needs. We expected that when we told our universities of the problems this policy created for students, they would help us. We expected that when 94% of students opposed the policy, the university would respect our choices regarding insurance students pay for completely unsubsidized by the university. We did not expect that women would be told in the national media that if we wanted comprehensive insurance that met our needs, not just those of men, we should have gone to school elsewhere, even if that meant a less prestigious university. We refuse to pick between a quality education and our health, and we resent that, in the 21st century, anyone thinks it’s acceptable to ask us to make this choice simply because we are women.

Many of the women whose stories I’ve shared are Catholic women, so ours is not a war against the church. It is a struggle for access to the healthcare we need. The President of the Association of Jesuit Colleges has shared that Jesuit colleges and universities appreciate the modification to the rule announced last week. Religious concerns are addressed and women get the healthcare they need. That is something we can all agree on. Thank you.

Show me where she so much as mentions her own sex life once. The correct answer is she doesn’t. She talks about the experiences of friends and other women who came to her in her capacity as a member of Law Students for Reproductive Justice. And the logo of said organization appears right there on the PDF! So not only does Limbaugh and all the rightwing lie-o-sphere completely misrepresent her testimony, they act as if her role as an activist was a huge, sinister secret when it was there, in plain sight, all along!

Of course, I always knew right-wing media and politicians wouldn’t know the truth if it kicked them right in their mendacious mouths, but few things make it quite so…obvious as this.

So in addition to the Limbaugh advertiser boycott campaign, stick another finger in his eye - and those of misogynistic GOPers - by making sure as many people as possible know what Sandra really said.


Read more at http://littlegreenfootballs.com/page/271051_Full_Transcript_of_Sandra_Fluk#zihu3yFoHpJqGqYw.99

Quoting vic270:

  i did not make any false statements against her if i did you point them out and i will make corrections. i do not have any use for her and that is my opinion. i'm entitled to that and i do nt lie. please tell me where i'm wrong.

Quoting Pema_Jampa:

Obviously you didn't watch it. Maybe doing so would help be more informed on what was really said instead of making false statements in regards to Sandra Fluke.

Quoting vic270:

 i did not watch her speech the first time, she made it about her and getting her birth control paid for when obamas adm. was passing obamacare. i thought she made a big idiot of herself then and first impressions do count.

Quoting Pema_Jampa:

You need to watch her speech she gave again. It was not about her. 

Quoting vic270:

she needs to get out of poitics and endorse her own birth control pill. she has done had a lot of success with that. and as long as she is on the pill mayby she won't reproduce.oh i forgot to answer the question NO.


 


 


 

Pema_Jampa
by 2HotTacoTini on Feb. 5, 2014 at 1:37 PM
1 mom liked this

Again proving you didn't even read what I provided you. I'm done.

Quoting vic270:

 you don,t understand that this means nothing to me. i watched her run around with obama during his last election and basically saying the same things. she even made her little speech at the dnc. i think of all the things in this world there is to worry about miss fluke's birth control is  not one of them. i'm sorry call me heartless i don't care. i think with us paying for her birth control or if we don't she will be just fine.

Quoting Pema_Jampa:

Alright here :


Leader Pelosi, Members of Congress, good morning, and thank you for calling this hearing on women’s health and allowing me to testify on behalf of the women who will benefit from the Affordable Care Act contraceptive coverage regulation. My name is Sandra Fluke, and I’m a third year student at Georgetown Law, a Jesuit school. I’m also a past president of Georgetown Law Students for Reproductive Justice or LSRJ. I’d like to acknowledge my fellow LSRJ members and allies and all of the student activists with us and thank them for being here today.

Georgetown LSRJ is here today because we’re so grateful that this regulation implements the nonpartisan, medical advice of the Institute of Medicine. I attend a Jesuit law school that does not provide contraception coverage in its student health plan. Just as we students have faced financial, emotional, and medical burdens as a result, employees at religiously affiliated hospitals and universities across the country have suffered similar burdens. We are all grateful for the new regulation that will meet the critical health care needs of so many women. Simultaneously, the recently announced adjustment addresses any potential conflict with the religious identity of Catholic and Jesuit institutions.

When I look around my campus, I see the faces of the women affected, and I have heard more and more of their stories. . On a daily basis, I hear from yet another woman from Georgetown or other schools or who works for a religiously affiliated employer who has suffered financial, emotional, and medical burdens because of this lack of contraceptive coverage. And so, I am here to share their voices and I thank you for allowing them to be heard.

Without insurance coverage, contraception 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 female students at Georgetown Law report struggling financially as a result of this policy. One told us of how embarrassed and powerless she felt when she was standing at the pharmacy counter, learning for the first time that contraception wasn’t covered, and had to walk away because she couldn’t afford it. Women like her have no choice but to go without contraception. Just last week, a married female student told me she had to stop using contraception because she couldn’t afford it any longer. Women employed in low wage jobs without contraceptive coverage face the same choice.

You might respond that contraception is accessible in lots of other ways. Unfortunately, that’s not true. Women’s health clinics provide vital medical services, but as the Guttmacher Institute has documented, clinics are unable to meet the crushing demand for these services. Clinics are closing and women are being forced to go without. How can Congress consider the Fortenberry, Rubio, and Blunt legislation that would allow even more employers and institutions to refuse contraceptive coverage and then respond that the non-profit clinics should step up to take care of the resulting medical crisis, particularly when so many legislators are attempting to defund those very same clinics?

These denials of contraceptive coverage impact real people. In the worst cases, women who need this medication for other medical reasons suffer dire consequences. A friend of mine, for example, has polycystic ovarian syndrome and has to take prescription birth control to stop cysts from growing on her ovaries. Her prescription is technically covered by Georgetown insurance because it’s not intended to prevent pregnancy. Under many religious institutions’ insurance plans, it wouldn’t be, and under Senator Blunt’s amendment, Senator Rubio’s bill, or Representative Fortenberry’s bill, there’s no requirement that an exception be made for such medical needs. When they do exist, these exceptions don’t accomplish their well-intended goals because when you let university administrators or other employers, rather than women and their doctors, dictate whose medical needs are legitimate and whose aren’t, a woman’s health takes a back seat to a bureaucracy focused on policing her body.

In sixty-five percent of cases, our female students were interrogated by insurance representatives and university medical staff about why they needed these prescriptions and whether they were lying about their symptoms. For my friend, and 20% of women in her situation, she never got the insurance company to cover her prescription, despite verification of her illness from her doctor. Her claim was denied repeatedly on the assumption that she really wanted the birth control to prevent pregnancy. She’s gay, so clearly polycystic ovarian syndrome was a much more urgent concern than accidental pregnancy. After months of paying over $100 out of pocket, she just couldn’t afford her medication anymore and had to stop taking it. I learned about all of this when I walked out of a test and got a message from her that in the middle of her final exam period she’d been in the emergency room all night in excruciating pain. She wrote, ‘It was so painful, I woke up thinking I’d been shot.’ Without her taking the birth control, a massive cyst the size of a tennis ball had grown on her ovary. She had to have surgery to remove her entire ovary. On the morning I was originally scheduled to give this testimony, she sat in a doctor’s office. Since last year’s surgery, she’s been experiencing night sweats, weight gain, and other symptoms of early menopause as a result of the removal of her ovary. She’s 32 years old. As she put it: ‘If my body indeed does enter early menopause, no fertility specialist in the world will be able to help me have my own children. I will have no chance at giving my mother her desperately desired grandbabies, simply because the insurance policy that I paid for totally unsubsidized by my school wouldn’t cover my prescription for birth control when I needed it.’ Now, in addition to potentially facing the health complications that come with having menopause at an early age— increased risk of cancer, heart disease, and osteoporosis, she may never be able to conceive a child.

Perhaps you think my friend’s tragic story is rare. It’s not. One woman told us doctors believe she has endometriosis, but it can’t be proven without surgery, so the insurance hasn’t been willing to cover her medication. Recently, another friend of mine told me that she also has polycystic ovarian syndrome. She’s struggling to pay for her medication and is terrified to not have access to it. Due to the barriers erected by Georgetown’s policy, she hasn’t been reimbursed for her medication since last August. I sincerely pray that we don’t have to wait until she loses an ovary or is diagnosed with cancer before her needs and the needs of all of these women are taken seriously.

This is the message that not requiring coverage of contraception sends. A woman’s reproductive healthcare isn’t a necessity, isn’t a priority. One student told us that she knew birth control wasn’t covered, and she assumed that’s how Georgetown’s insurance handled all of women’s sexual healthcare, so when she was raped, she didn’t go to the doctor even to be examined or tested for sexually transmitted infections because she thought insurance wasn’t going to cover something like that, something that was related to a woman’s reproductive health. As one student put it, ‘this policy communicates to female students that our school doesn’t understand our needs.’ These are not feelings that male fellow students experience. And they’re not burdens that male students must shoulder.

In the media lately, conservative Catholic organizations have been asking: what did we expect when we enrolled at a Catholic school? We can only answer that we expected women to be treated equally, to not have our school create untenable burdens that impede our academic success. We expected that our schools would live up to the Jesuit creed of cura personalis, to care for the whole person, by meeting all of our medical needs. We expected that when we told our universities of the problems this policy created for students, they would help us. We expected that when 94% of students opposed the policy, the university would respect our choices regarding insurance students pay for completely unsubsidized by the university. We did not expect that women would be told in the national media that if we wanted comprehensive insurance that met our needs, not just those of men, we should have gone to school elsewhere, even if that meant a less prestigious university. We refuse to pick between a quality education and our health, and we resent that, in the 21st century, anyone thinks it’s acceptable to ask us to make this choice simply because we are women.

Many of the women whose stories I’ve shared are Catholic women, so ours is not a war against the church. It is a struggle for access to the healthcare we need. The President of the Association of Jesuit Colleges has shared that Jesuit colleges and universities appreciate the modification to the rule announced last week. Religious concerns are addressed and women get the healthcare they need. That is something we can all agree on. Thank you.

Show me where she so much as mentions her own sex life once. The correct answer is she doesn’t. She talks about the experiences of friends and other women who came to her in her capacity as a member of Law Students for Reproductive Justice. And the logo of said organization appears right there on the PDF! So not only does Limbaugh and all the rightwing lie-o-sphere completely misrepresent her testimony, they act as if her role as an activist was a huge, sinister secret when it was there, in plain sight, all along!

Of course, I always knew right-wing media and politicians wouldn’t know the truth if it kicked them right in their mendacious mouths, but few things make it quite so…obvious as this.

So in addition to the Limbaugh advertiser boycott campaign, stick another finger in his eye - and those of misogynistic GOPers - by making sure as many people as possible know what Sandra really said.


Read more at http://littlegreenfootballs.com/page/271051_Full_Transcript_of_Sandra_Fluk#zihu3yFoHpJqGqYw.99

Quoting vic270:

  i did not make any false statements against her if i did you point them out and i will make corrections. i do not have any use for her and that is my opinion. i'm entitled to that and i do nt lie. please tell me where i'm wrong.

Quoting Pema_Jampa:

Obviously you didn't watch it. Maybe doing so would help be more informed on what was really said instead of making false statements in regards to Sandra Fluke.

Quoting vic270:

 i did not watch her speech the first time, she made it about her and getting her birth control paid for when obamas adm. was passing obamacare. i thought she made a big idiot of herself then and first impressions do count.

Quoting Pema_Jampa:

You need to watch her speech she gave again. It was not about her. 

Quoting vic270:

she needs to get out of poitics and endorse her own birth control pill. she has done had a lot of success with that. and as long as she is on the pill mayby she won't reproduce.oh i forgot to answer the question NO.








Billiejeens
by Ruby Member on Feb. 5, 2014 at 1:39 PM

 (the world will never know - she pulled out early)

WAIT!

Contraception activist Sandra Fluke has decided she will not be running for California Democratic Rep. Henry Waxman’s soon-to-be vacated congressional seat.

Instead, the Democratic attorney who made a name for herself advocating for federal contraception coverage will be running for California State Senate.

“It is official! Thanks so much to everyone who encouraged me to #runsandrarun, your support means the world to me. Today I have announced that I am running for California State Senate,” Fluke wrote on Facebook Wednesday morning. “I hope you will continue to stand with me and fight!”

Quoting vic270:

 

 

 you don,t understand that this means nothing to me. i watched her run around with obama during his last election and basically saying the same things. she even made her little speech at the dnc. i think of all the things in this world there is to worry about miss fluke's birth control is  not one of them. i'm sorry call me heartless i don't care. i think with us paying for her birth control or if we don't she will be just fine.

Quoting Pema_Jampa:

Alright here :

 

Leader Pelosi, Members of Congress, good morning, and thank you for calling this hearing on women’s health and allowing me to testify on behalf of the women who will benefit from the Affordable Care Act contraceptive coverage regulation. My name is Sandra Fluke, and I’m a third year student at Georgetown Law, a Jesuit school. I’m also a past president of Georgetown Law Students for Reproductive Justice or LSRJ. I’d like to acknowledge my fellow LSRJ members and allies and all of the student activists with us and thank them for being here today.

Georgetown LSRJ is here today because we’re so grateful that this regulation implements the nonpartisan, medical advice of the Institute of Medicine. I attend a Jesuit law school that does not provide contraception coverage in its student health plan. Just as we students have faced financial, emotional, and medical burdens as a result, employees at religiously affiliated hospitals and universities across the country have suffered similar burdens. We are all grateful for the new regulation that will meet the critical health care needs of so many women. Simultaneously, the recently announced adjustment addresses any potential conflict with the religious identity of Catholic and Jesuit institutions.

When I look around my campus, I see the faces of the women affected, and I have heard more and more of their stories. . On a daily basis, I hear from yet another woman from Georgetown or other schools or who works for a religiously affiliated employer who has suffered financial, emotional, and medical burdens because of this lack of contraceptive coverage. And so, I am here to share their voices and I thank you for allowing them to be heard.

Without insurance coverage, contraception 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 female students at Georgetown Law report struggling financially as a result of this policy. One told us of how embarrassed and powerless she felt when she was standing at the pharmacy counter, learning for the first time that contraception wasn’t covered, and had to walk away because she couldn’t afford it. Women like her have no choice but to go without contraception. Just last week, a married female student told me she had to stop using contraception because she couldn’t afford it any longer. Women employed in low wage jobs without contraceptive coverage face the same choice.

You might respond that contraception is accessible in lots of other ways. Unfortunately, that’s not true. Women’s health clinics provide vital medical services, but as the Guttmacher Institute has documented, clinics are unable to meet the crushing demand for these services. Clinics are closing and women are being forced to go without. How can Congress consider the Fortenberry, Rubio, and Blunt legislation that would allow even more employers and institutions to refuse contraceptive coverage and then respond that the non-profit clinics should step up to take care of the resulting medical crisis, particularly when so many legislators are attempting to defund those very same clinics?

These denials of contraceptive coverage impact real people. In the worst cases, women who need this medication for other medical reasons suffer dire consequences. A friend of mine, for example, has polycystic ovarian syndrome and has to take prescription birth control to stop cysts from growing on her ovaries. Her prescription is technically covered by Georgetown insurance because it’s not intended to prevent pregnancy. Under many religious institutions’ insurance plans, it wouldn’t be, and under Senator Blunt’s amendment, Senator Rubio’s bill, or Representative Fortenberry’s bill, there’s no requirement that an exception be made for such medical needs. When they do exist, these exceptions don’t accomplish their well-intended goals because when you let university administrators or other employers, rather than women and their doctors, dictate whose medical needs are legitimate and whose aren’t, a woman’s health takes a back seat to a bureaucracy focused on policing her body.

In sixty-five percent of cases, our female students were interrogated by insurance representatives and university medical staff about why they needed these prescriptions and whether they were lying about their symptoms. For my friend, and 20% of women in her situation, she never got the insurance company to cover her prescription, despite verification of her illness from her doctor. Her claim was denied repeatedly on the assumption that she really wanted the birth control to prevent pregnancy. She’s gay, so clearly polycystic ovarian syndrome was a much more urgent concern than accidental pregnancy. After months of paying over $100 out of pocket, she just couldn’t afford her medication anymore and had to stop taking it. I learned about all of this when I walked out of a test and got a message from her that in the middle of her final exam period she’d been in the emergency room all night in excruciating pain. She wrote, ‘It was so painful, I woke up thinking I’d been shot.’ Without her taking the birth control, a massive cyst the size of a tennis ball had grown on her ovary. She had to have surgery to remove her entire ovary. On the morning I was originally scheduled to give this testimony, she sat in a doctor’s office. Since last year’s surgery, she’s been experiencing night sweats, weight gain, and other symptoms of early menopause as a result of the removal of her ovary. She’s 32 years old. As she put it: ‘If my body indeed does enter early menopause, no fertility specialist in the world will be able to help me have my own children. I will have no chance at giving my mother her desperately desired grandbabies, simply because the insurance policy that I paid for totally unsubsidized by my school wouldn’t cover my prescription for birth control when I needed it.’ Now, in addition to potentially facing the health complications that come with having menopause at an early age— increased risk of cancer, heart disease, and osteoporosis, she may never be able to conceive a child.

Perhaps you think my friend’s tragic story is rare. It’s not. One woman told us doctors believe she has endometriosis, but it can’t be proven without surgery, so the insurance hasn’t been willing to cover her medication. Recently, another friend of mine told me that she also has polycystic ovarian syndrome. She’s struggling to pay for her medication and is terrified to not have access to it. Due to the barriers erected by Georgetown’s policy, she hasn’t been reimbursed for her medication since last August. I sincerely pray that we don’t have to wait until she loses an ovary or is diagnosed with cancer before her needs and the needs of all of these women are taken seriously.

This is the message that not requiring coverage of contraception sends. A woman’s reproductive healthcare isn’t a necessity, isn’t a priority. One student told us that she knew birth control wasn’t covered, and she assumed that’s how Georgetown’s insurance handled all of women’s sexual healthcare, so when she was raped, she didn’t go to the doctor even to be examined or tested for sexually transmitted infections because she thought insurance wasn’t going to cover something like that, something that was related to a woman’s reproductive health. As one student put it, ‘this policy communicates to female students that our school doesn’t understand our needs.’ These are not feelings that male fellow students experience. And they’re not burdens that male students must shoulder.

In the media lately, conservative Catholic organizations have been asking: what did we expect when we enrolled at a Catholic school? We can only answer that we expected women to be treated equally, to not have our school create untenable burdens that impede our academic success. We expected that our schools would live up to the Jesuit creed of cura personalis, to care for the whole person, by meeting all of our medical needs. We expected that when we told our universities of the problems this policy created for students, they would help us. We expected that when 94% of students opposed the policy, the university would respect our choices regarding insurance students pay for completely unsubsidized by the university. We did not expect that women would be told in the national media that if we wanted comprehensive insurance that met our needs, not just those of men, we should have gone to school elsewhere, even if that meant a less prestigious university. We refuse to pick between a quality education and our health, and we resent that, in the 21st century, anyone thinks it’s acceptable to ask us to make this choice simply because we are women.

Many of the women whose stories I’ve shared are Catholic women, so ours is not a war against the church. It is a struggle for access to the healthcare we need. The President of the Association of Jesuit Colleges has shared that Jesuit colleges and universities appreciate the modification to the rule announced last week. Religious concerns are addressed and women get the healthcare they need. That is something we can all agree on. Thank you.

Show me where she so much as mentions her own sex life once. The correct answer is she doesn’t. She talks about the experiences of friends and other women who came to her in her capacity as a member of Law Students for Reproductive Justice. And the logo of said organization appears right there on the PDF! So not only does Limbaugh and all the rightwing lie-o-sphere completely misrepresent her testimony, they act as if her role as an activist was a huge, sinister secret when it was there, in plain sight, all along!

Of course, I always knew right-wing media and politicians wouldn’t know the truth if it kicked them right in their mendacious mouths, but few things make it quite so…obvious as this.

So in addition to the Limbaugh advertiser boycott campaign, stick another finger in his eye - and those of misogynistic GOPers - by making sure as many people as possible know what Sandra really said.


Read more at http://littlegreenfootballs.com/page/271051_Full_Transcript_of_Sandra_Fluk#zihu3yFoHpJqGqYw.99

Quoting vic270:

  i did not make any false statements against her if i did you point them out and i will make corrections. i do not have any use for her and that is my opinion. i'm entitled to that and i do nt lie. please tell me where i'm wrong.

Quoting Pema_Jampa:

Obviously you didn't watch it. Maybe doing so would help be more informed on what was really said instead of making false statements in regards to Sandra Fluke.

Quoting vic270:

 i did not watch her speech the first time, she made it about her and getting her birth control paid for when obamas adm. was passing obamacare. i thought she made a big idiot of herself then and first impressions do count.

Quoting Pema_Jampa:

You need to watch her speech she gave again. It was not about her. 

Quoting vic270:

she needs to get out of poitics and endorse her own birth control pill. she has done had a lot of success with that. and as long as she is on the pill mayby she won't reproduce.oh i forgot to answer the question NO.


 


 


 

 

vic270
by Vic on Feb. 5, 2014 at 2:06 PM

 what i based my decision on is what she said during her time running around with obama. i am sorry but limbaugh had nothing to do with it. is this wrong of me? i am just not a fan of hers and i can't help it. i don't like what she has stood for in the past and i'm not interested in her future in politics or anything else. i make my own decisions and i'm not asking you to not like her. so once no hard feelings, just my opinion.

Quoting Pema_Jampa:

Again proving you didn't even read what I provided you. I'm done.

Quoting vic270:

 you don,t understand that this means nothing to me. i watched her run around with obama during his last election and basically saying the same things. she even made her little speech at the dnc. i think of all the things in this world there is to worry about miss fluke's birth control is  not one of them. i'm sorry call me heartless i don't care. i think with us paying for her birth control or if we don't she will be just fine.

Quoting Pema_Jampa:

Alright here :

 

Leader Pelosi, Members of Congress, good morning, and thank you for calling this hearing on women’s health and allowing me to testify on behalf of the women who will benefit from the Affordable Care Act contraceptive coverage regulation. My name is Sandra Fluke, and I’m a third year student at Georgetown Law, a Jesuit school. I’m also a past president of Georgetown Law Students for Reproductive Justice or LSRJ. I’d like to acknowledge my fellow LSRJ members and allies and all of the student activists with us and thank them for being here today.

Georgetown LSRJ is here today because we’re so grateful that this regulation implements the nonpartisan, medical advice of the Institute of Medicine. I attend a Jesuit law school that does not provide contraception coverage in its student health plan. Just as we students have faced financial, emotional, and medical burdens as a result, employees at religiously affiliated hospitals and universities across the country have suffered similar burdens. We are all grateful for the new regulation that will meet the critical health care needs of so many women. Simultaneously, the recently announced adjustment addresses any potential conflict with the religious identity of Catholic and Jesuit institutions.

When I look around my campus, I see the faces of the women affected, and I have heard more and more of their stories. . On a daily basis, I hear from yet another woman from Georgetown or other schools or who works for a religiously affiliated employer who has suffered financial, emotional, and medical burdens because of this lack of contraceptive coverage. And so, I am here to share their voices and I thank you for allowing them to be heard.

Without insurance coverage, contraception 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 female students at Georgetown Law report struggling financially as a result of this policy. One told us of how embarrassed and powerless she felt when she was standing at the pharmacy counter, learning for the first time that contraception wasn’t covered, and had to walk away because she couldn’t afford it. Women like her have no choice but to go without contraception. Just last week, a married female student told me she had to stop using contraception because she couldn’t afford it any longer. Women employed in low wage jobs without contraceptive coverage face the same choice.

You might respond that contraception is accessible in lots of other ways. Unfortunately, that’s not true. Women’s health clinics provide vital medical services, but as the Guttmacher Institute has documented, clinics are unable to meet the crushing demand for these services. Clinics are closing and women are being forced to go without. How can Congress consider the Fortenberry, Rubio, and Blunt legislation that would allow even more employers and institutions to refuse contraceptive coverage and then respond that the non-profit clinics should step up to take care of the resulting medical crisis, particularly when so many legislators are attempting to defund those very same clinics?

These denials of contraceptive coverage impact real people. In the worst cases, women who need this medication for other medical reasons suffer dire consequences. A friend of mine, for example, has polycystic ovarian syndrome and has to take prescription birth control to stop cysts from growing on her ovaries. Her prescription is technically covered by Georgetown insurance because it’s not intended to prevent pregnancy. Under many religious institutions’ insurance plans, it wouldn’t be, and under Senator Blunt’s amendment, Senator Rubio’s bill, or Representative Fortenberry’s bill, there’s no requirement that an exception be made for such medical needs. When they do exist, these exceptions don’t accomplish their well-intended goals because when you let university administrators or other employers, rather than women and their doctors, dictate whose medical needs are legitimate and whose aren’t, a woman’s health takes a back seat to a bureaucracy focused on policing her body.

In sixty-five percent of cases, our female students were interrogated by insurance representatives and university medical staff about why they needed these prescriptions and whether they were lying about their symptoms. For my friend, and 20% of women in her situation, she never got the insurance company to cover her prescription, despite verification of her illness from her doctor. Her claim was denied repeatedly on the assumption that she really wanted the birth control to prevent pregnancy. She’s gay, so clearly polycystic ovarian syndrome was a much more urgent concern than accidental pregnancy. After months of paying over $100 out of pocket, she just couldn’t afford her medication anymore and had to stop taking it. I learned about all of this when I walked out of a test and got a message from her that in the middle of her final exam period she’d been in the emergency room all night in excruciating pain. She wrote, ‘It was so painful, I woke up thinking I’d been shot.’ Without her taking the birth control, a massive cyst the size of a tennis ball had grown on her ovary. She had to have surgery to remove her entire ovary. On the morning I was originally scheduled to give this testimony, she sat in a doctor’s office. Since last year’s surgery, she’s been experiencing night sweats, weight gain, and other symptoms of early menopause as a result of the removal of her ovary. She’s 32 years old. As she put it: ‘If my body indeed does enter early menopause, no fertility specialist in the world will be able to help me have my own children. I will have no chance at giving my mother her desperately desired grandbabies, simply because the insurance policy that I paid for totally unsubsidized by my school wouldn’t cover my prescription for birth control when I needed it.’ Now, in addition to potentially facing the health complications that come with having menopause at an early age— increased risk of cancer, heart disease, and osteoporosis, she may never be able to conceive a child.

Perhaps you think my friend’s tragic story is rare. It’s not. One woman told us doctors believe she has endometriosis, but it can’t be proven without surgery, so the insurance hasn’t been willing to cover her medication. Recently, another friend of mine told me that she also has polycystic ovarian syndrome. She’s struggling to pay for her medication and is terrified to not have access to it. Due to the barriers erected by Georgetown’s policy, she hasn’t been reimbursed for her medication since last August. I sincerely pray that we don’t have to wait until she loses an ovary or is diagnosed with cancer before her needs and the needs of all of these women are taken seriously.

This is the message that not requiring coverage of contraception sends. A woman’s reproductive healthcare isn’t a necessity, isn’t a priority. One student told us that she knew birth control wasn’t covered, and she assumed that’s how Georgetown’s insurance handled all of women’s sexual healthcare, so when she was raped, she didn’t go to the doctor even to be examined or tested for sexually transmitted infections because she thought insurance wasn’t going to cover something like that, something that was related to a woman’s reproductive health. As one student put it, ‘this policy communicates to female students that our school doesn’t understand our needs.’ These are not feelings that male fellow students experience. And they’re not burdens that male students must shoulder.

In the media lately, conservative Catholic organizations have been asking: what did we expect when we enrolled at a Catholic school? We can only answer that we expected women to be treated equally, to not have our school create untenable burdens that impede our academic success. We expected that our schools would live up to the Jesuit creed of cura personalis, to care for the whole person, by meeting all of our medical needs. We expected that when we told our universities of the problems this policy created for students, they would help us. We expected that when 94% of students opposed the policy, the university would respect our choices regarding insurance students pay for completely unsubsidized by the university. We did not expect that women would be told in the national media that if we wanted comprehensive insurance that met our needs, not just those of men, we should have gone to school elsewhere, even if that meant a less prestigious university. We refuse to pick between a quality education and our health, and we resent that, in the 21st century, anyone thinks it’s acceptable to ask us to make this choice simply because we are women.

Many of the women whose stories I’ve shared are Catholic women, so ours is not a war against the church. It is a struggle for access to the healthcare we need. The President of the Association of Jesuit Colleges has shared that Jesuit colleges and universities appreciate the modification to the rule announced last week. Religious concerns are addressed and women get the healthcare they need. That is something we can all agree on. Thank you.

Show me where she so much as mentions her own sex life once. The correct answer is she doesn’t. She talks about the experiences of friends and other women who came to her in her capacity as a member of Law Students for Reproductive Justice. And the logo of said organization appears right there on the PDF! So not only does Limbaugh and all the rightwing lie-o-sphere completely misrepresent her testimony, they act as if her role as an activist was a huge, sinister secret when it was there, in plain sight, all along!

Of course, I always knew right-wing media and politicians wouldn’t know the truth if it kicked them right in their mendacious mouths, but few things make it quite so…obvious as this.

So in addition to the Limbaugh advertiser boycott campaign, stick another finger in his eye - and those of misogynistic GOPers - by making sure as many people as possible know what Sandra really said.


Read more at http://littlegreenfootballs.com/page/271051_Full_Transcript_of_Sandra_Fluk#zihu3yFoHpJqGqYw.99

Quoting vic270:

  i did not make any false statements against her if i did you point them out and i will make corrections. i do not have any use for her and that is my opinion. i'm entitled to that and i do nt lie. please tell me where i'm wrong.

Quoting Pema_Jampa:

Obviously you didn't watch it. Maybe doing so would help be more informed on what was really said instead of making false statements in regards to Sandra Fluke.

Quoting vic270:

 i did not watch her speech the first time, she made it about her and getting her birth control paid for when obamas adm. was passing obamacare. i thought she made a big idiot of herself then and first impressions do count.

Quoting Pema_Jampa:

You need to watch her speech she gave again. It was not about her. 

Quoting vic270:

she needs to get out of poitics and endorse her own birth control pill. she has done had a lot of success with that. and as long as she is on the pill mayby she won't reproduce.oh i forgot to answer the question NO.


 


 


 


 

sillygirl83
by Member on Feb. 5, 2014 at 2:56 PM

Dear God no.

Billiejeens
by Ruby Member on Feb. 5, 2014 at 3:00 PM

 No worries.

She aborted that idea already.

Quoting sillygirl83:

Dear God no.

 

vic270
by Vic on Feb. 5, 2014 at 5:50 PM
1 mom liked this

 no pun intended?lol

Quoting Billiejeens:

 No worries.

She aborted that idea already.

Quoting sillygirl83:

Dear God no.

 

 

blueforewolf
by on Feb. 6, 2014 at 1:40 AM

yes 

kailu1835
by Silver Member on Feb. 6, 2014 at 1:50 AM
1 mom liked this

I have no idea.  I know nothing about her other than she is pro-government and pro-choice.  Being democrat, I would have to say probably not.  Most democrats are not good additions to congress.  There have been a few exceptions.

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

close Join now to connect to
other members!
Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN