Wednesday, October 3, 2012

Surely this is just a fluke...

Ms. Fluke's testimony regarding contraception coverage for students at a Catholic school (

Here is my analysis (Ms. Fluke's words in quotes): 

"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."

Consider that LSRJ is within a body that fundamentally disagrees with its goals, yet sponsors it, allows it to exist and to speak out.

"I attend a Jesuit law school that does not provide contraception coverage in its student health plan."

They also do not require her to have sexual relations. In fact, as she is an unmarried person, I'd bet they discourage it. Contraception for sex isn't like clean air for breathing or clean water for drinking -- sex is (normally) 100% optional.

"Simultaneously, the recently announced adjustment addresses any potential conflict with the religious identity of Catholic and Jesuit institutions."

Gotta call B.S. here. Many (but not all) Catholic institutions respectfully disagree. The 'adjustment' simply said, 'You Catholic organizations don't have to pay for BC, your insurance companies will pay.' Right. Who is being mandated to pay the insurance company to pay for the BC? How stupid does our Government think we are?

"Without insurance coverage, contraception can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school."

OK. This has been widely misquoted as "over $3,000 per year." How long is law school? One major law school reports: 'Full-time students can graduate in three years by taking an average of 15 credit hours per semester.', accessed 10/3/2012.

So she's saying $1,000 per year. In a recent communication, a friend, Rich Glisson, says routine contraception can cost up to $65/month. That's $780.00 per year. $2.14 per day. I'll bet she spends more than that at Starbucks, despite "...suffering the burden..." of paying for her own contraceptives. Georgetown University's Website states that their law school education will cost about $50,000 per year (, referenced 10/3/2012). An additional $780.00 is 1.56% of that cost. My point in other discussions, while somewhat diluted, stands. She has inflated the cost for impact, while apparently ignoring other voluntary costs.

"In the worst cases, women who need this medication for other medical reasons suffer dire consequences."

Another BS call. I know of NO medical insurance program that systematically denies "this medication for other medical reasons." Some have denied "this medication" when it had no other medical reason. Occasionally, I'll agree, mistakes have been made. See next item.

"...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."

I say amen to this complaint. I don't like the bureaucrats determining my medical care, either, but so long as my insurance company (Humana) is paying part of the bill, that's the facts of life, for men, women, children, and sexually active law students. The medical institution, working with (or against) the bureaucrats, will make mistakes and that will negatively impact our health and health care. She relates some examples that are probably spot on. I'm fighting with Humana right now for a prescription that they don't want to pay for because their records show it was refilled when it was not. A doctor would just give me a new prescription. An insurance company cares more about the cost than my health.

Beyond this point, she moves from attempting a fact-based argument to a distressing emotional appeal. Her script is well-written. But, come on. Regardless of her protestations, she is attending an institution of her own choice. She does not like their rules. She knew them before she paid her first tuition installment. She belongs to an institution-sponsored organization that allows her to work for changes that run counter to the institution's dearly held beliefs within that very institution. Failing to win change, she could transfer to a different law school. She (not needing contraception for other medical reasons) could choose to be celibate. We do not need her, or anyone else, encouraging our over-reaching, over-controlling government to press their thumbs any harder on the citizens of this supposedly "free" land.

Catholic institutions should not be forced to pay for contraception (which they believe to be wrong) any more than Jewish or Islamic organizations should be forced to provide pork at their school cafeterias. Note that I am not Catholic, Jewish, nor Islamic; just a believer in and lover of freedom.