Free Markets, Free People

Georgetown law students prefer YOU pay for their contraception so they can use their money for their priorities

Unbelievable.  This is so indicative of the mindset of many today.  It would be hilarious if it wasn’t so telling and serious.

A Georgetown co-ed told Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s hearing that the women in her law school program are having so much sex that they’re going broke, so you and I should pay for their birth control.

Speaking at a hearing held by Pelosi to tout Pres. Obama’s mandate that virtually every health insurance plan cover the full cost of contraception and abortion-inducing products, Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke said that it’s too expensive to have sex in law school without mandated insurance coverage.

Seriously, when you listen to Sandra Fluke talk, that’s precisely her argument:

Apparently, four out of every ten co-eds are having so much sex that it’s hard to make ends meet if they have to payartificial contraception for their own contraception, Fluke’s research shows.

"Forty percent of the female students at Georgetown Law reported to us that they struggled financially as a result of this policy (Georgetown student insurance not covering contraception), Fluke reported.

It costs a female student $3,000 to have protected sex over the course of her three-year stint in law school, according to her calculations.

"Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school," Fluke told the hearing.

Oh, my … $3,000?  No wonder you should pay for it, that’s a lot of money for a law student, isn’t it?

Of course, reality, using her numbers, points to something I’m sure she didn’t intend:

At a dollar a condom if she shops at CVS pharmacy’s website, that $3,000 would buy her 3,000 condoms – or, 1,000 a year. (By the way, why does list the weight of its condom products in terms of pounds?)

Assuming it’s not a leap year, that’s 1,000 divided by 365 – or having sex 2.74 times a day, every day, for three straight years.

And they want YOU to pay for it for heaven sake because they’re going broke.

A Georgetown law student arguing it is the responsibility of others to pay for her birth control because she and the 40% would prefer to spend their money on other things (can’t wait for that generation of lawyers to hit the courts, can you?).

Craig Bannister comes to one serious and one tongue-in-cheek conclusion:

  1. If these women want to have sex, we shouldn’t be forced to pay for it, and
  2. If these co-eds really are this guy crazy, I should’ve gone to law school

More important is the point to be made by watching this testimony and realizing that this supposedly intelligent woman has been so conditioned in her life to accept that others should pay for her indulgences.

THAT is the real lesson and problem (watch the video at the link).


Twitter: @McQandO

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

103 Responses to Georgetown law students prefer YOU pay for their contraception so they can use their money for their priorities

  • 1. aspirin 2. start charging for it 3. change to night classes…cause…damn

  • And suddenly the guy who had the “asprin between the knees” comment starts to make a LOT of sense.

  • She’s a lawyer in training. So she of course knows how to double count, triple count, etc. How else do you think lawyers can get more billable hours than they actually work? Do you think it really takes them 15 minutes to read an email? So she’s probably counting each time her partner asked her for sex, but she said no,

    An aspirin might help that

    • @Harun I don’t know any lawyers that bill more hours than they actually work. What’s more, we’re doing well if we get paid 60% of what we bill.

      • @Ragspierre You are the exception that proves the rule. I decree it! Now begone back to your inkwell!

      • @Ragspierre So, if you drive one hour to another city to visit 3 clients, you don’t bill each client the hour of drive time when you are “thinking about their case”? This was the example one lawyer gave me. Also, I was billed for one hour for 2 lawyers when they called me to tell me they had a website. That was a 15 minute call that befuddled me. This was after they promised the person who introduced us there would be no charge. Later on they declined to take the case = not enough money for them…and then dropped a thousand dollar bill on us.

        • @Harun I don’t doubt your stories, and those were unethical lawyers, Harun. I have sued, do, and will sue guys like that, which makes me…unpopular in some circles. Outside of suing them, I don’t personally know any attorney that would do the things you relate. I certainly DO charge for my time, but nothing like what I actually put into a matter.

        • @Ragspierre There are unethical people in all business, so I don’t hold it against your profession. I also find unethical business people to be very, very annoying, so good for you to sue them. I have had good interactions with lawyers too. I think I am running around 2:3 good to bad impressions.

    • @Harun I’m not a lawyer, but I have seen “Paper Chase.” Do “lawyers in training” actually have any time for sex ? I sort of got the notion that only Professor Kingsfield was doing any of the screwing.

  • Absolutey! And why should I pay for the blood pressure and diabetes medicine for those lazy slobs who won’t lose weight. P90X is $120. Get off your ass and exercise. Take some responsibility.

    And those motor cycle riders? Why should I pay for their medical care when they get into an accident? Take some responsibility for your costs.

    (Yes, the above is sarcasm)

    1: Hormonal birth control is prescribed for far more than just avoiding pregnancy. (Migranes, severe mentral cramps, etc.)
    2: Hormonal birth control is far more effective that condoms.
    3: Hormonal birth control costs the same amount regardless of how many times you have sex.
    4: Health Insurance currently pays for drugs that are purely for sex, like Cialis and Viagra.

    • @Tito How much do the pills cost? Supposedly Walmart sells them for 9 bucks a month. And also, is Viagra mandated or did the insurance companies include it on their own or due to customer demand?

      • @Harun “is Viagra mandated or did the insurance companies include it on their own or due to customer demand?”…

        Good Lord man, don’t bother him with facts, he has an agenda of some sort.

      • @Harun
        Different prescriptions cost different amounts, depending on whether they are generic or not. Some women pay $90+ a month if no effective generic is available. This is the same problem as a lot of other medicine, and I think will take us off topic
        It appears you are basing your comment that on the heavily edited video posted on the CNS site. My point is that the argument of “I don’t want to pay for it” is an argument against any and all health insurance as there are tons of choices in life that will affect health care costs. Motorcycle riding increases risk of serious injury, and insurance covers the medical care in case of an accident. Obesity also dramatically increases medical costs. As an honest question, why are the medical results of those choices covered but sex, for women, is not?
        I totally agree with the idea that health insurance should not be in any way related to employer and separating that would make most of these problems just go away. Unfortunately, that is not something that anyone seems to be proposing, outside of Reason magazine.

        • @Tito – you seem to be missing the fact that we’ve argued against insurance mandates of any type by government. It is one of the major reasons insurance is so expensive. If contraception is important to someone they should a) choose it in their coverage and b), horror of horrors, pay for it.

        • @Tito “Motorcycle riding increases risk of serious injury, and insurance covers the medical care in case of an accident.” Are you unaware that a cyclist pays a premium that factors that into the risk?

        • @McQandO
          Unfortunately, with insurance tied to employer, it is not actually possible to choose it in your coverage. This is where the whole issue started, because some employers find birth control to be immoral and refuse to offer any insurance plans that cover it. And it’s because of insurance, not just government insurance mandates, the cost of any healthcare outside of the insurance system is astronomical.
          Government created the original problem by tying employer to health insurance. However, until that tie gets removed, some standards need to be met, and basic birth control is totally in line with the other things it covers.

        • @Tito But you implicitly recognize that coverage IS available for those who elect it. What, then, is the argument for MANDATING it be universal?

        • @Tito Where, precisely, is the government mandate that you pay to support motorcycle insurance?
          You’re playing the ‘already supporting something I don’t like, therefore I must support EVERYTHING and ANYTHING I don’t like, and mustn’t complain about it”.
          and I refuse to play along.

          Every case you’ve cited – motorcycles, obesity, are choice coverages, not mandated coverages. The Government didn’t come along and say insurance companies WILL pay for those, and, actually, not only will pay, but will completely reimburse. Where is the coverage for men to buy condoms, aren’t the women having sex with men if they need birth control? Is there a case of sex between women that caused pregnancy that I’m unaware of? I’m not watching any videos of any sort anywhere – I don’t need to watch videos for this one. Having sex is a choice, just like backpacking is. If you’ll pay for that, you shouldn’t mind my bill for the backpacking trips.

        • Birth control is actually covered under almost all plans and was before any sort of government mandate. The issue is with a few employers specifically requiring that it be removed as a covered item. Since insurance is tied to employer that actually removes the ability to get that medicine.

        • Again, I would agree with the govt. mandate not being necessary if you actually had a choice in health plan, i.e. it was not tied to employer (or college in the case of Georgetown).

        • @Tito Horseshit. Nobody is compelled to work for a scrupled employer. If the ELECT to work for that employer, they have factored that into their CHOICE.

        • @Tito The difference is, it’s being paid for voluntarily by those who participate in the plans. There is no gun to the head here, but there’s about to be. No one makes you take the employer’s insurance. It’s a false dilemma. Just because it may be cheaper and easier doesn’t put it in the same category as a government forced mandate. You’re pretending that an employer’s health insurance is the only option for someone and that’s not the case. People take it because it’s generally cheaper than what they can get outside.

        • I, for example, do NOT use my employer’s health insurance plan.

        • @looker I’ve NEVER had health insurance, and raised a large family without it on a pretty modest income.

        • @McQandO Kinda funny really, they mandate we pay for protection from the results of sex, but just try and suggest that we pay for the actual sex!!!!!

        • @Tito “actually removes the ability to get that medicine.”

          So, if my insurance does not cover something, it removes the ability to get that medicine. I can’t go see a doctor and then buy the meds myself. That’s illegal.

        • And most likely she could get a prescription from her doctor during a normal visit that is covered, so then she would truly only be out the nine bucks at Wal-Mart.

        • @Tito Oh, the “we need perfect capitalism otherwise socialism is OK” argument.

        • @Tito – again, whether or not it is employer provided is really irrelevant to the fact that much insurance coverage, no matter who provides it, has government mandated coverage that the insured may or may not want or need, but they’re required to have and pay for.

          In the case of contraception, now government has mandated a) all insurance companies provide it and b) it be “free”. Well it’s NOT free and I, at age 63 am going to pick up the bill. I’m not sure what part of that you don’t get.

        • @McQandO Even “free sex” has proven to be anything BUT free…

        • @Ragspierre The Love was free, the sex, not so much.

        • @Ragspierre I’m 53. My father in-law was a self-employed plumber for 50 years, he paid all his medical expenses out-of-pocket for his wife & four children. I told him what I had been paying for insurance, when he got done laughing, he showed me how his costs were a fraction of mine. Then I found out doctors charge less without all the insurance paperwork and cash payments work better still.

        • @McQandO
          I think that is our fundamental difference in view. Employer provided is CENTRAL to the issue. If it wasn’t then people could purchase whichever plan they chose. It is specific employers explicitly blocking what would otherwise be covered. And, unfortunately, our system is “setup” such that going outside the employer based system is ridiculously expensive when it is even possible.
          Your argument applies to all forms of insurance, and indeed many other things, whether government mandated or not.
          Also, it saves money, just like other preventative care:

        • @Tito That post was replete with bullshit.

        • @Tito

          “Unfortunately, with insurance tied to employer, it is not actually possible to choose it in your coverage.

          Actually, it is possible. Many employer health insurance plans offer different types of coverage which the employees can choose from based on their needs and preferences. A major limiting factor in employee choice is gov’t. mandates.

        • @Tito
          ” Since insurance is tied to employer that actually removes the ability to get that medicine.”

          Horse hockey. Nothing prevents an individual from purchasing private health insurance or even, (God forbid!) paying for it with cash.

        • @Tito Only if they stop there. There’s nothing stopping them from going to a doc, getting a prescription and paying 9 bucks a month for the generic pill. If your homeowners insurance won’t pay for something and you think you need it, does that stop you from going out and buying it?

        • @Tito right, no price hike, because, we uh, said so! Products are really free, we just charge for them for entertainment value. Everything is really free. Food’s free, gas is free, housing is free, it’s all free. The material, the research, the marketing, packaging, all free, no additional cost to you or anyone who uses them. Since their free, if a million more people use them they’ll be priced the same as if no one uses them. Yessir, your costs won’t go up one dime, why they’ll actually SAVE money! Yessir!

        • Did I mention, if you like your current health insurance plan, you can keep it, your costs won’t go up one dime.

          Now where have I heard that kind of speech before.

    • @Tito “Migranes, severe mentral cramps, etc.” Isn’t that redundant…??? And, seriously…WTF???

    • @Tito She said they were having sex, she didn’t list all the other reasons as reasons. The reason was they were having a lot of sex and it was pricey.

      Nice run through of all the reasons she didn’t list though.

      Kinda weak arguments, really. Especially if you can’t see the difference between the choice to have sex, which is nothing more than recreation (or something) and physical conditions like high blood pressure, which may have nothing to do with weight or being lazy.

      Since you want to pay for what amounts to sport, I enjoy hiking, I’ll send you the bill for some new gear and a trip to the White Mountains in New Hampshire. You have till October to save up the scratch.

    • @Tito
      1) That must be one very sickly demographic group.

      2) Since this is all about ‘health’, since when is pregnancy a disease, and how many STDs are prevented by hormonal birth control?

      3)And I always thought that students at ‘elite’ schools like Georgetown were spending all their time studying.

      4) And I will bet they charge for them, too. And erectile dysfunction is, evidently, an actual medical condition, unlike horniness.

  • Come on girls, user pays. Charge 20 bucks a shot… problem solved!

    • @DocD That could lead to an embarrassing fall in demand…

    • @DocD Come on, the user is probably already paying for a lot more than the birth control. There’s probably dinners and booze involved in this operation. We should almost certainly be forced to reimburse the men involved for their costs in taking these ladies out of an evening. If the women are paying, fair’s fair, we should reimburse those costs too. I mean, there’s a very very real possibility here that well off males are getting more sex because they can afford the evening out better than the poor ones can. We CANNOT allow ONLY the rich to benefit from our society this way!
      We HAVE to level the ‘playing’ field here, pun intended.

      • @looker Do you get a rebate for converting to lesbianism?

        • @DocD You’re already being reimbursed! and you want a subsidy (rebate) now just because you’re claiming to be a lesbian trapped in a man’s body? Sure, anything goes.

        • @DocD Oh, wait, you’re serious! Well, sort of makes sense. I worked for a company that gave us ‘credits’ to spend on our insurance, and if we didn’t use the maximum credits, we could get the excess credit value as cash.

  • Two random thoughts – One – we have to pay to protect from the results of sex, but MUST NEVER actually pay money FOR the sex itself.
    Two – males or females cannot demand sex although they will now have to pay to protect others from the results of those others having sex. Since we’re required to pay for the choice to have sex (by protecting others against the possible results), why can’t someone be required to have sex? We’re treating protection from sex as a mandated item, why doesn’t it logically extend to the sex itself?

  • I have always believed that taxation without representation is wrong, and similarly I believe that taxation without fornication is wrong. I demand my fair share!

    • @timactual Exactly! We’re about to be forced to pay for others to be protected from the results of sex, but there’s no guarantee we’ll get any! That’s just not fair! and now I get to decided what ‘fair’ means.

    • @timactual Is “recreational sex” really a matter for the federal government ? If we want the government to stay out of our bedrooms, perhaps we should start by keeping the federal government out of our bedrooms.

  • I somehow expect to see a lot more of Sandra Fluke.
    This is no “one-off” fluke.

  • The more I think about this, the more I don’t see how this really differs from my initial joking about backpacking trips. We’re being force to pay to prevent a ‘physical side effect’- (to whit, pregnancy) resulting from a form of recreation.

    This is recreational sex we’re talking about, or there wouldn’t be a need for Birth Control.

  • The more I think about this, the more I don’t see how this really differs from my initial joking about backpacking trips. We’re being forced to pay to prevent a ‘physical side effect’- (to whit, pregnancy) resulting from a form of recreation. This is recreational sex we’re talking about, or there wouldn’t be a need for Birth Control.

    • @looker “This is recreational sex we’re talking about…” As opposed to professional sex…? Industrial sex…???

      • @Ragspierre There are people who actually (crazy ain’t it) do it only for the purposes of trying to create offspring. Obviously, if you’re using birth control, you’re not trying to create an offspring. Therefore…sex that uses birth control is essentially recreational because it’s purpose isn’t to create offspring. In the reverse, ‘industrial’ does sort of apply, the object being creation.

        I can’t help it if we want to dance around the issue here – sex is to create offspring, the fact that it doesn’t always achieve that goal doesn’t change why we were programmed for it. The fact that it feels pretty damn good also doesn’t matter. It’s purpose is to create offspring. Just because we got damned good at figuring out how to avoid the offspring part, so that we could turn it into an recreational pass time doesn’t change the biological purpose.

        Your turn learned sir 🙂

        • @looker I’ll try that one – sex isn’t just for offspring – it’s also to create a sense of closeness between a couple. Not everyone (or everyone’s religion) thinks it’s only for the kids. Does this mean post-menopausal married couples are also having “recreational” (and presumably then wasted/inappropriate) sex?

        • @AmyQANDO But the biological purpose was offspring. We’re not talking about the morality here, we’re talking about the biology, because contraceptives don’t regulate morality, nor do they prevent, or make you feel closer to your partner. This woman is talking about the act of sex, the purchase of a product to prevent the biological side effect of sex, which is pregnancy. She’s not talking about a prescription for warm fuzzy snuggles. We have no idea if she’ll feel closer to her partner or partners. That isn’t why she wants us to pay her contraceptive bill, she wants to have sex, she doesn’t want to have to foot the bill, and she doesn’t want to get pregnant. Yes, post menopausal couples are having recreational sex. I don’t understand why the idea that we enjoy it, or someone’s idea that we shouldn’t enjoy it bars the idea that we are doing it for recreation. The outcome, closeness, feeling good, whatever, is akin (not the same, I admit) as a positive outcome shared from recreational experiences a couple might have enjoy together like, horseback riding, or taking a cruise. No one is suggesting it’s the government place to mandate insurance companies provide free cruises.

        • @AmyQANDO And here I thought the point of going to school was to get an education… silly me.

        • @AmyQANDO I’m going only on the biology aspect, and there’s the eternal argument about what works better for the creation of offspring – for a male, sex with as many females as possible, for a female focusing on hanging on to one partner to provide for the offspring. I haven’t read any updated studies in a while, but the biological goals don’t necessarily reflect the need for there to be ‘ a couple’, or for that ‘couple’ to feel any kind of closeness after the deed has been done.

        • @looker “There are people who actually (crazy ain’t it) do it only for the purposes of trying to create offspring.” Sheet, looker… You’ll believe ANYTHING people tell you…!!! (Seriously, you raise perfectly valid issues. Everything about sex is…including the “closeness” thingy…serves the porpoise of making new humans).

        • ‘a couple’ for that matter, for the better part of two decades we have been treated to a constant parade of celebrity women who demonstrate to the world that a male has a limited purpose and couple is not a requirement at all.

        • @Ragspierre a step further – Is there an inference here that sex is a right? Now there’s a fun one,because it’s NOT an inalienable right unless you’re a hermaphrodite.

        • @looker Actually, looker, I think there is a lot of confusion in society about that notion, based largely on radical abortion and feminist theory.

          Sex-bots will solve so many of these problems…(heh)…

        • @AmyQANDO to be clear, I am certainly not against the recreational aspects of the operation. My issue is nothing more than question why the government can mandate it when there’s not a medical reason and I contend it’s purely for recreation.

        • Interestingly enough, yes Sex-bots work towards making it an inalienable right. Well, at least until the Cherry 2000 runs out of parts.

        • @looker I’m getting the forms ready for the first “defective products” lawsuits. “Herman Human was schupted to death by the defective Cherry 2000 which the Defendant introduced into the stream of commerce. Yes, he died happy, but his survivors are bereft of his companionship. And, yes, for the last few years he seldom left the house, except to buy batteries.”

        • @Ragspierre Another reason for solar! Your Cherry 2000 easily adapts to drawing power from Solyndra solar panels, or can be charged off a Chevy Volt charging unit.

        • @looker Shoot. At 15 megajoules for the “full Monty”, solar panels would be like being married. Once a month…if you’re lucky and the sun is out…

        • @Ragspierre So…the Cherry 2000 gets ‘tired’ without a full charge? Damn! What about my rights!

        • @looker “Head-ache mode”. Yep. But you need the POWER for the full Naval Rail Gun Technology effect of the Cherry 2000. Otherwise, you can just go with the old and busted Cherry 1500 and house current…

      • @Ragspierre I guess lawyers in training need to know how to screw

    • @looker Is “recreational sex” really a matter for the federal government ? If we want the government to stay out of our bedrooms, perhaps we should start by keeping the federal government out of our bedrooms.

      • @Neo_ Well, no it’s isn’t a matter for the Fed. I fail to see how them mandating birth control can’t lead to other intrusions, nor do I understand how they can mandate people pay for pregnancy prevention, but insist that abortion is a private right of choice. I don’t see a clear linkage there, yet, but I was foolish enough to believe the commerce clause did not allow Congress to mandate the purchase of health insurance.

  • “A Georgetown co-ed told Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s hearing that the women in her law school program are having so much sex that they’re going broke, so you and I should pay for their birth control.”

    I recommend more time with books open and legs closed…

    • @Constitution First I guess “Dewey, Cheatem & Howe” is being replaced with “Dewey, Screwem & Howe”

  • Something doesn’t add up. If you are on the pill it costs the same regardless if you f**k like rabbit on crack or live the life of a nun. You take the pill every day and that is that. If you are said crack addicted rodent then your contraception method is single shot, as it were… meaning condoms or emergency day-after pill or abortificants. Since the cost clearly rules out condoms, we are talking post-rutting remedies. So, these horny chicks are not on the pill, don’t use condoms (so don’t care about disease either) and are such s***s that they need $1000 a year to clean up after themselves. Doesn’t pass the smell test as faras I am concerned.

    • @DocD Now you’re being rational. OPPRESSOR!

    • @DocD Yah. They are too stupid to find the local Planned Abortionhood place, too. Kinda hard to accept on any level.

    • @DocD My best guess, people are distracted by the foundation of the discussion – sex.

      • @looker My best guess would be that these are OWS alumni who will be wondering why, in 5 years, no one “respects” the girl with the generic degree, an embarassing disease and a facebook reputation for being easier than getting full credit in Prof Erp’s class on Buffy.

  • At the risk of sounding crude and cruel: Hey Skank! I don’t give a damn what you stuff into your toxic twat! I just don’t want to pay for it!

    • @kyle8 Yes. You are mean. Ladies, my number is BR 549…I am sensitive and adopt stray animals…

    • @kyle8 You’re telling me that these girls can’t get their men to pay for it? I’ve been out at 4:00 in the morning running around looking for a gas station or deli that was open so I could get a pack of condoms before she lost the mood or fell asleep. And I won’t be crude about it, but there’s LOTS of sexual things that can be done that won’t require birth control. I’m sure a tramp as big as this one knows all about them.

      • @The Shark Well, I think we can conclude they want the experience without the rain coat, because we’re not talking condoms here. No one seems really worried that guys aren’t going to get their monthly condom supply, did you notice?

        Again, we’re back to the full quality recreational experience here. I expect my mandated cruise to Alaska to be the next thing covered by Insurance since we seem to believe recreational experiences are now to be covered.

  • Now Obama has collage hookers asking for free contraceptives. They should ask their johns or take it out of the allowance pimps give them. Now that I think about it, I wish they were given to Obama’s mother so we wouldn’t have to deal with this problem.

  • In additon to the issue of forcing the employers to subsidize a practice, birth control, which is against their religion, there is another issue. If I recall correctly, most religions frown on extramarital sex, the promotion of which is the real rationale behind all this.

    Now, as a typical male I am all in favor of unlimited recreational sex. On the other hand, the thinking part of me knows that encouraging all this ‘free love’ is not beneficial to society or to the individuals involved. So, I oppose this thing for reasons of the physical and emotional health of the individuals as well as the health of society. Not to mention the abuse of power involved.

  • Rush nailed it (HA!) so this story won’t go away. And look at the MSN poll question associated with it for a true example of bias.

  • Turns out that Ms. Fluke is a “reproductive rights” activist, who apparently very intentionally attends a law school she knows has a policy of not paying for her…”rights”.

  • I finally found a picture of Fluke. The only way that she’s spending $1000/yr on sex is if she’s paying for it – I don’t there’s enough booze to make her look good.

  • Just get her “fixed”. We take our animals to the vet, too.

  • Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke talk like sex-slaver. shame on her