Monday, February 4, 2013

Is desire to avoid pregnancy the same as having leukemia? To Sandra Fluke, yes.

Just when we thought it was safe to turn on a news show without seeing the poster child for handouts with her hand out, Sandra Fluke is back. Fluke, in case anyone could forget, is the one who believes we the taxpayers should pay for her birth control pills. She even pleaded for contraceptive freebies on the national stage when she spoke at the Democratic National Convention demanding her rights to behave sexually as she pleases, while wanting us to pay for the prevention -- or termination -- of any ensuing pregnancy.

Now Fluke is voicing her concerns that the Obama Administration might actually recognize our conscience rights and repeal the HHS mandate that forces all employers to provide for contraceptive and abortifacient coverage despite personal religious objections. To Fluke, that would be a bad thing because she says such exemptions to contraception coverage could be abused by employers to deny coverage for things like leukemia. In other words, in Fluke's world, avoiding pregnancy is on the same par as deadly diseases.

In a recent interview on MSNBC, Fluke said, “I think what it is important to note is that some of the folks who are continuing to object to this policy are actually worried about employers who are private companies, not religiously affiliated employers in any way, but the boss has a particular religious concern and they want to be able deny their employees particular types of healthcare. Now if you take a step back and think about that, that’s, you know, you work at a restaurant, you work at a store and your boss is able to deny you leukemia coverage, or contraception coverage, or blood transfusions or any number of medical concerns that someone might have a religious objection to."

First, being a private employer in a non-religiously affiliated business does not mean the employer does not have the right to live his religious beliefs. Second, since when is preventing pregnancy on par with something like leukemia? Most married women I know strive to get pregnant - or take responsible precautions not to become pregnant if the time's not right. Not one person I know anywhere strives to get leukemia, nor has anyone I'm aware of been able to control whether they get the dreadful disease.
But above all, Ms. Fluke, if you want to fool around to your heart's content, it's none of my business. But respect my private religious conscience rights and keep my wallet out of your bedroom activities, please. Your desire to not be pregnant is neither my concern nor my responsibility.
It's funny  how often we hear so-called feminists demand the government keep its hands off their bodies, but they sure have no problem using the government to get us all involved in their private activities when it suits them.
As for comparing the desire to prevent a life-affirming miracle like pregnancy to something lethal like leukemia, Ms. Fluke should be ashamed of herself. Unfortunately, she has proven time and again that shame is one condition from which she does not suffer.

What do you think?  Click on the comments link in the bar below to share your thoughts. No registration necessary.

1 comment:

  1. Again, Julie identifies the issue right on. Fluke and her ilk want it both ways. Any woman who flaunts her promiscuity and wants others to pay for it should be ashamed of herself. I can't believe that this country has sunk so low that we give someone like Fluke exposure nationally. Think about it. Apparently, she has sexual encounters so often she can't afford to buy her own contraceptives.