[Editor's Note: We at the Conservative New Ager would like to welcome ConservativeCathy as she joins this blog...hopefully this will be the first of many]
I have taken a few days to review this in my mind and I am still appalled in many ways regarding Sandra Fluke’s congressional testimony and comments afterwards.
I am a strong feminist but not in the way the left has taken the concept. So there are many words or thoughts that come to mind in listening to Sandra and others.
I first do not understand why someone deserves something from the government strictly because they are a woman.
I do not understand why someone’s rights trump someone else’s strictly because they are a woman.
I do not understand why contraception is a medical issue (knowing that there are some exceptions but not the norm – and those alone are medical issues but no other use) along with strictly a woman’s issue.
I do not understand why people feel they are entitled to something just because they want it.
I do not understand why sob stories outweigh facts and why the minority always trumps the majority. Why what is right is never considered in the larger scheme.
Why men want to always jump into areas where they should not really publicly comment on their opinions. Why women are not standing up and complaining about the insults being purported by them.
Well now that I got some of that out of my system I would like to address in detail some of the statements and implications of Sandra Fluke.
Based on the original concept of feminism – women are to be treated equally. I suppose then we need to offer vasectomies free for men to be fair as that is the way they can treat contraception – no pills for them. I digress though as the original debate regarding this issue was not the actual contraception but the government forcing an individual, business or organization to conduct themselves against their own moral or religious beliefs. Certainly unconstitutional. Everyone seems to forget that your rights end when they interfere with someone else’s. Nowhere can Sandra demonstrate that she has the right to contraception to the exclusion of the rights of others to not pay for her wants or against a religious or moral principle. Anyway the public needs to always ask By What Right can this occur. Someone’s wants and desires are not a right. Forcing a business to provide something for free (and nothing is ever free) has never been a right.
Now let’s deal with some of Sandra’s statements (don’t you wonder why she is repeating stories and others are not giving first hand accounts). As stated previously contraception in most cases and the actual reason for the drug is not medical. Medical insurance is supposed to cover medical procedures, visits and pharmaceuticals. Although this drug must be a prescription written by a doctor it is for convenience (90+% of the time). Sandra’s need for the drug is within this category. She does not have enough money to purchase a drug that makes her life easier and more convenient but does not provide a medical benefit. So if the government wanted to help Sandra and all those like her they could just subsidize the cost of the drug. That would actually be cheaper, involve less issues. Still would be using our tax dollars to fund her mere convenience and nothing more and so again would go against many people’s personal morals and religious beliefs. So maybe Sandra should do some investigation and find places like Wal-Mart that may provide her drugs at a lower price. But I really do not care as again this is not my (or the government’s) issue – it is Sandra’s personal issue – get over it. Here I will also comment on others (men) who felt the need to participate in the debate. They veered off the original discussion – religious rights versus government rights. Now being of the same age group of many of the men I heard discuss this I can understand the reaction (I also understood that it was a joke based on truthful beliefs but so crass) but it does not help to add personal insults to the argument and it had nothing to do with the actual argument. It made the right look as stupid and evil as the left and put those men on the same level as those they disagreed with. When promoting a religious/moral value one should maintain that level and not drop down to the gutter. Now as to Sandra’s response – get over it – if you are going to be an attorney you will probably hear worse so now would be a good time to develop a thicker skin and realize that when people speak from the gutter they are not worthy of listening to or caring about.
Sandra has a friend that has polycystic disease. Did Sandra investigate this and look it up – I did. Generally with this disease they do not want you to take contraceptives, as your problem is hormone related. But Sandra or I are not doctors so with acknowledging that there are always exceptions to all rules we will go on. I actually have some personal experience with this particular story (and since my experience is over 30+ years ago and I believe medical science keeps improving I question the rest of this story). Sandra states that since her friend could no longer afford her contraceptives (which were for medical reasons) that she stopped taking them and developed a benign cyst the size of a tennis ball and so this needed to be removed surgically. (I developed a cyst the size of a grapefruit and once they determined it was benign all they did was drain it). In surgically removing her cyst they also removed an ovary (most women come with 2). I also had an ovary removed (along with the grapefruit sized cyst as it had refilled when they went in to remove endometriosis that was extreme. So now, based on my own experience when Sandra states that after having the ovary removed the girl went into menopause I question that. I became pregnant and had two children after my surgery and did not go into menopause until my late 40’s. I am just wondering why no one questions this story as told and accepts it as totally accurate without further info. Again it must be that everyone is supposed to feel bad when sob stories are told and not think too much.
Then Sandra spoke to a girl who was raped and thought that it would not be covered by the insurance. Really! This is a girl going to Georgetown University? Who would use the excuse of insurance when it comes to reporting a rape! What has insurance company to do with that?? But again we are supposed to accept that story as told and just feel bad.
Now let’s go back to my own experience and knowledge. Sandra states that even when the insurance company was informed that the contraceptives were for medical reasons they refused to cover the expense. My decades of experience working in hospitals has led me to believe that if a doctor really wants treatment for their patient they will fight for it and they will get it as it comes down to if the doctor really makes an issue they have to give in as they (the insurance companies) do not have medical licenses and can not diagnose. Now many doctors really do not feel it is worth the trouble but if there were a real medical need the doctor would intervene and the medication or treatment would be forthcoming and covered. This then goes back to patient responsibility to ensure that they have a concerned involved doctor and that they work to make sure they get the best care possible. Let’s all live in the real world and admit that it has been harder since government involvement in the medical arena (starting with HMO’s and now Obamacare) and it will only get worse so maybe we could admit the truth and stop interfering in areas that we have no business being involved in as a government.
Now that I have vented (there were other stories but I think I have made my point) can we all get beyond this and back to the original argument – It is specifically unconstitutional to have the government direct people to pay for something that goes against religious beliefs and it is unconstitutional for government to tell a business what they will and will not provide. There is nothing else relevant to this discussion!