Observations on Sandy Fluke and Government overreach…

[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!

About these ads

11 Comments

Filed under Evils of Liberalism, Health Care

11 responses to “Observations on Sandy Fluke and Government overreach…

  1. James

    How did I get up here and wow this article is so stupid, how does providing contraceptives required by law to be covered by those insurance violate someone religious rights? This is like saying an inter-racial couples married by the state violate my religious rights because I don’t believe they have the rights to be married. If catholic clinics that receive TAXPAYER dollars want to violate federal law by not providing contraceptives on religious grounds, the solution is simple stop talking federal money. Using a contraceptive is a choice and doesn’t violate anyone elses personal rights period.

    • It WOULD be a violation of religious rights if a church said they would not marry interracial couples (which church’s can and have done, recently, http://www.kentucky.com/2011/11/30/1977453/small-pike-county-church-votes.html ) and the state or federal government intervened and forced them to marry the couple anyway.

      The state paying for Birth Control, while I wouldn’t support that either, would not be a violation of the Catholic churches beliefs. Forcing the Catholic church to pay for it, IS.

      • No one is forcing the Church to pay for anything. Hospitals and other businesses are regulated. This regulation applies to all hospitals/businesses. If the Church doesn’t like these regulations, it can get out of those businesses. If employment law does not sit well with it, it can hire no employees. Simple solutions. No one’s religious freedom is abridged.

        • So effectively the government says that a church cannot conduct business in this nation and still hold to their religious beliefs. I think that is exactly the kind of thing that the First Amendment was designed to prohibit. Further, as churches and all other houses of worship do pay their priests, pastors, rabbis, etc, you effectively just outlawed the clergy of any religion that disagrees with the state mandates, thus creating a way to de facto create state religions. Again the very thing the First Amendment was designed to stop.

          ANy knowledge of government, history, or human psychology would tell you that once you open that door, the government will begin to force other “undesirables” out of the market. How long before you force all restaurants to serve bacon because the pork industry bought a lot of politicians? SHould Jews just refrain from going out to dine? A preposterous example I admit…but really is it any more preposterous than forcing a company to provide a medication that for 95% of its uses has nothing to do with life or death? How long before the government decides they like one kind of birth control and not others and forces all insurance companies to cover only the pills from the drug company with the biggest campaign contributions. Increased government power always yields increased corruption, reduced freedom and reduced quality of life.

          The government does not have a right to tell a private organization what it will offer in an insurance plan. Now I believe every woman should have the right to buy birth control if she wants. So why don’t you remove the barriers that prevent insurance companies from crossing state lines and offering specialized plans…then if a person is working for a company that doesn’t offer these benefits because of moral objections they could go to one of these other companies that offer a supplemental plan, at probably a very low rate. But that would require you to believe in the basics facts of reality like, where there is a demand for a service and no government restrictions someone will always provide that service at a rate low enough to make people want to buy it. But please provide me an example where that hasn’t happened in a free economy.

        • We the people are being forced to pay for something that many of us do not believe. Why should my insurance premiums go up so some girl can get contraception on a regular basis instead of her working harder to pay for what she wants or coming up with another alternative. Government regulations are meant to protect us but not to provide benefits for some of us. I can not see how providing contraception for all protects me or anyone – this is a personal responsibility issue and should be handled individually.
          You better rethink your idea that churches can get out of the hospital business if they do not like the policy as there are a large percentage of hospitals that are church based hospitals and I am wondering who you believe will be offering all that care when they quit the business?? Do some research – we are already short hospital beds in this country.

        • conkall

          The Catholic church does allow contraception for medical treatment of POS and other medical conditions. Liberals do not mention this as it affects their aggenda

          • I am not Catholic so do not know their rules but the Georgetown University Administration stated that the insurance they provide does allow contraception use for medical purposes and covers it. So that kind of dismisses several of the stories told. The problem is whether a doctor considers something a medical reason and prescribes contraception for that medical reason.

    • James, not quite sure how up on the news and events of the day you are or our constitution but I will try and explain further to you.
      The law requiring the contraception to be provided is the part that is violating the religious rights. Now I agree that if the religious community takes federal funds that they then must comply with strings but you forget that there is the constitution that states that the government can not interfere with religion – it’s practice or belief as long as it does no harm (which is why they get involved in case where children need medical attention). So the law forcing someone to be given contraceptives (paid for by tax dollars) goes against at least 1/3 to 1/2 of this countries religious beliefs. Now if you want to donate your money to the cause that is ok but forcing others to pay for it goes against the constitution. I do not care if the government uses the term “free” – there is still a charge for that product and it will be disbursed to all of us and some of us do not believe in paying for that service (I just want to state for the record that I do not wish to pay for it just because I don’t not for religious reasons and I do not think you have the right to make me pay for it because my rights are as good as yours).
      We are still waiting for the Supreme Court decision but I am sure they will find that the government can not tell a business what they can charge or not charge for a service.
      Your example of inter-racial couples is not accurate as you can choose not to marry someone of another race if that is they way you think – your are not forcing someone else to pay for the wedding that they do not believe in.

  2. James

    that says stop taking, anyway

    • I’ll address this first.
      First of all, you clearly don’t know the first amendment given your first comment, so I suppose I have to excuse you for not know that Cathy is 100% allowed to say whatever she wishes and your disapproval means nothing.

      Secondly, if you don’t like what she has to say then you can leave a comment (which you did) but telling her not to say anything is just ridiculous. If you don’t care for her commentary then feel free to move on a find a blog that panders to your liberal ideologies a little more.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s