Why did the Democrats choose Sandra Fluke to testify about contraception?
Is she just some average 30-year old law student who doesn’t know a month’s supply of birth control pills costs $9, not $83.50?
(Note: the average cost of a single cocktail in Washington DC is $10.63)
When congressional committee counsels plan hearings, they look for two kinds of witnesses: “experts” and “victims.” The experts are typically lawyers or law professors who can explain the constitutional authority for the new law and its legal impact, and the victims illustrate why the law is needed.
At the hearing of the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee chaired by Nancy Pelosi, Sandra Fluke testified as a victim. Having to buy your own contraception is a burden, she said. She testified that all around her at Georgetown she could see the faces of students who were suffering because of Georgetown’s refusal to abandon its Catholic principles.
So she the designated victim. How gleeful the Democrats must have been when Rush Limbaugh turned her into Joan of Arc.
But wait, there’s more!
Sandra Fluke is being sold by the left as something she’s not. Namely a random co-ed from Georgetown law who found herself mixed up in the latest front of the culture war who was simply looking to make sure needy women had access to birth control. That, of course, is not the case.
AsÂ many have already uncovered Sandra Fluke she is, in reality, aÂ 30 year old long time liberal activist whoÂ enrolled at Georgetown with the express purpose of fighting for the school to pay for students’ birth control. She has been pushing for mandated coverage of contraceptives at Georgetown for at least three yearsÂ according to the Washington Post.
However, as I discovered today, birth control is not all that Ms. Fluke believes private health insurance must cover. She also, apparently, believes that it is discrimination deserving of legal action if “gender reassignment” surgeries are not covered by employer provided health insurance. She makes these views clear in an article she co-edited with Karen Hu in the Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law.
The title of the article, which can beÂ purchased in full here, is Employment Discrimination Against LGBTQ Persons and was published in the Journal’s 2011 Annual Review. I have posted a transcript of the section I will be quoting fromÂ here. In a subsection of the article entitled “Employment Discrimination in Provision of Employment Benefits” starting on page 635 of the review Sandra Fluke and her co-editor describe two forms of discrimination in benefits they believe LGBTQ individuals face in the work place:
“Discrimination typically takes two forms: first, direct discrimination limiting access to benefits specifically needed by LGBTQ persons, and secondly, the unavailability of family-related benefits to LGBTQ families.”
Their “prime example” of the first form of discrimination? Not covering sex changeÂ operations:
Read it all.
Fluke also admitted in an interview she chose Georgetown with the express purpose of battling its policy on contraceptives.
She is also past president of Law Students for Reproductive Justice.
Are you wondering about the Q in LGBTQ? It stands for questioning, as in questioning your sexual identity.