Aging Feminist Radicals Don’t Fade Away….They Just Keep Shooting Their Mouths off

March 13, 2012 2:21 pm 150 comments

Jane Fonda informed us in a recent opinion piece, that the right to free-speech applies to all American citizens, except those whose opinions differ from her own.

Well, let’s see. The progressives, liberals, leftists and feminists seem to actually believe – and want the rest of us to believe – that American citizens are obligated to subsidize the sex-lives of 30-year old law students at Georgetown University Law School. I don’t have much to add to this particular discussion. Mark Steyn has already summed it up quite nicely; “A society in which middle-age children of privilege testify before the most powerful figures in the land to demand state-enforced funding for their sex lives at a time when their government owes more money than anyone has ever owed in the history of the planet is quite simply nuts.” The only comment I would make is that even if we had the money it would be nuts.

What is even more bizarre is that this particular woman – who essentially did nothing but whine before a congressional panel about her “tough” life – is well on her way to secular sainthood. The President of the United States took the trouble to phone her and share encouraging words. Hey Mr. President, I’m not having such an easy time myself; I’m dealing with real life: children, family, earning a living, etc. How about a call once in a while or an invitation for a beer or a cup ‘o’ joe next time you come to Chicago? I’m just a few minutes away.

To add insult to injury we now have an article on CNN Opinion by Robin Morgan, Gloria Steinham, and Jane “Loved Hanoi” Fonda, demanding that we scrap the constitutional right to free-speech because they have been offended by a talk-radio host whose show happens to have the largest audience in the United States. They are demanding that the FCC remove Rush Limbaugh from the airways. Yes, Rush did use a bad word; instead of labeling Sandra Fluke for what she actually is: a whiney, immature brat who should grow up and take responsibility for her own actions, he called her a “slut.” We all agree, it was a very poor choice of words and he has apologized. Let’s move on, please.

Just like we moved on after Bill Maher apologized for using the most vulgar four-letter words to describe Michelle Bachman and Sarah Palin. Just like we moved on after staff writers at WOW apologized for posing for a group photograph wearing “Sarah Palin is a C***” T-shirts. Just like we moved on after ZAZZLE.com apologized for actually having those T-shirts for sale on their website. Just like we moved on after David Letterman apologized for his obscene remarks about Sarah Palin’s teenage daughter by explaining that he was talking about the 18-year old, not the 14 year old daughter. Just like we moved on after the “liberal lion, ” – and hero to feminists everywhere – Ted Kennedy, apologized for being a drunken womanizer. Just like we moved on after Bill Clinton….well, you get the idea.

Feminist icon, Gloria Steinham. She continues to rivet us with her compelling arguments that Feminist sensibilities trump the Constitution.

The shameless hypocrisy and absolute vacuum of moral integrity that Morgan, Steinham, and Fonda display in their CNN article is enough to make one’s head explode. The only explanation I can think of for the generation of this type of stupidity is that in their “golden” years they simply have too much time on their hands. I have a great idea. Hey Jane, Gloria, and Robin…how about taking up macrame or mah-jong?

Rabbi Moshe Averick is an orthodox rabbi, a  regular columnist for the Algemeiner Journal, and author of Nonsense of a High Order: The Confused and Illusory World of the Atheist. It is available on Amazon.com and Kindle. Rabbi Averick can be reached via his website.

150 Comments

  • ——“Making blood pressure screening available to people is not the same as strapping people down and taking their blood pressure. If preventive care is made available to people, it is still one’s choice whether or not to utilize it.”——

    The basic question is not, “Who will utilize it?” but rather “Who will be forced to pay for it?”

  • ——“A. The government mandate that employee insurance policies cover contraception.”——

    That mandate is a problem because it is absolutely wrong for the government to mandate (legislate, regulate, etc.) that any insurance policies for anybody must cover anything.

    All economic transactions should be entirely private matters in which the government stays out of the way of the honest, peaceable dealings between people and businesses.

    The only remotely related reason for government to get involved would be in cases of fraud, where, for instance, the company did not follow through with contracted coverage, or the customer wanted the benefits of coverage without having to pay for it.

    Notice that “Obamacare” is a HUGE fraud — yet it is the government that is perpetrating it, rather than protecting us from it!

  • Fluke could be described as a “Potemkin testifier”. Fonda could be described as an “anti-Constitution traitor.”

  • Daniel Schealler (March 18, 2012 3:55 pm) ——“… the embarrassing but trivial mistake of repeatedly saying ‘court’ instead of ‘congress’.”——

    It was neither. Fluke did not “testify” either in court or before Congress. She was part of a “staged whine;” there was no actual “testimony.”

    And, on your part, your misrepresentation was not “trivial” — since your whole string of charges and complaints was based on it. Face it, Daniel, you completely blew it.

  • Moshe, can you provide a link to where Sandra Fluke demanded that the GOVERNMENT pay for her birth control?

    • You have to wonder, if she doesn’t want the government to get it for her, why in the world did she go to Pelosi to complain about not getting what she wanted?

    • Moshe Averick

      Eli,

      There are two issues here: A. The government mandate that employee insurance policies cover contraception. Somebody has to pay for that requirement. Ultimately, if that adds extra costs the insurance companies pass it on to everyone. Some claim that it is actually cheaper in the long run because the cost of paying for a pregnancy is more expensive. If that is actually true, then the insurance companies do not need to be told by the government, they are in this for profit.

      B. Religious freedom. The government has no right to force a religious institution to violate its religious principles by providing free contraception in its employee policies.

      If this whiney little brat doesn’t like the policy at Georgetown, let her go somewhere else. It’s not her business to decide on the curriculum at Georgetown, the professors they hire, the type of toilet paper they use in the bathrooms, nor the insurance policies they provide.

      • You write, “…the government mandate that employee insurance policies cover contraception… Ultimately, if that adds extra costs the insurance companies pass it on to everyone.”

        I see. She demanded that her insurance company, to which she and her fellow students pay into, provide birth control.

        So you and Mark Steyn are lying about her demanding birth control from the govt.

        Thanks for clearing that up.

        P.S. If a whiney little bitch like yourself doesn’t like the policies of the US govt, then go somewhere else. It’s not of your business what insurance companies provide to their policy holders.

        • Wrong, Eli.

          ——“She demanded that her insurance company, to which she and her fellow students pay into, provide birth control.”——

          No. Fluke was demanding that Georgetown University offer to manage/administer for her a policy that the University did not want to offer.

          ——“So you and Mark Steyn are lying about her demanding birth control from the govt.”——

          Nancy Pelosi works for the government, and that’s who Fluke was presenting her demands for.

          If Fluke honestly wanted a different insurance policy, all she had to do was go find one. There is no honest course in this regard that goes anywhere near Pelosi.

        • moshe averick

          Eli,

          I agree, let the insurance companies provide whatever they want. It’s unconstitutional for the government to force religious institutions to institute policies that violate their religious beliefs. SAndra Fluke is entitled to get whatever insurance she wants, I certainly won’t stand in her way. She is not entitled to dictate to Georgetown what their internal policies should be.

          • It is unconstitutional for the government to force any institutions (or individuals), religious or otherwise, to institute policies that they do not believe in.

            Religion, in fact, is irrelevant in this context.

      • ——“B. Religious freedom. The government has no right to force a religious institution to violate its religious principles by providing free contraception in its employee policies.”——

        “Religious freedom” is only a small part of the picture.

        The government has no right to force any person or institution (religious or not) in any business to provide anything at all in its employee policies. This principle applies to anything, free or not, including contraception and even minimum wages or particular text books (and applies to employees, students, customers, suppliers, etc.).

  • Moshe,

    Can you please explain to everyone reading this page what preventive medicine is?

    • What is it about “preventive medicine” you don’t understand? Is there something you do understand about it?

    • Moshe Averick

      MO MD,

      Don’t quite understand your point. If you are an MD, why don’t you provide an explanation?

      • Because this is your article about healthcare, and I want to know how you define preventive medicine before I comment. A sentence or two should be plenty.

        • Why does your opinion on government mandates and censorship depend on what Moshe thinks about “preventive medicine”?

          In fact, nobody’s ideas on “preventive medicine” are any legitimate concern of government censors and regulators.

          • Because Moshe is also attacking Sandra Fluke for advocating access to birth control, which is preventive care. It is in the financial interests of insurance companies and the federal government to provide preventive care. It is ethical for society to provide preventive care. As an insurance policy holder, a taxpayer, and member of society, Sandra Fluke has an interest in this issue.

          • ——“It is in the financial interests of insurance companies and the federal government to provide preventive care.”——

            It is absolutely wrong for the government at any level to “provide preventive care” to any private citizens, businesses, institutions, etc.

            And it is only “in the financial interests of insurance companies” if their customers are willing to pay for it. Obama’s dictates that they should provide it “free” are despicable.

            —— “It is ethical for society to provide preventive care.”——

            No, it’s not. The decisions should be left entirely up to individual patients, doctors, insurers, etc. “Society” has got no say in the matter.

          • “It is absolutely wrong for the government at any level to “provide preventive care” to any private citizens, businesses, institutions, etc.”

            That’s your opinion.

            “And it is only “in the financial interests of insurance companies” if their customers are willing to pay for it. Obama’s dictates that they should provide it “free” are despicable.”

            Wrong. Preventive care prevents more costly medical care later, which the insurance company would then have to cover. Therefore, it is in the financial interests of the insurance company to cover preventive care, which is why they do.

            “No, it’s not. The decisions should be left entirely up to individual patients, doctors, insurers, etc. “Society” has got no say in the matter.”

            Making blood pressure screening available to people is not the same as strapping people down and taking their blood pressure. If preventive care is made available to people, it is still one’s choice whether or not to utilize it.

          • ——“Preventive care prevents more costly medical care later, which the insurance company would then have to cover.”——

            Hasn’t that notion already been debunked as a “fiscal fantasy”?

            The reason insurance companies can make money in the first place is because not everyone who buys insurance always needs to use it. For instance, not everybody has a heart attack, or gets a broken neck in a car accident.

            So if an insurance company wants to increase its profits by preventing those heart attacks and broken necks that do happen, how are they going to decide what preventive measures to offer — and especially whom to give them to?

            Besides, if people knew how to prevent ever needing to use insurance coverage, why would they ever buy insurance?

            ——“Therefore, it is in the financial interests of the insurance company to cover preventive care,…”——

            It is only “in the financial interests of the insurance company” to offer coverage for something if their customers are willing to pay more for the coverage than what the actual care costs.

            So people would be crazy to buy “preventive care” through an insurance company when they could get it cheaper own their own.

    • moshe averick

      Mo,

      Far be it from me to restrict her access from birth control or tell her who her boyfriend should be. She simply has no right, and neither does the government, to tell Georgetown what their religious policies should be.

  • Moshe, you’re a terrible person.

  • When I asked, “What’s going on here?”

    jp responded: “The normal sense of entitlement that the religious feel to dictate their morality to people in wider society. In this case, the religious managers of a health plan feel entitled to exclude a benefit that those that fund the plan explicitly want included.

    But jp has got it all wrong. In the first place, Georgetown University is not attempting “to dictate their morality” to anybody. Enrollment at Georgetown is entirely voluntary.

    Secondly, if anybody doesn’t like the Georgetown “health plan,” then nobody has to take part in funding it. They have options, e.g., go to a different school, get a different plan, etc.

    Georgetown is rightfully entitled to offer a plan that the institution deems fit and proper for its circumstances (and morality). Nobody has to buy into their way of doing things.

  • “salvage” recommended that I ‘Punch in “Mary Jo Kopechne could not be reached for comment.”+ “Ann Coulter” and into Google and there can be no doubt … ‘

    Well, salvage, I tried that and there is still doubt, since not a single instance of her writing it was found by Google.

    If you’ve actually seen it, why can’t you provide a link?

  • jp writes: “If Fluke gets her way, she’ll end up paying for the health care of her fellow students, like her friend with ovarian cysts, because she knows that the fair thing to do, and the purpose of insurance.”

    But who could possibly be stopping her from getting “her way”?

    If she doesn’t like one institution’s plan, then all she has to do is find another institution with a plan she likes. And if she can’t find any institution she likes, then she should ignore institutions and go directly to an insurance company that offers a plan she likes.

    And if she cannot find any plan anywhere that she likes, then she’ll have to offer enough money to make it worthwhile for some insurance company to offer such a plan.

    And if she can’t do that, then she has no right to run to Pelosi to try to get the government to do something about it.

  • As a curious side-note, I asked a poster named “salvage” why said poster thought a certain writer was a “vile lying, stupid hack,” and “salvage” responded, “I base my opinion on her work by reading it and having, y’know, a brain.”

    But isn’t that equivalent to a claim of just believing it without having any good reason to believe it? Otherwise, why not provide some actual evidence and supporting argumentation?

  • Moshe,
    Excellent article. I am not orthodox, just an American raised in a different time when the idea that women are entitled to government paid contraception would be viewed as comedic. About as funny as giving any credibility to the words of aging narcissists named Fonda, Steinem – Never heard of Morgan. Your articles are necessary to dispel the notion promoted by some in the media that these three narcissists have a following. Outside of their media publicists and a few celebrity fawners, I don’t think anyone cares what they have to say.

  • As long as we’re on the subject of censorship: the government by rights should have no say in who can or cannot have a radio show (or a tv show, or a written column, etc.)

    It’s not even rocket science: it’s simply the First Amendment.

    The government should not subsidize medical care, or radio shows. The government should not forbid drugs, or political opposition.

    The government should never approve any broadcasts, nor force anyone off the air. The government should never approve any drugs, nor keep any drugs off the market.

    It is none of the government’s business who is on the air or not.

    • It is none of the government’s business who takes which drugs (or not).

    • Pam Siegfried

      Thalidomide

      Expanding the thought, I am OK with paying taxes to test drugs to see if they are poisons or have other serious side effects that at the very least the doctor (and I) should know before I take them.
      Otherwise, back to the main thrust of the article, I consider myself a feminist and I agree that it is laughable to fund, or force a Catholic run institution to fund, artificial contraception that is available for $9 down the block. The correct avenue is private donations to Planned Parenthood so it can do something that does not get its hands bloody. For once.

      • Testing drugs is not a legitimate government (or government subsidized) function. “Thalidomide” is not a valid argument in favor of government agencies using tax money to test (and approve or disapprove) drugs. The FDA should be abolished.

        It is not right for the government to force some people to pay taxes to provide drugs, or information about drugs, to other people. If you are not certain about a drug, nobody is forcing you to take it. And nobody should force anybody to pay for testing or distribution of any drugs.

        As for the “artificial contraception” drugs, it makes no difference whether it costs $9 or $90,000 — the government should not be funding it, or forcing anybody else to fund it. The correct avenue is private enterprise, private donations, etc., with no government mandates, taxes, censorship, etc.

  • Daniel Schealler (March 14, 2012 7:43 pm) wrote: “If anything, you should be even more annoyed than I am about Mosh and Rush’s misrepresentation of the court case and Sandra Fluke.”

    The big problem for you, Daniel, it that they did not misrepresent any “court case.” That “court case” was entirely a figment of your imagination. So your entire string of posts was one long misrepresentation and false set of charges.

    • Pam Siegfried

      She testified but not in court. Before Congress. That might be where he made the apparent mistake.
      http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/mar/06/context-sandra-fluke-contraceptives-and-womens-hea/
      That is her testimony, apparently she did speak about a friend with polycystic overy disease who had trouble being covered for bc pills because they thought she was faking the disease and really wanted them for contraception. I thought the link to her exact words might be useful. I still disagree with her.

      • Fluke did not “testify” either in court or before Congress.

        • Schealler’s entire line of attack was bogus. He based it on something he made up (i.e., misrepresented — whether or not he calls it a “brainfry,” a “typo,” or whatever).

          His whole line of “argument” falls apart when you realize he was the one doing the misrepresenting he was accusing others of doing.

      • Daniel Schealler

        @Pam Siegfried

        That’s exactly right – thanks for the attempt at clarification.

        I knew it was a hearing before a congressional panel… But for some reason having the words ‘testimony’ and ‘law student’ at the forefront of my brain led to the embarrassing but trivial mistake of repeatedly saying ‘court’ instead of ‘congress’.

        I’ve already acknowledged and explained this mistake to Steve several times. But he keeps rabbiting on about it. It would seem that repetition is being used as a substitute for argument.

        • Pelosi’s “hearing before a Congressional panel” was a fake, a mockery. Fluke’s mock “testimony” was nonsense.

          All of your charges based on some bogus “court case” or even “congressional hearing” were insubstantial, and unreasonable.

          It is Pelosi and Fluke who are being dishonest here — not Steyn, Limbaugh, or even Averick.

          BTW have you learned yet who the President of the United States is? (hints: his intials are BHO and he was mentioned in the above article in spite of your claim to the contrary)

    • And then there is Schealler’s even more over the top rant that “Obama was not mentioned” in the article when it referred to the person who is currently President of the United State!

    • And then there is Schealler’s even more over the top rant that “Obama was not mentioned” in the article when it referred to the person who is currently President of the United States!

      [Wow -- a typo -- can you believe it?!]

  • AS long as we’re on the subject, here is a classic line from Ann Coulter’s column on Sandra Fluke (yes, I know some of the people out there dislike her even more than me)

    “President Obama called Fluke and told her that her parents should be proud of her and to make sure she was OK. Hillary Clinton said conservatives were trying to control women. Bill Clinton called her to see if she had any plans for the weekend.”

  • PS To All: And they did it shamelessly

  • To All:

    What I find interesting is that it seems that no one commented on the main point of the article, which was that 3 of our favorite feminists felt the need to demand that the government shut down free speech because their sensibilities were offended.

    • As tiny a figure as Fluke is, she towers over Fonda and company.

      Perhaps the reaction is a reflection of how uninteresting people find those three “feminists.”

      Even Rush Limbaugh (whom I don’t particularly like much) is 10,000 times more interesting than all 4 of those women put together. (And Pelosi is only interesting because of her political office — otherwise, she’s basically nothing.)

    • Pam Siegfried

      Well I will, I guess, as a faminist (I call myself one). The FCC has no business doing anything and not because Maher or anyone else was also a jerk on the air. Someone else’s bad conduct does not justify yours. What they should have called for was asking his sponsors to drop him. Talk radio is a private venue and free speech rights don’t apply there. Myself, I think calling for a video of her sex life was a bit over the top and he should have apologized the way Ed Schultz did when he called Laura Ingraham the same thing, i.e. a simple apology no qualifiers. But he did apologize. End of story.

      • ——“Talk radio is a private venue and free speech rights don’t apply there.”

        That is incorrect. Our “free speech rights” most certainly do apply to “talk radio,” “music radio,” “talk tv,” “written articles,” etc., etc.

        The government has no right to censor “talk radio” because it is a “private venue” rather than a public one. In fact, there should never be any government funded, sponsored, subsidized, or controlled/regulated radio, tv, newspapers, internet, etc. The government should keeps it hands off our means of communication (just to mention one part of our lives the government shouldn’t regulate).

        Perhaps you meant to say that it would not be censorship if there were no sponsors willing to voluntarily pay to support Limbaugh or Maher on the air (or in print, etc.). That is true.

        But the main point remains that the government has no right to get involved in any way, for or against anyone being sponsored or not (on the air or not).

  • —–“The arguments presented by Sandra Fluke in court were to do with subsidizing the prescription of preventative medicine…”—–

    When was Fluke in court? That would have been an entirely different episode that what Rush, Mark, and Moshe have been talking about.

    Furthermore, the notion that the government should be “subsidizing the prescription of preventative medicine” is nuts to say the least. And it happens to be illegal in the U.S.

  • C. P. Morris

    The law student was not testifying on behalf of herself but on behalf of a close friend who had ovarian cyst disease and who needed to take bc pills for treatment. The friend later needed surgery which could have been prevented. I suffered from this disease for many years and it’s quite awful. People who haven’t been there, done that, should stop shooting their mouths off.

    • It doesn’t make any difference what disease you have, or how sick you are with it, it is always wrong for the government to intrude and force someone to provide you with care, insurance, money, drugs, or anything.

      There needs to be a strict wall of separation between the government and medicine for private citizens.

    • Kevin Bjornson

      High-dose birth control pills are very controversial for treatment of ovarian cysts.
      There are many side effects, and doubt that they are very effective:
      http://women.webmd.com/birth-control-pills-for-ovarian-cysts

      Government does one thing very well: it organizes force. It’s ultimate power stems from it’s ability to kill people and blow things up.

      Government has no business in match-making,
      growing food, insurance, or any of a multitude
      of things that are better handled through free enterprise.

      Let’s not take advantage of the rabbi’s lack of sophistication in science and economics to try to get him into an apology for his comments,
      which are correct and need no apology.

    • “They are demanding that the FCC remove Rush Limbaugh from the airways. Yes, Rush did use a bad word; instead of labeling Sandra Fluke for what she actually is: a whiney, immature brat who should grow up and take responsibility for her own actions, he called her a “slut.” We all agree, it was a very poor choice of words and he has apologized.”
      Has anyone noticed that its Rush L. that continually sounds like:
      “a whiney, immature brat who should grow up”?

    • Pam Siegfried

      As I recall, Georgetown would have covered bc pills for that because they would be needed for health. The bc pills for contraception alone is what they would not cover. I could be wrong of course.

      • The point is that whatever Georgetown chooses to cover or not should be entirely up to Georgetown. There should not be any government rules, mandates, etc., involved in any way.

  • To All,

    After consideration: The second half of the title of this article “They just keep shooting their mouths off” was probably unnecessary and perhaps over the top. If anyone was offended I apologize.

    Sincerely, Moshe Averick

    • PS,

      I hope my advertisers don’t drop me!

      • Well, how many of your advertisers are atheists? Theists?

        Or, for that matter, how many of them are guilty of wanting to help shoot down American pilots, as well as “shooting their mouths off”?

        “Over the top” — or understated?

    • Daniel Schealler

      You should also apologize for getting your facts wrong.

      A society in which middle-age children of privilege testify before the most powerful figures in the land to demand state-enforced funding for their sex lives at a time when their government owes more money than anyone has ever owed in the history of the planet is quite simply nuts.

      This is a misrepresentation of the context of the court case.

      C. P. Morris has already provided the correction, but I’ll re-post his contribution here:

      The law student was not testifying on behalf of herself but on behalf of a close friend who had ovarian cyst disease and who needed to take bc pills for treatment. The friend later needed surgery which could have been prevented.

      If a course of birth control pills can prevent the need for costly surgery later, then Mark Steyn has his argument exactly backwards. Preventative medicine saves a lot of money in the middle-to-long term because it is significantly cheaper than dealing with the full-blown problem.

      As it turns out, I also support the notion that birth control should be subsidized. But that’s actually a red herring for this context. It’s not what Sandra Fluke was testifying about.

      The arguments presented by Sandra Fluke in court were to do with subsidizing the prescription of preventative medicine that, in the case specified, happened to have a commonly used alternate function as birth control. Because of this commonly used alternate function being controversial, subsidizing the medically justified and prescribed preventative medicine suddenly became a political football.

      The word ‘slut’ is a problem. But it is not the problem.

      The problem here is that Rush, and yourself, have completely misrepresented the context in which Sandra Fluke was providing testimony.

      I assume that you’ve done this out of ignorance.

      So please look into the matter more closely.

      If you find the situation to be as I have described then you should quickly publish an apology for your misrepresentation of this situation.

      • —–“Preventative medicine saves a lot of money in the middle-to-long term because it is significantly cheaper than dealing with the full-blown problem.”

        But none of that is any of the government’s business. The government should NOT be subsidizing or mandating any care, drugs, treatments, coverages, costs, etc.

        The government needs to back off and get out of the way of medicine, doctors, patients, etc.

        • Daniel Schealler

          Irrelevant.

          I am personally in favor of government-subsidized healthcare. However, I can take that hat off temporarily and assume the alternative viewpoint.

          3… 2… 1…

          Ta-da!

          I am now opposed to government-subsidized healthcare for the purpose of this dicussion.

          So. What’s changed?

          Nothing.

          Even if we assume that government-subsidized healthcare is bad, it is still the case that Rush (and Moshe) have misrepresented the court case and Sandra Fluke’s involvement and testimony.

          Okay. Switching back to my regular hat now. I’m supporting subsidized healthcare again.

          If you (or Rush, or Moshe) want to make an argument against subsidized healthcare, you need to do it without misrepresenting court cases or individuals.

          Relying on misrepresentation makes the argument invalid because the premises from which it attempts to build a case are false.

          Deploying transparently invalid arguments makes your position seem weak, which in turn undermines your (presumed) goal of removing government subsidy from healthcare.

          If anything, you should be even more annoyed than I am about Mosh and Rush’s misrepresentation of the court case and Sandra Fluke. I’m only annoyed out of principle to the truth. You should be annoyed because of principle and because such bad arguments undermine your (presumed) social reform goals.

          • ——“… misrepresented the court case and Sandra Fluke’s involvement and testimony.”——

            What court case?

            Are you sure you’re on the right thread?

          • Obama’s ploy of using Fluke as a diversion is irrelevant to the case against Obamacare and Medicare. Even before Fluke was ever born, the government should not have been interfering with the free market in medicine, or broadcasting.

            Fluke’s “testimony” in favor of government subsidies is fundamentally irrelevant. Government subsidies are wrong, no matter who “testifies” to the contrary (or what story they come up with).

          • Daniel Schealler

            @Steve Stoddard

            —”What court case?

            Are you sure you’re on the right thread?”

            This court case where Sandra Fluke (mentioned in the article by name), a 30-something law student at Georgetown University (mentioned in the article), gave this testimony:

            http://www.buzzfeed.com/boxofficebuz/transcript-of-testimony-by-sandra-fluke-48z2

            The court case about which Rush Limbaugh used a ‘bad word’ when providing coverage, to which Moshe refers directly.

            I am sure that I am in the right thread.

            Are you?

            –”Obama’s ploy of using Fluke as a diversion is irrelevant to the case against Obamacare and Medicare.”

            I know nothing about such ploys.

            But let us assume that such a ploy exists.

            It would be irrelevant.

            Moshe’s misrepresentation of Sandra Fluke’s testimony and the context within which her testimony was given is false, unfair and slanderous. I of course assume Moshe is innocent of malicious intent to slander and deceive on grounds of ignorance of the facts involved.

            Even if Obama is the son of the Devil, and even if Sandra Fluke is Obama’s pawn (both of which I hold to be utterly false) it doesn’t change the fact that Moshe, a Rabbi, should not be engaging in unprincipled slanderous misrepresentation of anyone, regardless of whether or not he opposes that person’s political agenda.

            Moshe is a Rabbi. Even without the title we should all adhere to a high standard of ethics to be fair and honest and informed in our critiques of others. The addition of the title means that Moshe should push himself even harder in this regard in order to set an example.

            –”Fluke’s “testimony” in favor of government subsidies is fundamentally irrelevant. Government subsidies are wrong, no matter who “testifies” to the contrary (or what story they come up with).”

            Perhaps.

            If that’s what this article actually said, then you might have a point.

            But it isn’t what this article is actually about. It’s not what is in the content.

            You keep trying to drag every thread of argument in these comments onto this one particular hobby horse of yours. But you are the one who is getting off topic.

            In his article Moshe directly misrepresented Sandra Fluke, her testimony, and the context and gist of what she was arguing for. That’s wrong. I assume the Rabbi erred here out of ignorance rather than malice – so I seek to prompt him to investigate, cure his ignorance, and renounce his misrepresentation.

            That is the topic of my comment in response to Moshe’s article.

            It is a valid and context-appropriate response given that I am responding to specific points raised in that article.

            Stop trying to derail me into your preferred side issue.

            I’m not interested in arguing the case in favor of subsidized government health care at this moment in time. I like to keep my dialectic arguments to one issue at a time because failure to do so just sends the topic bouncing around an endless pinball machines of semi-related tangents that goes nowhere.

            This is my comment in response to the Rabbi that I am personally interested in talking about.

            If you are not interested in talking about this subject as I have framed it, why then are you bothering talking to me at all?

          • ——“If you are not interested in talking about this subject as I have framed it,…”——

            Since the “court case” is a figment of your imagination, why would you be interested in bringing it up in this discussion? What’s the point? How can you imagine that your fantasies are that worthwhile?

            So you’re not interested in paying attention to the actual world around you — so what? Why tell us?

          • ——“This court case where Sandra Fluke ….”——

            Just to be clear about this: there was no court case.

            Even the “buzzfeed” link you provided only included reference to a “hearing” held by Congress — and that was a gross misrepresentation (a lie, if you will). Obamacare, the underlying scheme in all this, is also a tremendous lie, a complete fraud.

          • Daniel Schealler

            –”Since the “court case” is a figment of your imagination, why would you be interested in bringing it up in this discussion? What’s the point? How can you imagine that your fantasies are that worthwhile?”

            Okay, yes, you got me.

            The phrases ‘testimony’ and ‘law student’ being forefront in my brain was triggering a repeated brain-fry on my part. Kept on saying ‘court case’ when I should have been saying ‘committee hearing’ or something similar.

            Here is a direct reference to footage of the event to which I intended to refer:
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlRC0nsjtKQ

            I acknowledge my mistake. It was an unintentional brain-fry on my part. A convoluted typo perhaps, but a typo nonetheless.

            Now that’s out of the way – do you have anything meaningful to add?

          • It is almost as if Schealler is trying to distract attention from the perfidy of Obama in regard to Obamacare, HHS dictates, etc.

            Just like Pelosi was trying to do with Fluke in the first place.

          • Daniel Schealler

            Steve, Obama was not mentioned in the article.

            The only uses of the word ‘Obama’ I can find on this page at the time of posting this comment are:

            1) Sponsored links to other articles on the site from the newsfeeds.

            2) Your own usage.

            3) My usage in response to you.

            You are the one who is trying to draw attention to your hobby-horse of Obama and Obamacare.

            That very well may be a discussion worth having. But it is a red herring to raise it constantly in response to my original comment calling out Moshe for misrepresenting Fluke.

            Having formally dismissed this red herring I shall not discuss it again with you in the context of the comment thread starting from my first reply to Moshe above.

            You of course are welcome to talk about whatever you wish. Just don’t expect me to respond to any further attempts of yours to divert the topic of my interest onto your own.

          • ——“Obama was not mentioned in the article.”——

            Can you really be that out-of-touch regarding current events? And that oblivious to what was actually in Moshe’s article?

            Whom are you trying to fool?

      • Daniel Schealler (March 14, 2012 5:10 pm) wrote, “The problem here is that Rush, and yourself, have completely misrepresented the context in which Sandra Fluke was providing testimony.”

        Now he claims that was a “typo.”

        He followed up on his charge of “misrepresentation” with this bit: “I assume that you’ve done this out of ignorance. So please look into the matter more closely.”

        If he thinks that was a “typo,” too, then was everything he has posted nothing but one big “typo”? Or was it all just a diversionary exercise (as was the fake “hearing” set up by Pelosi for Fluke)?

        • Daniel Schealler

          Falsehood.

          I did not claim that the following paragraph contained a typo:

          “The problem here is that Rush, and yourself, have completely misrepresented the context in which Sandra Fluke was providing testimony.”

          I claimed that my use of ‘court case’ or references to courts was a form of typographical error or mis-speak. ‘Brain-fry’ was another term I used.

          Because the phrases ‘testimony’ and ‘law student’ were in the front of my brain, I inadvertently typed the wrong words. Instead of ‘committee hearing’ I consistently typed ‘court case’.

          This was a trivial error and I have acknowledged it as such.

          Note that the word ‘testimony’ is still correct and proper in this context.

          Rep. Nancy Pelosi: “Please proceed with your testimony as you wish Ms. Sandra Fluke.”

          See 00:10 through to 00:13 at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlRC0nsjtKQ

          Additionally:

          “I assume that you’ve done this out of ignorance. So please look into the matter more closely.”

          I do not think that this is a typo.

          This is my attempt at a generous reading of Moshe’s misrepresentation of Sandra Fluke, Sandra Fluke’s testimony, and the context of the committee hearing in which her testimony was given.

          The grounds are simple: Do not ascribe to malice what may be ascribed to ignorance.

          I do not assume that Moshe’s misrepresentation was borne of malicious intent, but rather that he was sincerely mistaken in his critique.

          I was trying to prompt the Rabbi into reconsidering his critique. My hope is that if he looks into the situation he will recognize that he has misrepresented Sandra Fluke as I have described and publish a retraction/correction/apology to that effect as he would be ethically required to do if he grants that my criticism of his article is correct.

          Also: This is not the first time I have confronted engaged with Moshe in argument. For all that I regularly disagree with him, I have no problem respecting him as an individual while simultaneously considering some of his views to be false and unjustified.

          I find that when engaged in a direct, forthright, and non-hyperbolic tone the Rabbi is typically happy to respond to reasoned criticism. I’ve enjoyed our previous exchanges and am attempting to initiate a new one here.

          So there you go.

          You need no longer speculate about my motives as I have given them to you sincerely and openly and without omission.

          • So you want us to assume that you just don’t have a clue what you’re talking about, rather than that you are being deliberately dishonest?

            Sounds like a stretch — until we consider that you do not know that Obama is the President of the United States . . . .

          • Daniel Schealler

            Steve, I think I will have to direct you to the work of Dunning and Kruger.

            For your consideration and (hopefully) reflection:
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyOHJa5Vj5Y

          • I know who the President of the United States is. I don’t need a Dunning and Kruger reference to help me with it.

            Heck, I even understood that when Moshe wrote that the “President of the United States took the trouble to phone her,” he was referring to Obama. How you missed that, I’m not entirely sure.

      • Daniel Schealler, do you know who the President of the United States is?

        • Daniel, perhaps you should quit now before putting your foot further down your throat.

          I almost said “you should quit while you’re ahead” — but you are so far behind it is ridiculous.

      • That was only part of the testimony.

        • Daniel Schealler

          Only part?

          The use of birth control for preventative medical reasons comprised a third (roughly) of her entire opening statement. It should not be dismissed because it is only ‘a part’. A part that is an entire third of the opening statement is not a triviality to be dismissed as negligible.

          Particularly because is very relevant to your critique of her character.

          “Yes, Rush did use a bad word; instead of labeling Sandra Fluke for what she actually is: a whiney, immature brat who should grow up and take responsibility for her own actions, he called her a “slut.”

          Consider the following section from a transcript of Sandra’s testimony:

          “These denial of contraceptive coverage impact real people.

          “In the worst cases, women who need these medications for other medical conditions suffer very dire consequences.

          “A friend of mine, for example, has polycystic ovarian syndrome, and she has to take prescription birth control to stop cysts from growing on her ovaries. Her prescription is technically covered by Georgetown’s insurance because it’s not intended to prevent pregnancy.

          “Unfortunately, under many religious institutions and insurance plans, it wouldn’t be. There would be no exception for other medical needs. And under Sen. Blunt’s amendment, Sen. Rubio’s bill or Rep. Fortenberry’s bill there’s no requirement that such an exception be made for these medical needs.

          “When this exception does exist, these exceptions don’t accomplish their well-intended goals because when you let university administrators or other employers rather than women and their doctors dictate whose medical needs are legitimate and whose are not, women’s health takes a back seat to a bureaucracy focused on policing her body.”

          http://www.buzzfeed.com/boxofficebuz/transcript-of-testimony-by-sandra-fluke-48z2

          I understand that you may disagree with Sandra’s position on this issue.

          However, characterizing and dismissing her as a ‘whiny immature brat who should grow up and take responsibility for her own actions’ was uncalled for.

          Her argument was eloquent and reasoned and was delivered with the intention of securing the health and well-being of not only herself but of others as well.

          This is not immature or whiny.

          Representing yourself and your principles as Sandra has done demonstrates an ethical and responsibility to go beyond complacency and invest time and effort in trying to change the world for the better, as she sees it.

          Furthermore, taking a stance that preventative medicine should be encouraged so as to reduce ongoing costs in terms of time, money, and personal suffering due to preventable future complications is itself a very mature and responsible position to be taking, regardless of what you feel about whether or not such encouragement should or should not include a government subsidy.

          Note that I don’t mind in the least if you disagree with Sandra. That’s a different discussion that can and should take place elsewhere. I would have something to say there as well (of course) but that is not what I am interested in right now.

          My problem here is the way in which Sandra has been misrepresented and marginalized in your article.

          It is one thing for you to state boldly that you think Sandra’s testimony was incorrect.

          It is another thing entirely to groundlessly and (in my view) falsely assault her character and to thereby dismiss her argument without engagement or reasoned criticism.

          Please reconsider your assault on Sandra’s character and check to see if it is actually justified by her words during the committee hearing.

          If your attack was not justified then I think you’ll agree that you’re ethically bound to publicly correct your previous position as a misrepresentation.

          • What Fluke doesn’t grasp is that the “medical needs” of some people do not constitute an obligation on the part of anyone else to provide “coverage” for those needs. Obama doesn’t get it, either.

            Even the dishonesty of the Pelosi-Fluke fake “Congressional hearing” does not create any obligation on anyone to provide “coverage” for anybody.

            Fluke is some combination of wrong and dishonest — though I’m not sure of the precise distributions. (For Pelosi and Obama, the odds are that they’re close to both 100% wrong and 100% dishonest. Go figure.)

    • Well, I don’t think you should have apologized — but then, I didn’t think Rush should have apologized, either, not, that is, until Fluke and Obama had apologized first. For Obamacare, etc.

  • —-‘“And even if that meant going to a less prestigious university, we refuse to pick between a quality education and our health. And we resent that in the 21st century, anyone think it’s acceptable to ask us to make this choice simply because we are women.”’—-

    Fluke is nuts if she really believes anyone is telling her to “pick between a quality education and our health” — and she’s doubly nuts if she believes anyone is telling her that “simply because we are women”!!

    “Clueless, nasty, and nuts” — she sounds more like Obama every time you think about it.

  • —-‘“We expected that when we told our universities of the problem this policy created for us as students, they would help us…. We did not expect that women would be told in the national media that we should have gone to school elsewhere.”‘—-

    It is simple common sense that if you strongly disagree with the policies of one university, you should go to a different university (if you can find one where you like its policies).

    • “And even if that meant going to a less prestigious university, we refuse to pick between a quality education and our health. And we resent that in the 21st century, anyone think it’s acceptable to ask us to make this choice simply because we are women.”

      Man, it’s almost like she knew what you were thinking and addressed your point weeks before you made it.

      • Moshe Averick

        Like I said: “whiney and immature.” Engaging in sexual activity is a choice, it is not my responsibility to pay for your personal choices. You cannot violate my rights to religious freedom so that you can save some money.

        • Moshe,

          Take note of the fact that it is not an issue simply of “religious freedom,” but of freedom as such. Even atheists should not be forced to pay for other people’s health, education, sexual, or other preferences.

          • Ummm, you do know that Fluke was protesting the exclusion of birth control from a health plan funded by herself and her fellow students. Not funded by Georgetown U. Not funded by the government. Not a cent of your money, just hers, and other students who are overwhelmingly (94% in a survey) against this particular exclusion

            You can bitch all you like about whether the government has any need to get involved or whether the students just need to slug it out with the health plan provider, but every time you, or Moshe, or Rush, state that she wants her lifestyle funded by the government, then you are out and out telling a lie. If your cause is so damned righteous, then why do you need to lie to support it?

            The government’s only involvement is to consider making discriminatory behaviour illegal, much as it did with the Civil Rights Act. That’s where you need to keep this debate if you want anyone to see you as anything but a shrill libertarian extremist. Given that you also oppose the Civil Rights Act, it may be too late for that in any case.

          • If it’s Fluke’s own health plan, why did she exclude birth control when she really wanted it? What’s going on here?

          • ——“The government’s only involvement is to consider making discriminatory behaviour illegal,…”——

            The government shouldn’t even think about it.

            It is not rightfully within the government’s Constitutional authority to make private “discriminatory behaviour illegal.” Insurance companies, for instance , should be completely free to discriminate between customers with different risk profiles.

            (And why should birth control be covered under an insurance policy anyway — since needing it is not an accident?)

          • If it’s Fluke’s own health plan, why did she exclude birth control when she really wanted it?

            She didn’t. The administrators of the health plan (who only manage, not fund it) did because it offends their imaginary friend. It’s not like when you join the plan you get to check a box, the religious twats who run the fund exclude it whether you want them to or not.

            What’s going on here?

            The normal sense of entitlement that the religious feel to dictate their morality to people in wider society. In this case, the religious managers of a health plan feel entitled to exclude a benefit that those that fund the plan explicitly want included.

          • For cryin’ out loud, jp!

            If she doesn’t like the way the plan is administered, all she has to do is find another plan managed by somebody who does it to her satisfaction!

            This is not rocket science, but plain common sense.

            It sounds like Fluke would rather whine than take responsibility for doing the sensible thing.

          • In the first place, Georgetown University is not attempting “to dictate their morality” to anybody. Enrollment at Georgetown is entirely voluntary.

            Secondly, if anybody doesn’t like the Georgetown “health plan,” then nobody has to take part in funding it. They have options, e.g., go to a different school, get a different plan, etc.

            Georgetown is rightfully entitled to offer a plan that the institution deems fit and proper for its circumstances (and morality). Nobody has to buy into their way of doing things.

      • Notice how wrong Fluke is on every point.

        Nobody is forcing her to choose between “a quality education” and “her health.” It is only being pointed out to her (and because she is human, not “simply a woman”) that it is only proper for her to respect the rights of others — instead of advocating that the government force them to provide the education or health care or whatever she prefers.

        Fluke’s comment is rather clueless — and nasty.

    • —-‘And even if that meant going to a less prestigious university, we refuse to pick between a quality education and our health. And we resent that in the 21st century, anyone think it’s acceptable to ask us to make this choice simply because we are women.”’—-

      Fluke is nuts if she really believes anyone is telling her to “pick between a quality education and our health” — and she’s doubly nuts if she believes anyone is telling her that “simply because we are women”!!

      “Clueless, nasty, and nuts” — she sounds more like Obama every time you think about it.

  • Moshe,

    I have to agree with you that Mark Steyn got it right that Obama, Fluke, and their supporters are “nuts.”

  • On the issue of “government health care,” Sandra Fluke is essentially a younger version of that famous spoiled and clueless “brat,” Barack Obama.

    The Obama-Fluke team is way, way on the wrong side of this issue: they want the government to take unconstitutional action to violate our rights.

    The government should neither take Rush off the air, nor provide anyone with birth control (or any other) drugs (or medical services).

  • Moshe says Sandra Fluke “essentially did nothing but whine before a congressional panel about her “tough” life.”

    This is part of her testimony:

    “A friend of mine, for example, has polycystic ovarian syndrome, and she has to take prescription birth control to stop cysts from growing on her ovaries. Her prescription is technically covered by Georgetown’s insurance because it’s not intended to prevent pregnancy.

    “Unfortunately, under many religious institutions and insurance plans, it wouldn’t be. There would be no exception for other medical needs. And under Sen. Blunt’s amendment, Sen. Rubio’s bill or Rep. Fortenberry’s bill there’s no requirement that such an exception be made for these medical needs.

    “When this exception does exist, these exceptions don’t accomplish their well-intended goals because when you let university administrators or other employers rather than women and their doctors dictate whose medical needs are legitimate and whose are not, women’s health takes a back seat to a bureaucracy focused on policing her body.

    “In 65% of the cases at our school, our female students were interrogated by insurance representatives and university medical staff about why they needed prescription and whether they were lying about their symptoms.

    “For my friend and 20% of the women in her situation, she never got the insurance company to cover her prescription. Despite verifications of her illness from her doctor, her claim was denied repeatedly on the assumption that she really wanted birth control to prevent pregnancy. She’s gay. So clearly polycystic ovarian syndrome was a much more urgent concern than accidental pregnancy for her.

    “After months paying over $100 out-of-pocket, she just couldn’t afford her medication anymore, and she had to stop taking it.

    “I learned about all of this when I walked out of a test and got a message from her that in the middle of the night in her final exam period she’d been in the emergency room. She’d been there all night in just terrible, excruciating pain. She wrote to me, ‘It was so painful I’d woke up thinking I’ve been shot.’

    “Without her taking the birth control, a massive cyst the size of a tennis ball had grown on her ovary. She had to have surgery to remove her entire ovary as a result.

    “On the morning I was originally scheduled to give this testimony, she was sitting in a doctor’s office, trying to cope with the consequences of this medical catastrophe.

    “Since last year’s surgery, she’s been experiencing night sweats and weight gain and other symptoms of early menopause as a result of the removal of her ovary. She’s 32-years-old.

    “As she put it, ‘If my body indeed does enter early menopause, no fertility specialist in the world will be able to help me have my own children. I will have no choice at giving my mother her desperately desired grandbabies simply because the insurance policy that I paid for, totally unsubsidized by my school, wouldn’t cover my prescription for birth control when I needed it.’

    “Now, in addition to potentially facing the health complications that come with having menopause at such an early age – increased risk of cancer, heart disease, osteoporosis – she may never be able to conceive a child.
    “Some may say that my friend’s tragic story is rare.

    It’s not. I wish it were.

    “One woman told us doctors believe she has endometriosis, but that can’t be proven without surgery. So the insurance has not been willing to cover her medication – the contraception she needs to treat her endometriosis.

    “Recently, another woman told me that she also has polycystic ovarian syndrome and she’s struggling to pay for her medication and is terrified to not have access to it.

    “Due to the barriers erected by Georgetown’s policy, she hasn’t been reimbursed for her medications since last August.

    “I sincerely pray that we don’t have to wait until she loses an ovary or is diagnosed with cancer before her needs and the needs of all of these women are taken seriously.

    “Because this is the message that not requiring coverage of contraception sends: A woman’s reproductive health care isn’t a necessity, isn’t a priority.

    “One woman told us that she knew birth control wasn’t covered on the insurance and she assumed that that’s how Georgetown’s insurance handle all of women’s reproductive and sexual health care. So when she was raped, she didn’t go to the doctor, even to be examined or tested for sexually transmitted infections, because she thought insurance wasn’t going to cover something like that – something that was related to a woman’s reproductive health.

    “As one other student put it: ‘This policy communicates to female students that our school doesn’t understand our needs.’

    “These are not feelings that male fellow student experience and they’re not burdens that male students must shoulder.

    “In the media lately, some conservative Catholic organizations have been asking what did we expect when we enroll in a Catholic school?

    “We can only answer that we expected women to be treated equally, to not have our school create untenable burdens that impede our academic success.

    “We expected that our schools would live up to the Jesuit creed of ‘cura personalis‘ – to care for the whole person – by meeting all of our medical needs.

    “We expected that when we told our universities of the problem this policy created for us as students, they would help us.

    “We expected that when 94% of students oppose the policy the university would respect our choices regarding insurance students pay for – completely unsubsidized by the university.

    “We did not expect that women would be told in the national media that we should have gone to school elsewhere.

    “And even if that meant going to a less prestigious university, we refuse to pick between a quality education and our health. And we resent that in the 21st century, anyone think it’s acceptable to ask us to make this choice simply because we are women.

    “Many of the women whose stories I’ve shared today are Catholic women. So ours is not a war against the church. It is a struggle for the access to the health care we need.

    “The President of the Association of Jesuit Colleges has shared that Jesuit colleges and the universities appreciate the modifications to the rule announced recently. Religious concerns are addressed and women get the health care they need. And I sincerely hope that that is something we can all agree upon.”

    Moshe’s reaction: Sandra Fluke “is a whiney, immature brat who should grow up and take responsibility for her own actions”.

    Moshe, you’re not a tenth the human being that Sandra Fluke has shown herself to be.

    • Sandra Fluke is a political activist who wants the government to violate our individual rights.

      • Whose individual rights are violated by a requirement that a health plan she pays for herself isn’t allowed to make exclusions based on misogyny?

        Tell me Steve, what do you think of the Civil Rights Act that violated the individual right of restaurateurs to refuse service to black people or Jews?

        • —-“Whose individual rights are violated by a requirement that a health plan she pays for herself isn’t allowed to make exclusions based on misogyny?”—-

          In this case, it is the rights of those who own and run the university that are being violated when the government commands that they are not free “to make exclusions” that they want to make.

          —-“Tell me Steve, what do you think of the Civil Rights Act that violated the individual right of restaurateurs to refuse service to black people or Jews?”—-

          The “Civil Rights Act” was wrong to command that restaurants had to serve people they didn’t freely choose to serve.

          It makes no difference why the university or the restaurants didn’t want to do what the political authorities wanted them to do. Even if they just don’t like people of some races, religions, genders, hair colors, heights, etc., universities and restaurants should be free to serve whom they choose, and free to choose what they offer.

          • And certainly the right way to think about it.

          • This is what I’ve grown appreciate about Steve, he clearly shows that atheism is truly diverse. One can be wrong about so much factually and morally and still understand that there is no such thing as magic.

          • Instead of outlawing “Jim Crow” statutes, the “Civil Rights Act” took the spirit of “Jim Crow” and spread it around, further entrenching its irrationality in American law.

            The “Civil Rights Act” was a terrible mistake, and helps give a false veneer of legality to the tyrannical rule pursued by the Obama-Holder regime.

            “Jim Crow” laws weren’t rotten enough for politicians, so they had to be given a big booster shot with the “Civil Rights Act.” The “Civil Rights Act” violated individual rights in an even bigger way than “Jim Crow” infamously did.

            The “Civil Rights Act” was “Jim Crow” on steroids. (Analogous to how Obama is Bush on steroids.)

          • >The “Civil Rights Act” was “Jim Crow” on steroids.

            Awesome.

            You’re insane.

          • If you think that’s such an infallible argument, you would probably make a good fit with one of Obama’s “hostility without thought” brigades. (After all, misery loves company.)

        • Moshe Averick

          JP,

          Freedom on religion is much more important.
          There is no constitutional right to have someone pay for the costs of my birth control. You cannot violate someone’s religious freedom for a non-existent “right.”

          • Actually, it is wrong to violate anyone’s rights (aka freedom) for any reason whatsoever.

          • Who said anything about getting something for free? She and her fellow students just want the health plan that she and her fellow students fund out of their own pockets to quit with the misogyny. It’s not about funding, that’s just a smear from Rush that you’ve accepted entirely uncritically.

          • ——“She and her fellow students just want the health plan that she and her fellow students fund out of their own pockets …”——

            If they are funding it themselves, but they don’t like the deal they’re getting, why don’t they switch to a deal they like? Who in the world is preventing them from changing to a company with a plan they like?

        • Max Marie, OFS

          JP – when ever someone wants something for free, someone else has to pay for it. The cost of health insurance goes higher and higher. To take care of the needy few.

          I am a single woman. I neither want nor need birth control. But I have to pay more for health care to subsidise the women who demand it for free.

          NOTHING is for free.

          It is, and should be, the right of every agency to allow or disallow. Yes, I will pay for this. No, I will not pay for that.

          Who a diner serves does not cost the general public. It is not a proper rebuttal for this situation. Apples and Oranges.

          The whole post you made about the woman with cysts does not make your point. Take religion out of the equation.

          I have a friend who had a problem. He went to SEVEN different hospitals here where I live and they kept telling him it was all in his head. There’s nothing wrong with him. He continued to push until he was able to get a referal from his insurance company to go to the Mayo Clinic – out of state. There, after a single visit, he was diagnosed with Parkinsons. Now he has made his way into a special program and is seeing improvement where conventional doctors have been of no help.

          What people like you don’t realize is that the minute you curtail the rights of anyone – anyone!! – your own rights are threatened.

          • —-“What people like you don’t realize is that the minute you curtail the rights of anyone – anyone!! – your own rights are threatened.”—-

            That point is lost on leftists. They don’t care about rights at all. Power is their god; they want the government to push people around, regardless of the consequences.

          • You may not want to pay for other people’s health care, but Sandra Fluke does, because she’s a decent human being and because she understands the principle of insurance.

            She doesn’t want something for nothing, she actually wants to contribute to the cost of her friends ovarian cyst preventative medicine, knowing that but for the grace of God it could have been her.

            Frankly, that makes her a better person than you seem to be in my eyes.

          • ——“… but Sandra Fluke does, because she’s a decent human being …”

            If she really is, then why has she gone to such lengths to make herself look exactly the opposite?

          • ——“Sandra Fluke … understands the principle of insurance.”——

            Then why didn’t she explain it to Pelosi and Obama, who certainly don’t understand it? She had such a great chance to do it!

            But if she thinks that insurance companies should be forbidden by government from discriminating in their coverage plans, then you cannot legitimately claim that she “understands the principle of insurance.”

    • Moshe Averick

      JP,

      You and I both know that the issue is not about exceptional cases like the one mentioned above. Things like that can be dealt with and corrected.

      “Because this is the message that not requiring coverage of contraception sends: A woman’s reproductive health care isn’t a necessity, isn’t a priority.” – This is whiney immature nonsense.

      • Yeah Moshe, you’re right. Excluding funding for women’s (and only women’s) reproductive health care actually sends the message that it IS a necessity, and IS a priority. What could I have been thinking?

        If Fluke gets her way, she’ll end up paying for the health care of her fellow students, like her friend with ovarian cysts, because she knows that the fair thing to do, and the purpose of insurance.

        She’s not trying to get a free ride. She just can’t see why the wishes of 94% of the people who actually fund the health plan she belongs to should be overriden by the misogynist doctrine of her institution’s management’s imaginary friend, especially when the management with the imaginary friend do not even fund the health plan.

        • jp, you’re not making any sense. If it is Fluke’s own insurance, then why is the “institution’s management” (or their “imaginary friend”) even involved in the first place. What in the world do they have to do with it?

          Is she buying her insurance directly from a particular company? Or is she buying a plan specifically offered through Georgetown University? If the latter, then, if she understood the principle of insurance, she should know that if she doesn’t like the plan offered, then she should look elsewhere instead of taking that one.

  • It’s a good thing you keep kosher Mushe otherwise you could have been guilty of a mild form of cannibalism.

    Once again you don’t understand the facts of the case but just regurgitate Fox Limbaugh talking points in place.

    It’s simple, excluding drugs from a drug plan makes no sense.

    I know you and the others in the Theist Jr AntiSex League think that any woman who is on the pill is a slutty slut slut who needs to get pregnant for such “irresponsibility” and to stop her wanton ways but in reality they’re regular people, humans even.

    It would probably drive you insane if you ever knew how much sex the world is having around you. Barking fing mad you would go.

    >constitutional right to free-speech because they have been offended by a talk-radio host whose show happen

    Do you really not understand stuff?

    The government is not shutting Rush up, his sponsors are, who have the ACTUAL freedom to spend their money where they think it will do the most good. Turns out a big fat pill popping sex tourist calling a woman a slut for three days running isn’t good for business.

    Anyone with sense would be offended, hence you remain unaffected.

    >Just like we moved on after Bill Maher apologized for using the most vulgar four-letter words to describe Michelle Bachman and Sarah Palin.

    Ah, yes, two wrongs always make a right! Do you know feel the slightest twinge when you use the tactics of a child? Sputter whining “Buttt Maaaahhh, THEY DO IT TOO!!”

    And I had no idea that Rush Limbaugh was a comedian, I mean I laugh at him but you lot seem to take him quite seriously.

    See the comedians were not being literal, they were ripping on a public figure in the context of humour.

    Rush was calling a large percentage of American women whores for having sex for reals.

    Once again Mushe, different things are different! It’s truly weird how you can’t figure that out.

    • “The government is not shutting Rush up, his sponsors are,…”

      Nobody is “shutting Rush up.” Nobody. Where in the world did you get the crazy notion anything like that was happening? (I don’t listen to his show, but it would have been in the news if something like that happened.) What part of “the show is on” don’t you understand?

      • Rush has lost so many sponsors that his show has had dead air. I’m unsure if his listeners noticed the difference.

    • Moshe Averick

      Salvage,

      Rush Limbaugh is much funnier than Letterman or Maher, but that is beside the point.

      My point was that Fonda and friends wanted the FCC to take Limbaugh off the air. If they had demanded that Letterman and Maher also be taken off the air by the government and they had labeled Clinton and Kennedy for the womanizers and misogynists that they were/are, I would still say that they were unjustly trying to violate the right to free speech, but at least they would be morally and intellectually consistent. As it stands they are hypocrites and intellectually impotent.

      • Kennedy actually killed a woman. Even Clinton doesn’t belong in that same category, does he?

        BTW, it is not “morally and intellectually consistent” to use one’s right to speak freely to advocate government censorship.

      • Yeah, I don’t think you know what misogyny means, hmm let’s see how can I explain it, oh I know…. Okay so you know how you won’t shake the hand of a woman? And how you frown on the idea of women being equal to men and want them only to cook, clean and make Jewish babies because that’s all they’re good for? See that’s misogyny, Clinton is a lecherous horndog who doesn’t have the strength of character or the honor if not sense to keep it in his pants and Kennedy was the same but also a drunken *sshole who should have been sent to jail. But they both clearly didn’t view women, as you do through the theistic misogyny that is a platform of your superstitions.

        I suspect your clearly limited life experience leaves you I’ll equipped to tell the difference.

        Bu once again only the government can violate free speech, people on chat shows can only exercise it, another difference you don’t understand.

        Gosh, that list gets longer and longer!

        • Salvage,

          Thanks for opening my eyes. Men who use thousands of women (like Kennedy) for their own personal gratification or like our other favorite former president who rape them using their positions of power to escape prosecution are not misogynists, but an Orthodox Jew who does not shake a women’s hand because he will only have physical contact with the woman he has committed his life to, is a misogynist. Glad you cleared up that confusion.

          • > Men who use thousands of women (like Kennedy) for their own personal gratification

            Yeah, the women hated having sex with the witty, charming powerful man!

            See that’s one of the many things you don’t understand about women, they actually like sex… no, no, not just the slutty slut sluts who whore around, regular women really enjoy having sex… perhaps that’s another reality you’re blind to but in this case forgivable as I suspect you have excuse.

            > or like our other favorite former president who rape them using their positions of power to escape prosecution are not misogynists,

            Clinton didn’t rape anyone you Coulter reading and believing retard. The story the “victim” told made very little sense and had even less evidence. Tell us how Clinton had Vince Foster whacked next.

            You cartoon you.

            > but an Orthodox Jew who does not shake a women’s hand because he will only have physical contact with the woman he has committed his life to, is a misogynist.

            Yup, you view women with this bizarre fear and loathing, as if the merest contact with a strange one would send you into a raving testosterone filled rampage. Can’t shakes hands with them, can’t pray with them, heck don’t even take the same bus with one if you can see her ankles!

            The terror you people have of your natural libidos could only produce a species of hatred.

            Ah but if only that were the end of it, tell me Mushe, female rabbis? Would you like one as a colleague? How many women do you work? Ever had one as a boss?

            You guys and the gals, it must have been bizarre for the Orthodox in Israel to have a female Prime Minister considering this:

            http://www.buzzfeed.com/burnred/hasidic-paper-removes-hillary-clinton-from-osama-p-281t

            The mentality that took the time to erase Hillary from the image, I can’t even begin to fathom it, immature to be sure (No girls allowed!) condescension perhaps? (Oi! We can’t have a woman involved in an assassination! They’re too weak and pure for such things!) Jealous anger? (No way can a woman have been involved in that!) Confusion? (No, that was no woman, it must have been a tick of the light, we just cleaned the image up!)

            Do you have any insight Moshe?

          • Salvage, I’ve waded into a couple of your posts, and have been unable to salvage anything worthwhile from the mess. I’m curious, have you ever offered any worthwhile comments or observations? In your posts, good sense, decorum, and insight appear to have been sunk without a trace.

        • As one of my favorite writers often comments, “… Mary Jo Kopechne could not be reached for comment.”

          • Yeah Ann Coulter is a vile lying, stupid hack and that “joke” wasn’t funny the first time and she told it about a million times so even less so.

            If she is favourite writer than you are f#cked up dude.

          • Now you’re trying to use Ann Coulter as a diversion? How did you get the crazy notion that she was somehow relevant?

          • Uh Steve? Didn’t you post:

            As one of my favorite writers often comments, “… Mary Jo Kopechne could not be reached for comment.”

            Well that “writer” (more typist really) is Ann Coulter and she is a vile, lying hack.

            So, if I’m “diverting” (Huh? From what and why?) then I mind controlled you into bringing her up.

          • Well, I certainly wasn’t referring to Coulter. I have no idea what she thinks about Mary Jo Kopechne. Can you give a link to what it is that you have in mind?

            And, just out of curiously, on what to you base the silly description of “vile lying, stupid hack”? Coulter isn’t even a liberal, is she?

          • You said:

            As one of my favorite writers often comments, “… Mary Jo Kopechne could not be reached for comment.”

            That is a Coulter line that she has reused countless times. Punch in Mary Jo Kopechne could not be reached for comment.”+ “Ann Coulter” and into Google and there can be no doubt that she wrote, wrote it often and everyone knows she wrote it.

            So which “favorite” writer were you referring too then?

            I base my opinion on her work by reading it and having, y’know, a brain.

          • How useful is your “brain” if it can’t even find a link to what it claims to have read?

            I’ll admit, I rarely read Coulter, so she could have written it — but you’ve made no case for it actually having happened.

            I read Taranto practically every day — and he often uses the line. Do you think one of them stole it from the other? Or do you think it’s just a coincidence — if Coulter even uses the line in the first place (which hasn’t been established).

            Here’s the link I had in mind: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304692804577281581288138216.html

          • Another interest link on “could not be reached”: http://spectator.org/archives/2009/08/28/the-kopechne-effect

            “While I thought I’d stolen it from Ann Coulter, someone else said it actually originated more than two decades ago as a Chevy Chase punchline on Saturday Night Live.”

  • Robin Morgan should know a little bit about hate speech.

    “I feel that ‘man-hating’ is an honourable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them.”

    — Robin Morgan

  • Wow. While your article has some great points. The title just makes you sound like a whiny white middle aged man. I might agree with you one some points, you just come off as a chauvinist.

    As an educated orthodox woman I have to say, this is why people think orthodox men treat women like second class citizens.

    If you have a mature and educated response to the issue of health coverage for birth control, publish that.

    • It is improper for the government to provide health care coverage for birth control because it is illegal (due to being unconstitutional) for the government to provide any health care coverage of any sort, period (whether via taxation, mandates, or whatever).

      The government has no right (or Constitutional authority) to tax some people to pay for other people’s health care (or retirement, or unemployment, etc.). The government has no right (or Constitutional authority) to mandate that people buy health insurance (or pay into Social Security, etc.)

      In a free market, on the other hand, private insurance companies should be free to offer “birth control coverage” to customers willing to buy it.

      • I agree. I have a firm belief that the government should stay out of my wallet, out of my home, and out of my shul.

        • The purpose of government is to protect us from the initiation of force and fraud. The general principle should be to make a strong wall of separation between state, on the one hand, and church, school, business, private life, et.al., on the other hand.

    • Moshe Averick

      Ilana,

      I will take your observations under consideration.
      I admit that the title was meant to be attention grabbing and perhaps you have a point.

Leave a Reply

Please note: comments may be published in the Algemeiner print edition.


Current day month ye@r *

More...

  • Arts and Culture Jewish Identity ‘Tears of Color’ Art Exhibit Shows Struggles of Israelis With Eating Disorders

    ‘Tears of Color’ Art Exhibit Shows Struggles of Israelis With Eating Disorders

    JNS.org – “This is how I want to be—without fear. Independent. I want to be like a bird. I want to spread my wings.” So reads part of the description beneath one of the 30 paintings on display until the end of May at the ZOA House in Tel Aviv. The collection represents the first-ever art exhibit of its kind: an exhibit created entirely by Israelis in treatment for eating disorders. Dubbed “Tears of Color,” based on one of the [...]

    Read more →
  • Beliefs and concepts Book Reviews Overprotective or Loving? Daughters Reflect on Jewish Mothers in New Anthology

    Overprotective or Loving? Daughters Reflect on Jewish Mothers in New Anthology

    JNS.org – Rachel Ament noticed that she and her friends often shared humorous anecdotes that were typically variations on a theme: overprotective, worrying Jewish moms who smothered them with love. That included Ament’s own mother. “My mom is probably every Jewish stereotype scrunched into one,” the Washington, DC, resident tells JNS.org. “At the root of all these stereotypical, worrying, overprotective moms, is love.” A social media writer for Capital One, as well as a freelance writer, Ament decided about three years [...]

    Read more →
  • Book Reviews Commentary ‎Kosher Lust: Love is Not the Answer (REVIEW)

    ‎Kosher Lust: Love is Not the Answer (REVIEW)

    Kosher Lust, by Shmuley Boteach (Gefen Publishing House, 2014). You really do want to find something positive to say about Shmuley Boteach. He is a phenomenon; very bright, an articulate bundle of energy and self-promotion. Anyone who has the chutzpah to describe himself as “America’s Rabbi” deserves ten out of ten for effort. I believe that along with most Chabad alumni, official and unofficial, he does a lot of good and is a sort of national treasure. In this world [...]

    Read more →
  • Jewish Identity Theater Hollywood’s Revisiting of Passover’s Exodus Story a Part of Throwback ‘Year of the Bible’

    Hollywood’s Revisiting of Passover’s Exodus Story a Part of Throwback ‘Year of the Bible’

    JNS.org – In a throwback to the golden age of cinema, Hollywood has declared 2014 the “Year of the Bible.” From Ridley Scott’s Exodus starring Christian Bale as Moses, to Russell Crowe playing Noah, Hollywood is gambling on new innovations in technology and star power to revisit some of the most popular stories ever told. “It’s definitely a throwback to the 1950s and early ’60s,” Dr. Stephen J. Whitfield, an American Studies professor at Brandeis University, told JNS.org. Starting with The [...]

    Read more →
  • Arts and Culture US & Canada ‘Jewish Giant’ Headlines New York Jewish Museum Exhibit

    ‘Jewish Giant’ Headlines New York Jewish Museum Exhibit

    Eddie Carmel, dubbed “The Jewish Giant” by American photographer Diane Arbus, is the centerpiece of a new exhibit opening April 11 at The Jewish Museum in New York. Arbus met Carmel, who was billed “The World’s Tallest Man,” at Hubert’s Dime Museum and Flea Circus in 1959 but waited until 1970 to photograph him at his parents’ home in the Bronx, according to the museum. The son of immigrants from Tel Aviv, Carmel posed for Arbus with his head bowed to [...]

    Read more →
  • Music US & Canada Disney Hit ‘Frozen’ Gets Passover Themed Makeover With ‘Chozen’ (VIDEO)

    Disney Hit ‘Frozen’ Gets Passover Themed Makeover With ‘Chozen’ (VIDEO)

    A Passover themed cover of hit songs Let It Go and Do You Want to Build a Snowman? from Disney’s Frozen has attracted tons of media buzz and a cool 65,ooo views on YouTube within days of going online. The work of Jewish a capella group Six13, the track is aptly named Chozen. We are celebrating “our freedom, our favorite festival, our fabulous fans, and aspiring Disney princesses everywhere” the group said. The Chozen music video tells the story of [...]

    Read more →
  • Arts and Culture Jewish Identity Retreat Gives Young Artists New Platform to Engage With Jewish Ideas

    Retreat Gives Young Artists New Platform to Engage With Jewish Ideas

    JNS.org – Many young Jewish artists struggle to define who they are personally, artistically, and religiously. Against the backdrop of that struggle, the recent Asylum Arts International Jewish Artists Retreat provided a space for some 70 young Jewish artists to explore Jewish ideas, to build community and a culture of reciprocity, and to learn skills to assist their career development. “We are trying to encourage and excite people to engage in Jewish themes,” says Rebecca Guber, director of Asylum Arts. [...]

    Read more →
  • Arts and Culture Jewish Literature Darren Aronofsky Adds Psychological Depth, Little Else to ‘Noah’

    Darren Aronofsky Adds Psychological Depth, Little Else to ‘Noah’

    JNS.org – Has the era of large-scale biblical epics returned? Not since “The Ten Commandments” has there been so much torrential water on the big screen (not counting weather-related disaster films such as “The Impossible”) than in “Noah,” the latest blockbuster from writer and director Darren Aronofsky. “Noah” takes the traditional tale and splices it in an eco-friendly and psychologically driven plot. After Adam and Eve got booted out of the Garden of Eden and after Cain killed Abel, mankind [...]

    Read more →



Sign up now to receive our regular news briefs.