Obviously Revenues Were Threatened

Your insistence on your language is no less an attempt at control than anyone else's. You just don't seem to like it when other people push back.

Rush wants to call her names. That's definitely an attempt to control the debate through language.

I insist on maintaing control of my language

We should be taking pot shots at Rush's slut comment, talking about how ignorant that comment is, not demanding appologies and trying to get him off the airwaves.

hawkeye10 wrote:

I insist on maintaing control of my language

You're welcome to the delusion that you're in control, I guess.

DrewDad wrote:

hawkeye10 wrote:

I insist on maintaing control of my language

You're welcome to the delusion that you're in control, I guess.

Interesting....has a mind control device been implanted with out my knowledge?

"confused consent"

consider the source i say, how could anyone take him seriously

djjd62 wrote:

consider the source i say, how could anyone take him seriously

tons of people do - I see at least a few of them posting in support of Rush's comments on bipolar's FB page every day.

Not only does she want Georgetown to pay for contraception, she wants it to pay for sex changes.

She also is a wild exaggerator, if not a liar. The cost of birth control for 99% of Georgetown students would never cost $3,000 a year.

Free your mind, and the rest will follow.

Without insurance coverage, contraception can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school.

Sandra Fluke is on Twitter under the twitter name @SandraFluke. Here are some little gems of information you can get from her Twitter account as of 7:40 last evening:

•Fluke has sent 42 Tweets to her followers. Her first Tweet was sent on February 17th. That Tweet read: “Thank you for supporting women’s voices & women’s issues! Follow me for updates on the #contraception struggle.”

•Throughout her Tweeting Fluke consistently refers to her appearance with Nancy Pelosi as a “hearing” and to her statements as “testimony.” It was not a hearing, and she did not testify. She was never under oath. It was a meeting with some Democrats and she spoke. That’s it.

•When Fluke opened her Twitter account the VERY FIRST person she followed was MSNBC’s Rachael Maddow.

•The SECOND person Fluke followed on Twitter was none other than Ed Schultz. Interesting, isn’t it? As soon as Fluke made elected to follow Maddow, she then chose as No. 2 a man who referred to a female conservative talk show host as a “slut.”

It’s worth noting here that after Ed Schultz was suspended from his MSNBC TV show for calling Laura Ingraham a slut, he apologized. Laura Ingraham accepted the apology. Rush Limbaugh also apologized. Fluke refused to accept the apology. Why? Because that might be the end of the publicity train for the lovely Sandra. Refuse to accept the apology and the guest appearances on TV and in other media conti9nue.

My name is Sandra Fluke, and I’m a third year student at Georgetown Law, a Jesuit school. I’m also a past president of Georgetown Law Students for Reproductive Justice or LSRJ. I’d like to acknowledge my fellow LSRJ members and allies and all of the student activists with us and thank them for being here today.

In an article that Fluke co-edited with Karen Hu in the Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law, entitled "Employment Discrimination Against LGBTQ Persons," there is a subsection of the article entitled "Employment Discrimination in Provision of Employment Benefits." Both Fluke and her co-editor describe two forms of discrimination in benefits that 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 discrimination, according to Fluke and Hu is not covering sex change operations.

"A prime example of direct discrimination is denying insurance coverage for medical needs of transgender persons physically transitioning to the other gender."

In a subsection titled "Gender Reassignment Medical Services:"

"Transgender persons wishing to undergo the gender reassignment process frequently face heterosexist employer health insurance policies that label the surgery as cosmetic or medically unnecessary and therefore uncovered."

Fluke and Hu allege employers are engaging in discrimination against their employees who want them to pay for their sex changes because their "heterosexist" health insurance policies.