Satire and Sandra Fluke

I realize the Sandra Fluke story is old news, but Amanda Read’s commentary capably rebuts the nonsensical arguments of feminists who insist that contraception is a “right.”

No matter how many layers of sense well-meaning women vainly try to wrap it in, feminism remains a dirty trick that victimizes, objectifies, and degrades women to damsels in distress who look to the government to slay imaginary conservative dragons.

The conservative argument does not seek to deprive women of their freedom to purchase contraceptives in the U.S., but rather insists that they cannot make this individual choice a government responsibility, and thereby desecrate the conscience of and devour the business of others in the process. “Conscience is the most sacred of all property,” wrote James Madison in 1792.

Evidently it is difficult to explain this to people who do not give much heed to conscience anymore. Why else would self-proclaimed contraceptive-dependent women choose to attend the oldest Catholic and Jesuit institution in the country?…

As a female college student myself, I advocate the most affordable, accessible, and effective birth control available: if you don’t want to conceive a baby, simply stay abstinent and don’t get married right now. It’s not unrealistic, although many people have been culturally conditioned to think that it is unrealistic.

Read the entire piece HERE.

4 thoughts on “Satire and Sandra Fluke

  1. Good afternoon,

    A few months ago, I wrote about a commentator on this site and how she was misguided that Planned Parenthood had accurately talked about the dangers of birth control. I still feel very much that my statements are correct.

    Now I must talk about the other side and state (and I hope you do not think unladylike), the naivety of this commentary in regards to Sandra Fluke and birth control. I feel very strongly about this position and I hope to have a nice discussion in regards to the subject.

    What surprises me about these discussions is that they did not fully understand Sandra Fluke statements in regards to birth control. In fact Ms. Fluke really wasn’t talking about the use of birth control in regards to postponing being mothers. Rather, she was talking about how birth control is used as a medication, to combat specific ailments in the female body.

    The problem, like I have stated in my last post, is that hormonal birth control (which is basically what is being talked about), is used for other things BESIDES actual birth control. “The Pill” is also used to help with amenorrhea (absence of menses), dysmenorrhea (painful periods) and PCOS (polycystic ovarian syndrome). PCOS is what her friend had. Unfortunately, Ms. Fluke’s friend lost one of her ovaries to the disease.

    I know that I may not change your opinion as I doubt you can change mine. All I am asking is if you still believe that birth control is not a right that should be given in health insurance, even when some people do not use it for birth control, than at least fight the point that Sandra Fluke was addressing. Please state your reason why an individual should not use this medication and endure the sad and painful demise of her reproductive system. In other words, please argue the point that Sandra Fluke was trying to make and address the core problem. It isn’t birth control rather it is the lack of alternatives to reproductive healthcare to MAINTAIN fertility.



    1. cdmi, the issue isn’t whether or not women use contraceptives for other health reasons but who should pay for it. Good health isn’t a “right;” it is something we pursue on our own and with our own means. I don’t demand that my next-door neighbor cough up money to pay my doctor bills when I am ill or when I need a special medicine. Our family sets aside the funds needed for doctor visits, medicine, etc., budgeting as wisely as we can to be prepared when the unexpected comes along (and we are members of Samaritan Ministries, where Christians share each other’s major medical needs as an alternative to corporate insurance). Sandra Fluke’s sob story about being unable to afford what she believes is “basic medical care” has been soundly debunked.

      But let’s get back to the core issue at hand. Thomas Jefferson wrote, “To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.” Forcing taxpayers to fund abortifacient contraception is “tyrannical.” Even if we go with your argument that some women are going to use hormonal birth control for other health issues (rather than to prevent pregnancy), that still means that all of those who use it to pursue a promiscuous lifestyle are going to be subsidized by people who find it morally repugnant to support sex outside of marriage and the taking of innocent human life.

      Finally, I’d encourage you to research alternative approaches to women’s health issues. If you click on “birth control” in our tag cloud, you will find a host of articles on the terrible long-term side effects of the pill and its cousins. There are better, safer ways to deal with problems like endometriosis, fibroids, painful cycles, etc. than chemical/hormonal approaches that bring along with them a host of alarming health risks. It’s worth careful study.

      Kind regards,
      Jennie Chancey


  2. cdmi, I respectfully disagree…I would not give my friend, for example, a cigarette if they wanted something to do. there are many of non-toxic ways to kill time. However, if you wanted to, it is your choice. If you told me to buy that pack of cigarettes, I would laugh. Obama is taking away my ability to laugh. or choose. or honor my beliefs. There are many of non-damaging ways to control PCOS…I have no way of knowing if my buying that pill for whatever reason will result in a loss of life. the mother’s or her eventual child.


  3. One of my children has severe asthma requiring several prescription meds that our insurance won’t cover as there are no generic versions available. Annoying and expensive, yes, but I won’t stand before Congress bemoaning the fact that that we have to pay out of pocket for meds that keep him breathing well. I’m sure there are thousands in the same situation.

    Why is it that because the pill is a drug used by women and primarily for the prevention of pregnancy, is there a huge demand by the consumers of that prescription med that it be paid for by someone else?

    Yes, there are instances where it is prescribed for non-contraceptive use, but does that it should therefore be “free” to all who use it? There are thousands of drugs not covered by various insurance plans, why should this one be any different? The answer seems obvious.


Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s