Since We Can’t Call Sandra Fluke a ‘Slut,’ Would ‘Lying Liberal Bitch’ Be OK?

Posted on Comments

Sandra “Not a Slut” Fluke testifies, Monday, Feb. 27, 2012

Far be it from me to stoop to name-calling as a substitute for argument, but this question is not merely rhetorical. It seems that Sandra Fluke — who is receiving media Martyr of the Month beatification as the Matthew Shepard of “reproductive rights” — stands accused of makin’ stuff up.

This story isn’t on my beat: Until Wednesday, I’d been covering the GOP presidential campaign, then I had a family emergency that required me to drive home from Michigan, then Andrew Breitbart died on Thursday, and so I’ve been kind of busy with other stuff. I hadn’t too much followed the details of this controversy, except to note that everybody was slamming Rush Limbaugh for calling Sandra Fluke a “slut.” Fortunately, John McCormack of the Weekly Standard was all over this story:

Nancy Pelosi held a congressional hearing on Monday with a single witness, Georgetown student Sandra Fluke, to testify about the need for Obamacare to mandate that religious institutions provide free contraception and abortifacients under their health insurance plans.

(We make note of the key facts: One witness, testifying before Congress, about mandating free contraception coverage.)

“Forty percent of the female students at Georgetown Law reported to us that they struggled financially as a result of this policy,” Fluke testified regarding the Catholic university’s policy of not covering birth control. “Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school.”

(Again noting the key facts: Fluke claims to have conducted a survey, discovering that 40% of her felllow students “struggled financially” because of contraceptive costs averaging $1,000 a year during the three years required to complete law school. Fluke made these claims, it must be repeated, during a congressional hearing at which she was the only witness.)

Birth control pills can be purchased for as low as $9 per month at a pharmacy near Georgetown’s campus. According to an employee at the pharmacy in Washington, D.C.’s Target store, the pharmacy sells birth control pills — the generic versions of Ortho Tri-Cyclen and Ortho-Cyclen — for $9 per month. “That’s the price without insurance,” the Target employee said. Nine dollars is less than the price of two beers at a Georgetown bar.

WHOA! John McCormack has done something here that evidently no one else — not the New York Times, not the Washington Post, not Nancy Pelosi’s staffers in the House of Representatives — is capable of doing: Calling up a drugstore and asking them how much birth-control pills cost.

Give that man a Pulitzer Prize for investigative journalism.

Now let’s back up a minute and consider the key facts again: Nancy Pelosi holds a hearing of the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee seeking to justify a federal policy that would mandate insurance coverage of contraceptives — with no deductible and no co-payment — even for religious institutions where artificial contraception is forbidden as a matter of church doctrine.

In justification of this policy, Pelosi produces exactly one witness, Sandra Fluke, who then asserts that she has conducted a survey of her fellow students, determined that four out of every ten of them have “struggled financially” to pay for their contraception which, she has further determined, “can cost a woman over $3,000” during the three years required to complete law school.

Craig Bannister’s CNS article about Fluke’s testimony mocked these assertions, and when Rush Limbaugh told his radio listeners about the story, he used the words “slut” and “prostitute” to describe Fluke, thus making Limbaugh the target of one of those online lynch mobs that Media Matters specializes in orchestrating.

While everyone is focused on Limbaugh’s alleged “misogyny,” however, it seems that we are ignoring much more important questions:

  • How and when did Fluke conduct her survey of Georgetown Law students’ alleged struggles with contraceptive costs? How many students participated in this survey? What kind of questions were asked? Was the survey conducted with a statistically valid sample? Can Fluke describe her survey’s methodology and provide us with the original questionnaires?
  • How did Fluke arrive at her $3,000 estimate of the cost of contraception? What types of contraceptives — condoms, diaphragms, pills, spermicidal foam — were included in these calculations?
  • Was Fluke aware that a monthly supply of birth-control pills could be obtained for as little as $9 a month? Are Fluke’s math skills sufficient to multiply 9 x 12 x 3 and realize that a three-year supply of pills would therefore cost $324, which is 89.2% less than her $3,000 estimate?
  • Is Fluke aware that annual full-time tuition at Georgetown Law School is $46,865, compared to which an annual cost of $108 for birth-control pills is what statisticians might call “a drop in the bucket”?

Let me be clear: I don’t think Sandra Fluke could provide credible answers to these questions, because I think Sandra Fluke lied through her teeth at that congressional hearing, and I think it’s high time people stop worrying about the alleged misogyny involved in calling someone a “slut” and start asking some hard questions about the alleged lying of Sandra Fluke.

Ace of Spades is giving Jake Tapper hell because Tapper got an interview with Sandra Fluke and didn’t bother to ask her any hard questions about her wildly exaggerated estimate of contraceptive costs. But instead of expecting journalists to do actual journalism, here’s a wild idea:

Aren’t Republicans a majority in the House of Representatives? Doesn’t that give them subpoena power? Couldn’t some GOP committee chairman subpoena Sandra Fluke, put her under oath, and force her to answer some hard questions under penalty of perjury?

I’d sure as hell like to see that hearing, wouldn’t you? And if the House Republicans don’t give us that hearing, I’m prepared to denounce John Boehner as a gutless sissy-boy.

Now, I’ll wait for liberals to accuse me of “homophobia,” so we can spend another week engaged in pointless distractions.

UPDATE: At one point in this “controversy,” Ace tried to find the proper comic tone for riffing on Sandra Fluke:

She’s not a hero. She’s just a Chubster looking for some camera time.

Not good. I thought about going there. The line where I have Fluke “lying through her teeth”? That was going to be “lying her chubby ass off,” but I wasn’t sure that readers would understand that I actually like chubby asses, and I didn’t want to risk offending women who’ve got that kind of more-cushion-for-the-pushin’ biscuits-and-gravy action that me and Sir Mix-a-Lot dig, IYKWIMAITYD.

So I decided against that joke, with a bit of a guilty conscience for even having considered it.

I also felt a slight twinge of guilt when I remembered having made fun of Maureen Dowd’s musty old vajayjay a few years ago. But then I thought about all the vicious things MoDo wrote about Sarah Palin, and my conscience felt a whole lot better all of a sudden.

UPDATE II: Linked by Bob Agard, Monoblog and Rio Norte Line — thanks! — and I want to take this opportunity to apologize to readers for some of our commenters who have made derogatory remarks about Sandra Fluke’s appearance. This is terribly unfortunate, and probably sexist, too.

Besides, it is inaccurate to imply that Sandra Fluke is unattractive.

A recent survey I’ve conducted indicates that 27% of men are attracted to women with the “varsity softball scholarship” look. In fact, seven out of 10 Eritrean immigrant cab drivers in the D.C. metropolitan area say that they would be attracted to Sandra Fluke, especially if her family were willing to provide a dowry that included a small herd of goats, or if they could score a Permanent Residency Visa out of the deal.

Also, if given a choice between Maureen Dowd and Sandra Fluke, the Eritrean cab drivers would unanimously choose Fluke.

124 comments

  3. At least you didn’t call her “a shiftless rent-a-cooch from East Whoreville.”

    Because that would be wrong.

  4. Is it to early to offend a feminist? When is National Offend A Feminist week anyway…May? Perhaps we need a warmup before the main event, eh?

  5. One slight suggestion: it wasn’t an official “Congressional hearing.” I’m not even sure any contents go into the archives. It was a stagecrafted pseudo-hearing made just for the headlines and photos.

  7.  

    “a shiftless rent-a-cooch from East Whoreville.”

    Yes, indeed. It would be wrong to call her that, because we have no evidence that anyone would be willing to pay rent for her cooch.

  9. Plus, I think there’s only a West Whoreville. She could be from there, but if there’s doubt, it’s probably best to leave that off.

    I think Ace has appropriately denounced himself.

  10.  All the more reason to hold a real hearing – to put the testimony above board and on the record.

    They should also request the appearance of the President of the University, and the Dean of the Law School.

    Perhaps even the Bishop of the Diocese.

  14. It was Fluke’s lying before Congress (okay, before Democrats so maybe it doesn’t matter) and the whopper of the lie that leads one to say the behavior she is fondly accusing her friends of (because she said she was there for them, not her) is slutty behavior. 

  17. Yeah, her impoverished Georgetown friends who conveniently have this convenient mouthpiece at a convenient unofficial hearing so they do not have to testify in a real hearing themselves.

    Would it be too much to ask to request Ms. Fluke’s friends show up and give their own accounting of their woeful state of having to foot the bill for 3K contraception whilst starving and under-educated?

    Would it be too much to suggest that there are plenty of contraceptive choices that aren’t so pricey (hey, abstinence is free, would it be too much to ask them if they’ve tried that and if not, why not?); would it be too much to ask why, if their contraception which is so vitally important, as important as food and drink, they do not cut costs by going to a less expensive school (thus implementing freedom of choice)?  Would it be too much to not have one’s intelligence so blatantly assaulted all the freaking time?

    Lefties? Anyone? Bueller?

  19. …I think it’s high time people stop worrying about the alleged misogyny involved in calling someone a “slut”….

    When they do call you a misogynist [or a homophobe] just reply, as AB would have: So?

  20. Yes, this woman was a ridiculous liar and Obama’s mandate for birth control was a royal screw up, but the Stupid Party fu#ked it all up royally.  The super smart “base” once again struck out on a home run pitch.

    I’m sure things would have worked out better if we just would have elected Christine O’Donnell and Sharon Angle.  They probably would have introduced a bill demanding Ms. Fluke wear a Scarlet “A” on her chest

    Thanks TeaTards

  22. As much as I like to harsh on Mr. Spades, when he goes off on tears such as this he really does redeem himself (which makes me feel a bit bad for being so harsh in my judgement of him).

  23. yes, yes it is — although there are many different types of fluke (this could be the start of another great game: Name the Fluke)

  25. Was she required to take an oath to testify?  If so, she should have her ass (fat or not) put in jail.   If she’s that fucking stupid that she she overpays by many multiples of percentage over what the kids in the ‘hood pay (nothing–oh wait,that’s an infinite percentage or something like that), she should be thrown out of law school (but then again, she’ll probably be angling for Sibelius’s job later on–she’d be perfect in an Obama-like PravdaFest Admin of Lies. 

    Oh, and if she is really being boffed and it’s by a fellow barrister student, he also should be tossed, but I’m leery of the idea that anyone is hitting on that man-hating thang.  Just a theory.

  27. This would be funnier if it wasn’t designed to cost the Republican party the next election. They’re going to keep throwing this pitch as long as you keep swinging at it.

  29. If Fluke isn’t lying, then the daily cost of her birth control is $2.74.  From what I can find, a cup of coffee and a bagel is about $3.50 a day.  This is the gigantic, soul destroying burden she must be relieved of?  For this we must force the Catholic Church to provide her with birth control?  Because she doesn’t want to give up a cup of coffee?

  32. At $1000 per year just for the contraceptives, she wouldn’t have had time to process the credit cards, so they had to be freebies.

  33.  Well, it certainly didn’t help when Rush stuck his foot in it.  We had a winning argument on conscience objections to a Big Brother policy, and it’s been reframed as attacking a young woman’s romantic search for looooove.

  41.  You could make the argument that the Jesuits are even bigger commie-coddlers than the rank and file parish priests, and you’d be right.

  49. Yeah, and one of the questions for both the Dean and the President should be what the campus disciplinary code says happens to students who are caught lying about material facts such as age on their applications. With a follow-up to the Dean asking if encouraging a serial liar is appropriate for a law school that’s supposed to know the meaning of terms like “theft by deception” and “fraud”.

  50. Shorter PBR Lover: “Why can’t you follow my example and keep taking it in the ass with no lube?”

Comments are closed.