Not really, given that it was pretty much the emphasis of her testimony.
Eh, like the vast majority of people following this story nationally I suspect, I didn't actually watch her testimony. I really only took an interest when it started putting the Georgetown name in or near the headlines in some major media outlets. The WSJ quote didn't seem to mesh with what I had heard from Fluke supporters, which was that even if you had a serious medical condition that required these drugs that you couldn't be covered (and could lose an ovary or whatnot), but thanks to those who provided clarification. Seems to me that if somebody could mitigate the issues with insurance company red tape and denial of coverage when these drugs are prescribed for an actual medical reason, that would solve a lot of problems. Of course, that's not what people want to talk about in this thread, so I shall step back and let all of you legal types figure out constitutionality and all that good stuff.
"Cause it's Hoyas 'til I die, Hoyas 'til I die, again again I say, it's Hoyas 'til I die." --British Matt
A. If you believe Schultz's suspension was Schultz's idea, I've got some more bridges to sell you.
B. As long as we're reporting both instances, it should be noted that Ingraham accepted Schultz's apology.
According to the article, Schultz was indeed the one who suggested a week-long suspension and then decided to make it indefinite. I have no idea whether or not that's true, but I see no reason to dismiss the facts as reported out of hand. A low opinion of Schultz doesn't really speak to the accuracy of Mediaite's reporting one way or the other.
As for the issue of apology acceptance, I think the difference has something to do with the fact that Schultz's apology was "remarkably fulsome and sincere" while Limbaugh's was a half-hearted half-apology which basically said "I'm sorry I called her those two bad words" while leaving unmentioned the content of the rest of his tirade (that she was a sex addict, asking who bought condoms for her in junior high, etc.), as well as his insulting of all Georgetown women and all women who receive birth control coverage through public money (like soldiers). Rush's apology was positively Boeheimesque.
"Reward Hoya Blue. These guys were banging on pots and pans with their shirts off through torrential downpours in an overtime win against Duquesne. That’s the type of spirit that could transform Georgetown into a football school every fall." - The Voice, January 19, 2006
Post by rosslynhoya on Mar 6, 2012 22:07:22 GMT -5
This is the part of Fluke's testimony that still bothers me:
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 handled 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.
I think it's very safe to assume that no woman smart enough to gain admission to GULC is dumb enough to actually believe this, so Fluke's account is just outright slander of the University. It also suggests that all her other anonymous anecdotes are also fabrications by Law Students for Reproductive Justice.
This is the part of Fluke's testimony that still bothers me:
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 handled 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.
I think it's very safe to assume that no woman smart enough to gain admission to GULC is dumb enough to actually believe this, so Fluke's account is just outright slander of the University. It also suggests that all her other anonymous anecdotes are also fabrications by Law Students for Reproductive Justice.
Don't assume that it didn't happen; don't be a Boeheim.
It is terrible what happened to that girl, no doubt. But how is her ignorance of what her health insurance covered somehow Georgetown's fault. She didn't even checking to see if was covered?
This is the part of Fluke's testimony that still bothers me:
I think it's very safe to assume that no woman smart enough to gain admission to GULC is dumb enough to actually believe this, so Fluke's account is just outright slander of the University. It also suggests that all her other anonymous anecdotes are also fabrications by Law Students for Reproductive Justice.
Don't assume that it didn't happen; don't be a Boeheim.
It is terrible what happened to that girl, no doubt. But how is her ignorance of what her health insurance covered somehow Georgetown's fault. She didn't even checking to see if was covered?
How is it Georgetown's fault... Those mean patriarchal Catholics created a culture of rape by consistently treating women as second-class citizens.
Speaking as a Georgetown employee... while our jobs would be infinitely simpler if we could blame students for being ignorant of every policy and procedure, the reality is that there is a responsibility on both sides. If students are ignorant of important details, that's on us as well as them, especially since a lot of pertinent information is not very easily accessible (this is a battle we fight on a near-daily basis. The tuition/fee schedule is buried seven layers deep and presented in a massive table in size 4 font, for goodness sake).
In this current instance, one thing to keep in mind is that Georgetown really goes out of its way to not advertise the facts surrounding student health insurance, likely because it is defensive about (and probably to some degree embarrassed by) them. As best I can tell, the operative assumption has been that undergrads and young grad students are all on their parents' insurance anyway, especially now that the eligibility age has been upped to 26, while older students are either working and insured through their jobs or are insured through their spouse or a legally domiciled adult. The number of students actually having to depend on the student health insurance plan, which is mediocre by any standard, is thus sufficiently low that complaints will generally remain at low levels and off the public radar. Such an approach does have drawbacks, as we're seeing play out now.
"Reward Hoya Blue. These guys were banging on pots and pans with their shirts off through torrential downpours in an overtime win against Duquesne. That’s the type of spirit that could transform Georgetown into a football school every fall." - The Voice, January 19, 2006
In what can only be deemed a huge shock, it seems Ms. Fluke's PR is being handled by a former Obama staffer. Amazing how Ms. Fluke's phony controversy arose just as the President was taking real heat over his Contraception stand.
In what can only be deemed a huge shock, it seems Ms. Fluke's PR is being handled by a former Obama staffer. Amazing how Ms. Fluke's phony controversy arose just as the President was taking real heat over his Contraception stand.
You learned about that through Drudge. Therefore your post is completely invalid and without merit.
""He has to control the paint. It's not his choice, it's his responsibility, it's his duty, it's his obligation." Bill Walton on Roy Hibbert.
In what can only be deemed a huge shock, it seems Ms. Fluke's PR is being handled by a former Obama staffer. Amazing how Ms. Fluke's phony controversy arose just as the President was taking real heat over his Contraception stand.
You learned about that through Drudge. Therefore your post is completely invalid and without merit.
Attack the messanger. Avoid the issue. Avoid the facts. Typical.
No one ever said she was some random student. The Democrats picked her to be a witness at the House hearing because they saw and heard her participate in a forum or panel discussion previously.
The fact that she is a politial advocate does not discredit her or her argument. Attacking her and misrepresenting her argument and the facts do discredit her critics.
She did a perfectly fine job of discrediting herself with her apocryphal anecdotes. She is an agenda-wielding partisan, case closed. Of course, that windbag Limbaugh managed to turn this fake into Joan of Arc with his ham-handed response. She, and her invented controversy, should have been ignored.
Post by hoyainspirit on Mar 10, 2012 8:33:48 GMT -5
Wouldn't have caused nearly the stir that it did if the Republicans had not had such a brainfart and so totally bungled the handling of a women's health issue by having a hearing in which only men were allowed to testify. Then that racist, a-s-s hole, drug addict, blowhard Rush comes and adds jet fuel to the fire. Thank you, Rush. You know, now that I give it some thought, it wasn't a brainfart at all, but just Republican modus operandi. Let's declare war on women in an election year. Easy pickings...
Who Dat! Oh please let me be, I have to be, schizophrenic me!
Wouldn't have caused nearly the stir that it did if the Republicans had not had such a brainfart and so totally bungled the handling of a women's health issue by having a hearing in which only men were allowed to testify. Then that racist, a-s-s hole, drug addict, blowhard Rush comes and adds jet fuel to the fire. Thank you, Rush. You know, now that I give it some thought, it wasn't a brainfart at all, but just Republican modus operandi. Let's declare war on women in an election year. Easy pickings...
Did you know that there were two panels of witnesses at the hearing? And that the second included women, who had been invited by Republicans? The Democrats did, since they publish the witness list ahead of time. Also, did you know that the Democrats chose to invite a man as their witness on the first panel instead of Sandra Fluke?
Post by hoyainspirit on Mar 10, 2012 11:26:14 GMT -5
First panel, second panel, irrelevant. Don't obfuscate the issue. Stay focused on the message. Let's suppress any voice which does not toe the party line. Modus operandi. The "leaders" of the party will even attack their own who don't fully support the nonsense. Hello, tea sippers and Grover Norquist. And the Republicans do a tremendous job "creating victims". Democrats don't have to. Witness Sandra Fluke.
It's been awhile since I've sparred. Feels good!
Last Edit: Mar 10, 2012 11:38:33 GMT -5 by hoyainspirit
Who Dat! Oh please let me be, I have to be, schizophrenic me!
Sandra Fluke (a perfect surname by the way) is a bought and paid for creation of the Democrat fringe. A central casting phony activist. As an aside, I personaly believe everyone (and most especially Democrat activists) should be provided with all the contraception they need.
I worked in the House for 20 years. The proper hearing protocol is for the majority to pick most of the witnesses but let the minority pick one or two. It isn't a legitimate dialogue or debate or anything but a political stunt if all the witnesses have the exact same talking points favorable to the Chairman and majority party's point of view. It's more like the traditions of the Politburo than the US Congress.
I worked in the House for 20 years. The proper hearing protocol is for the majority to pick most of the witnesses but let the minority pick one or two. It isn't a legitimate dialogue or debate or anything but a political stunt if all the witnesses have the exact same talking points favorable to the Chairman and majority party's point of view. It's more like the traditions of the Politburo than the US Congress.
Yup. Dems got one witness in the first panel and chose a male witness, then decided they'd rather walk out, so they told him not to come.
Not exactly. Democrats asked for both. GOP said Barry Lynn but not Fluke. Dems said if only one we want Fluke. Issa said no. It was not because she is a woman but because she wanted to talk about women's health. Lynn represents Americans United for Separation of Church and State. Republicans wanted to talk only about religion and not about health issues. Plus they only acknowledge representatives of established interest groups as being worthy of addressing Members of Congress.
Then that racist, a-s-s hole, drug addict, blowhard Rush comes and adds jet fuel to the fire. Thank you, Rush. You know, now that I give it some thought, it wasn't a brainfart at all, but just Republican modus operandi. Let's declare war on women in an election year. Easy pickings...