Georgetown Law Co-Ed Demands Everyone Else Pay for Her Untamed Sex Life (Updates: Checking Miss Fluke’s Math)
February 28, 2012 - 11:18 am
Poor, pitiful law student. Sandra Fluke can somehow afford to attend Georgetown Law School, but can’t afford to pay for her own contraception. She wants you to take care of that for her, thankyouverymuch, whether you want to or not.
Speaking at a hearing held by Pelosi to tout Pres. Obama’s mandate that virtually every health insurance plan cover the full cost of contraception and abortion-inducing products, Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke said that it’s too expensive to have sex in law school without mandated insurance coverage.
Apparently, four out of every ten co-eds are having so much sex that it’s hard to make ends meet if they have to pay for their own contraception, Fluke’s research shows.
“Forty percent of the female students at Georgetown Law reported to us that they struggled financially as a result of this policy (Georgetown student insurance not covering contraception), Fluke reported.
It costs a female student $3,000 to have protected sex over the course of her three-year stint in law school, according to her calculations.
“Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school,” Fluke told the hearing.
Georgetown University Law School is not cheap. It costs more than $70,000 per year without scholarships or other financial aid. Miss Fluke would have us believe that someone who can afford to attend Georgetown can not afford to pay for his or her own lifestyle.
Fluke claims they can’t afford to pay to, as the president so eloquently phrased it, avoid being punished with a baby before they graduate into extremely lucrative careers, in Fluke’s case most likely in a future Democratic administration.
The math derived from Fluke’s $3,000 price tag suggests that Georgetown is one swingin’ Catholic campus.
At a dollar a condom if she shops at CVS pharmacy’s website, that $3,000 would buy her 3,000 condoms – or, 1,000 a year. (By the way, why does CVS.com list the weight of its condom products in terms of pounds?)
Assuming it’s not a leap year, that’s 1,000 divided by 365 – or having sex 2.74 times a day, every day, for three straight years. And, I thought Georgetown was a Catholic university where women might be prone to shun casual, unmarried sex. At least its health insurance doesn’t cover contraception (that which you subsidize, you get more of, you know).
And, that’s not even considering that there are Planned Parenthood clinics in her neighborhood that give condoms away and sell them at a discount, which could help make her sexual zeal more economical.
With all due respect, Miss Fluke, your evidently very active amorous life is your business and should remain that way. It isn’t worth wrecking the Constitution.
More: So this is what we’ve come to in the age of sexual liberation: Law students you’d take to Congress but wouldn’t take home to meet Mom. We’re told to keep the rosaries off the liberated’s ovaries, but don’t let the beliefs behind the rosaries get in the way of taxpayer funded boom-boom. We’re told to keep the government out of our bedrooms, until we want the government to pay for what we’re doing in the bedroom. Then, bring Uncle Sam right on in to pick up the tab, and have all the fun you want. Today’s empowered, independent woman can go to law school but can’t manage her finances well enough to spring for the pill.
This is what the 60s sexual liberation has brought us to.
More: Doing a bit more fact-checking of Pelosi’s protege. The pill can be had from Wal-Mart for about $9 a month, or $108 per year. Anyone with a smartphone is paying far more than that annual pill cost for one month of their precious iPhone. And if Miss Fluke could tear herself away from answering “How you doin?” in the affirmative for a few hours, she could get her tubes actually tied off for between $1000 and $3000.
Either this Georgetown law student is too dumb to shop around to reduce her lifestyle costs, or she’s using abortion as birth control, or she’s just lying about this whole thing. If it’s the latter, Congress might suddenly find her testimony a whole lot more interesting.