A Fluke by any other name

Sure it’s a losing issue for conservatives with women, but I can’t stop myself from beating this dead horse’s ass.  Frankly, I don’t care how this particular issues polls.  This Fluke character is indicative of everything that is wrong with the Obama administration.  Turning wants into needs into something that must be provided free of charge.  Completely oblivious to reality in the productive sector of the economy – easy when you’ve never been a part of it – yet certain they know best how everyone else should manage their affairs.

Let’s not forget that last point is the most important.  This kerfuffle is about Obama using the power of the federal government to silence someone’s religious conscience.  Yeah, the idea of a 30 year old law student without the wherewithal to purchase health insurance with prescription drug coverage standing before Congress begging for free birth control is bad enough.  Doing it to force the church to give you birth control is despicable.

Separation of Church and State is a one way street, I suppose.  Or was there a constitutional line-item veto buried somewhere in the Obamacare bill?

It stands to reason that if Obama is comfortable imposing medical practices against religious conscience on the church pretty much in direct violation of the First Amendment any future resistance to his diktats will be as worrisome to him as a fly on a Rhino’s back.  And Gloria Allred wants Rush Limbaugh arrested for blaspheming Saint Sandra the Unchaste.  Two out of four ain’t bad for one healthcare mandate.  You can petition for redress of grievances but Obama isn’t listening.  Of course, we’ve still got freedom of the press.  For now.

Since it’s come up in the comments, a couple of preemptive strikes.  The first is, all Fluke wants is for the health insurance she paid for to cover birth control.  Here in America we have these things called contracts.  These “contracts” are legally binding agreements between two parties defining the scope of their relationship.  When a person signs a “contract” they are agreeing to the terms and conditions as written.  Any changes to a “contract” must be mutually agreed upon and cannot be enacted unilaterally.

No one forced her to enter into a contract with Georgetown.  There are hundreds of health insurance policies from which one may choose that offer varying levels of coverage – including prescription drug coverage.  She chose a plan that does not offer coverage for birth control.  To expect Georgetown to offer her coverage beyond the scope of the contract to which she agreed because she wants it is unjustifiable and unreasonable.

Next up, refuting my assertion that insurance is for unexpected events by pointing out pregnancy is unexpected.  I suppose if you’re 10 years old and living in a cave pregnancy might be an unexpected result of intercourse, but beyond that I assume the mechanics of child production are well disseminated.  Pregnancy may be untimely, it may be unlikely, and it may be unwanted – but it shouldn’t be unexpected.  I’m reasonably certain that all forms of birth control come with a warning they may not be 100% effective.

You don’t hear couples talking about looking forward to it someday but they’re just not ready to have cancer.  Most people expect a pregnancy in their life at some point.  I stand by my assertion that insurance should be reserved for truly unexpected medical emergencies.  I also believe that insurance companies should be free to offer policies that cover pregnancies if they so choose.  Mandating pregnancy coverage may serve a useful purpose, but the end result is higher premiums for everyone.  Clearly, taking money from large numbers of people and using it to pay for utterly predictable expenses is not insurance – it is a subsidy.

Last, the idea that Georgetown and conservatives are trying to restrict access to contraception.  I want a new stainless steel .45ACP longslide with laser sighting.  I have a Constitutional right to bear arms.  If someone doesn’t provide me with handguns for free on demand they are restricting access to the firearms necessary to exercise my right to bear arms.  I pay my taxes, I have a right to bear arms, I should be provided guns free of charge.  I’ll see your birth control and raise you an AK-47.

This whole Fluke imbroglio stinks to high heaven.  I would assume freedom-loving people would be outraged that our government would be so brazen as to force Americans to buy health insurance whether they want it or not AND force the church to provide abortions.  Rugged individualists?  No mas.  We’re nothing but a bunch of timid wards of the state.  Our future, and Ms. Fluke’s is self evident:

President Obama’s national health care law will cost $1.76 trillion over a decade, according to a new projection released today by the Congressional Budget Office, rather than the $940 billion forecast when it was signed into law.

Double?  I wish.  Government cost estimates for sweeping social programs always end up off by an order of magnitude over time.  No, I mean a little farther into the future:

Greek Students Fight Stray Dogs and Despair Amid College Cuts

Fluke is just deadweight on Obama’s Freeshit Express as it hurtles down the tracks for the inescapable head-on collision with the Broke-as-hell Cannonball.  I hope they hand out free birth control in the bread line.

Obama's NCAA Tournament Picks....Yes, He Did It Again
The EPA's Den Of Thieves
  • davidt

    “This Fluke character is indicative of everything that is wrong with the Obama administration.”

    Someone posing as something they are not and lying in order to push a political agenda.

    This Fluke character is indicative of everything about the Obama administration.

  • Vagabond661

    Her asking a religious institute to provide contracption and sex change operations is kinda like if I worked for PETA and asked them to sponsor a BBQ to raise money for the NRA.

    • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

      I see nothing at all wrong with that.  Just watch out for whatever meat PETA might provide, apparently their ‘no-kill’ shelters  aren’t especially crowded, and the Chinese joint across the street has had their chicken costs drop considerably.

  • iwogisdead

    The point about contract law is well-taken. The business of insurance companies is to anticipate and prepare for their losses. They do this in part by relying on insurance contracts to define what their losses will be. If insurance companies find that Congress or the administration have the power to simply re-write their contracts, they will see that the foundation of their business will be gone. Rather than run the risk from this, they will simply go out of business.

    But, maybe that’s been the goal of Obumblecare all along.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

      I find it funny how many people rail against Obamacare when Romney’s Massachusetts plan does the exact same thing.

      • emrengineer

        Yeah, it is strange.  All the posts that Baron has written extolling the virtues of RomneyCare and the dittohead parroting by the others of its greatness. I for one am tried of all the lavish praise around here for RomneyCare, but nothing but distain for the same thing when it’s proposed by Obama.  It is just…what?  What’s that you say?  No posts by Baron or the others extolling RomneyCare?  Distain for RomneyCare also?

        Nevermind….

      • Jwb10001

        Yep us conservatives really love us some Romneycare that’s why he’s cruising to the nomination…..

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_YJXKS7V322BLMXBPOS7LKNVJ4M BeaPolite

    “…Last, the idea that Georgetown and conservatives are trying to
    restrict access to contraception. I want a new stainless steel .45ACP
    longslide with laser sighting. I have a Constitutional right to bear
    arms. If someone doesn’t provide me with handguns for free on demand
    they are restricting access to the firearms necessary to exercise my
    right to bear arms. I pay my taxes, I have a right to bear arms, I
    should be provided guns free of charge.”
    BINGO!

    As a ‘woman of a certain age’ I have far more NEED to
    protect and ensure my physical safety than my reproductive organs. And,
    even if I wasn’t a ‘certain age’, I posit that I need to protect and
    ensure my personal safety in order to protect the organs of my reproductive rights.

  • Brucehenry

    You’re not stupid, Baron. I demonstrated, on your other thread, that “the Church” is not contributing any money toward Fluke’s health care plan. None. Nada. Zip.

    So no one is asking “the Church” to give anyone “free birth control,” much less forcing it do so.

    Fluke is asking that the government compel the insurance carrier to change the terms of their contract in mid-stream — that is true — and your argument against this is compelling. 

    Your First Amendment argument, though, should be abandoned, in light of the fact that YOU KNOW THAT THE CHURCH IS NOT CONTRIBUTING ANY MONEY TO FLUKE’S HEALTH CARE PLAN. If she is successful in getting the government to force this contract change, the Church will STILL NOT BE PAYING FOR IT.

    You’re not stupid. So why are you repeating this spurious First Amendment argument when you know it to be invalid?

  • http://wizbangblog.com/ Baron Von Ottomatic

    If the church is not contributing any money to her health care plan, by what mechanism does her health coverage exist?  How did her coverage become available to her?  If it’s not through the university directly (self-funded) then it must be a third party, correct?  A third party with whom her private, religious university negotiated coverage.  Coverage that satisfied their religious conscience.

    Why should a religious institution, Georgetown is supported by the Jesuit church, be forced to provide birth control coverage against their conscience?  Regardless of whether they contribute to her individual coverage her policy would not exist at all if the private, religious institution she chose to attend did not negotiate and administer the coverage.

    Which leaves us with a couple of conclusions.  She’s obviously getting her insurance at a lower cost through the school than an equivalent private policy would cost.  She chose to take advantage of that subsidy either not knowing what she was buying or knowing it didn’t pay for birth control and buying it anyway.  So in the one case she’s stupid and in the other case she’s a wealthy beggar insisting the religious institution through which she bought reduced-rate insurance violate their conscience because she wants free birth control in addition to the policy she chose to purchase through them.

    Looking past the trees to see the forest, this mandate forces ALL religiously affiliated institutions to provide birth control coverage against their conscience.  Unless you’re arguing that every single religiously affiliated institution does not contribute any money to their employees’/students’ health care plans my First Amendment objections are neither spurious nor invalid.

    Rest assured that Georgetown being a Catholic(ish) institution is a very important factor in all this.  I’ll wager that in Fluke’s mind any organization which actively opposes abortion must be destroyed.  Forcing the Catholic church to provide abortion coverage against their conscience?  That’s a pretty jaunty feather in big abortion’s cap.

    And if the church can’t object to mandates on the grounds of religious conscience we now pretty much have a government whose power is unrestrained.  That may satisfy you but I prefer freedom with the possibility of misery to the certain misery of living under an army of all-powerful, self-aggrandizing bureaucratic busy bodies.

    • Ken in Camarillo

       What Baron said.
      I guess the Republicans and Rush really stepped in it on this issue. /sarc
      Look at Obama’s latest poll numbers.

    • maddy11

      I think you may be missing the point entirely.  The government is not all powerful if they put forth a law.  Just because the church is morally opposed to birth control gives them no right to not follow a law.  They are a part of the United States.  That would be the law in the US, any other argument puts the church in direct violation of the first amendment, which is to protect people, not institutions.  This has to be one of the silliest arguments I have come by in a long time.  The universities and all of the ‘opposing’ institutions do business under the laws here, in the US.  So, they either need to abide by the laws, or go to another country that would give them what they wanted.  
      I could continue about how I have to pay into taxes that support wars I don’t like, electric chair and gas chamber murders (allowed by law) still go on.  Where is the Catholic Church on stopping Corporal Punishment?  Not killing someone who is baptized Catholic because once they are confess, they are forgiven by god?  It would be morally wrong to kill an innocent person.  I could go on and on.  This argument is pure nonsense.  Just because an entity, the Catholic Church, has declared their morals does not give them any leverage to not follow a law.  

      • jim_m

         Just because the church is morally opposed to birth control gives them no right to not follow a law.

        I think you are the one missing the point here.  The Church has a constitutionally protected right to religious expression.  Historically, there has always been a religious exemption from rules on contraception and abortion recognizing that there is a legitimate claim that forcing a church to pay for those services is a violation of religious conscience.

        Laws passed by Congress do not supercede the Constitution.  Congress cannot invalidate or otherwise restrict rights given under the Constitution.  What changes here is that 0bama is demanding for the first time that religious organizations be forced to obey laws that directly violate their religious beliefs.

        I know that to a leftist idiot like yourself religious beliefs are meaningless and do not deserve legal protection, but to the majority of this nation they are still important. 

        The government does not have the power to determine which religious beliefs are protected and which are not.  The Supreme Court has consistently held on the side of religion, most recently in the Hosanna Tabor case, where the administration lost 9-0.

        • TomInCali

          >The Church has a constitutionally protected right to religious expression.

          No one is forcing the Church to do anything regarding the Church. The issue is that if the Church wants to operate a university or a hospital, then they need to follow laws that apply to universities and hospitals. The proposed mandate exempts churches, but applies only to other organizations that churches choose to operate.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/ Baron Von Ottomatic

            Why isn’t the Church permitted to operate its schools and hospitals in a manner consistent with its religious conscience?

  • TomInCali

    >Turning wants into needs into something that must be provided free of charge.

    Strawman. No one is asking for anything for free (as has been pointed out numerous times). She wants her insurance, for which she pays a premium, to provide a service, for which she’d pay a co-pay. Stop with the “free” BS already.

    • http://wizbangblog.com/ Baron Von Ottomatic

      Oh, wow, you said strawman.  I guess that means you win.

      Or maybe you just have difficulty with the notion that demanding something from someone outside of your legally-executed, mutually-agreed-upon contract is wanting something for free.

      If I ever have a car wreck I want my insurance company to throw in some fancy new rims, a flame paint job, and a bumping sound system at no additional cost to me.  I pay my premiums and I would pay a deductible so it isn’t at all like I’m asking for free shit just because I want it.

Optimization WordPress Plugins & Solutions by W3 EDGE