PDA

View Full Version : The Demure Innocent COED



road kill
03-06-2012, 11:55 AM
Sandra Fluke, Gender Reassignment, and Health Insurance
Stephen Gutowski
Monday, March 5, 2012 - 7:35pm
Sandra Fluke is being sold by the left as something she's not. Namely a random co-ed from Georgetown law who found herself mixed up in the latest front of the culture war who was simply looking to make sure needy women had access to birth control. That, of course, is not the case.

As many have already uncovered Sandra Fluke she is, in reality, a 30 year old long time liberal activist who enrolled at Georgetown with the express purpose of fighting for the school to pay for students' birth control. She has been pushing for mandated coverage of contraceptives at Georgetown for at least three years according to the Washington Post.

However, as I discovered today, birth control is not all that Ms. Fluke believes private health insurance must cover. She also, apparently, believes that it is discrimination deserving of legal action if "gender reassignment" surgeries are not covered by employer provided health insurance. She makes these views clear in an article she co-edited with Karen Hu in the Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law.

The title of the article, which can be purchased in full here, is Employment Discrimination Against LGBTQ Persons and was published in the Journal's 2011 Annual Review. I have posted a transcript of the section I will be quoting from here. In a subsection of the article entitled "Employment Discrimination in Provision of Employment Benefits" starting on page 635 of the review Sandra Fluke and her co-editor describe two forms of discrimination in benefits they believe LGBTQ individuals face in the work place:

"Discrimination typically takes two forms: first, direct discrimination limiting access to benefits specifically needed by LGBTQ persons, and secondly, the unavailability of family-related benefits to LGBTQ families."

Their "prime example" of the first form of discrimination? Not covering sex change operations:

"A prime example of direct discrimination is denying insurance coverage for medical needs of transgender persons physically transitioning to the other gender."

This so called "prime example" of discrimination is expounded on in a subsection titled "Gender Reassignment Medical Services" starting on page 636:

"Transgender persons wishing to undergo the gender reassignment process frequently face heterosexist employer health insurance policies that label the surgery as cosmetic or medically unnecessary and therefore uncovered."

To be clear, the argument here is that employers are engaging in discrimination against their employees who want them to pay for their sex changes because their "heterosexist" health insurance policies don't believe sex changes are medically necessary.

Additionally Sandra Fluke and her co-editor have an answer for why exactly these "heterosexist" insurance policies, and the courts that side with them, deem sex changes as medically unnecessary:

"In Mario v. P & C Food Markets, Inc., an employee who was denied such coverage brought claims under the federal Employee Retirement Income Security (ERISA) and Title VII. The court rejected the ERISA claim, finding the plaintiff's mastectomy and hormone therapy were not medically necessary. The court's ruling was based upon controversy within the medical community regarding that treatment plan. Much of that controversy has been linked to ignorance and bias against transgender persons, and the American Medical Association has declared the lack of coverage to be discrimination."

You see, all opposition to the determination that sex changes are medically necessary, and therefor must be covered by private employer provided health insurance, is based on "ignorance and bias against transgender persons".

The section on discrimination against those seeking gender reassignment ends with Sandra Fluke and her co-editor wondering why more lawsuits aren't filed against private employers on these grounds. Especially in comparison to the frequency with which these types of cases are filed against Medicare, Medicaid, and even the prison system:

"The reason for this lack of cases is unclear. Private employee insurance plans do not more frequently cover this need, so it may be a sign that transgender employees do not see the courts as likely to provide any assistance against private employers."

The argument made in this article edited by Sandra Fluke and Karen Hu is quite clear. "Gender reassignment" is a medically necessary set of procedures that must be covered under employee provided health insurance policies. If it is not covered by those policies that is tantamount to discrimination and legal action should be taken against the employer.

So, as you can see, Sandra Fluke is not what she is being sold as. Instead she is a liberal activist pushing some rather radical ideas. Keep that in mind as the left holds her up in the spotlight.





How's the train ride????:D


RK

BonMallari
03-06-2012, 12:59 PM
does not surprise me one bit....just like whenever BHO talks about passing legislation, they make it a point to line up every ethnicity,gender,almost like a casting for the remake of the Village People, behind him in the backdrop...

this latest activist was just all too convenient and too well versed on the subject matter to not be a plant, a well orchestrated plan with a willing media giving her a platform

road kill
03-06-2012, 02:22 PM
Curious......why aren't the progressives here lecturing me on how I have her all wrong??

I mean, she is just looking out for the little guy, right??:cool:

RK

road kill
03-06-2012, 03:40 PM
does not surprise me one bit....just like whenever BHO talks about passing legislation, they make it a point to line up every ethnicity,gender,almost like a casting for the remake of the Village People, behind him in the backdrop...

this latest activist was just all too convenient and too well versed on the subject matter to not be a plant, a well orchestrated plan with a willing media giving her a platform

Amazing BON, no one wants to touch this thread.:D

RK

menmon
03-06-2012, 04:12 PM
Amazing BON, no one wants to touch this thread.:D

RK

I'll touch it...first it does not matter what you dug up...damage is done, even if this is all true. Because, women are rethinking do republicans have their back:cool:

But keep stirring it up, we don't what this major screw up to end anytime soon. I'm curious to see if it effected the turnout today. Much better things to do with their time than go vote for some pig that has no right to legislate her body:mad:

ARay11
03-06-2012, 04:31 PM
I'll touch it...first it does not matter what you dug up...damage is done, even if this is all true. Because, women are rethinking do republicans have their back:cool:

But keep stirring it up, we don't what this major screw up to end anytime soon. I'm curious to see if it effected the turnout today. Much better things to do with their time than go vote for some pig that has no right to legislate her body:mad:

Okay, I am officially offended :shock:
I don't take kindly to fellas thinking they know what goes on in the mind of a woman...sheesh that'll get u in serious trouble. ROFLOL!!

No, not really...but...
Why would the Fluke case make me think the Repubs don't have my back?
I am sure I could be missing part of this story...I'm trying to catch up.

Franco
03-06-2012, 04:42 PM
http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/s320x320/417349_10150581337251360_511826359_9515763_1206123 856_n.jpg
;-)

Buzz
03-06-2012, 04:55 PM
Someone tried using a photoshop magic eraser on that to get rid of the white background & didn't realize that it won't remove it from the inside of closed characters without choosing inside the closed loop too! Funny...

road kill
03-06-2012, 05:19 PM
I'll touch it...first it does not matter what you dug up...damage is done, even if this is all true. Because, women are rethinking do republicans have their back:cool:

But keep stirring it up, we don't what this major screw up to end anytime soon. I'm curious to see if it effected the turnout today. Much better things to do with their time than go vote for some pig that has no right to legislate her body:mad:
Is that name calling?
Shame on Rush, er, I mean Sambo.

BTW, I agree, Obama had no business edicting a womans body, but he did!!
That is exactly what he did.
He is using emotion to sucker women in to voting for him.
The very essence of progressive POLITICS!!!!!
Because the facts, which you ignore, bely your emotional attachment to a false issue.



RK

menmon
03-06-2012, 06:24 PM
Is that name calling?
Shame on Rush, er, I mean Sambo.

BTW, I agree, Obama had no business edicting a womans body, but he did!!
That is exactly what he did.
He is using emotion to sucker women in to voting for him.
The very essence of progressive POLITICS!!!!!
Because the facts, which you ignore, bely your emotional attachment to a false issue.



RK

It is not an important issue to me, but it is to a lot of women. I have watch many election get lost on this subject. One example of a democrat winning over a republican was Ann Richards and Clayton Williams. Clayton had the election bought and paid for until he told the women of Texas that if some one was raping them to just lay there and act like you enjoy it:(

This is not about you paying or not paying for birth control pills. Its about women and the independent women will not vote for someone they believe thinks this way and the independents are the ones that will decide this election. Hell you true republicans let them stick up you (no pun intended) and you still think they are the best thing. Maybe a condom would have helped;-)

menmon
03-06-2012, 06:40 PM
Okay, I am officially offended :shock:
I don't take kindly to fellas thinking they know what goes on in the mind of a woman...sheesh that'll get u in serious trouble. ROFLOL!!

No, not really...but...
Why would the Fluke case make me think the Repubs don't have my back?
I am sure I could be missing part of this story...I'm trying to catch up.

Because Fluke was fighting for what she believed was women's right, right or wrong, a republicans, druggy Rush, call this young women a whore, slut and countless other things for voicing her opinion:mad:

If what she was saying was stupid, why challenge it? But if you are going to, do it with some class. But all this guy wants is contriversy, I bet most of you have not missed his show since he did it;-)

I spent a many a year working with professional women that fault hard to get where they are now and the last thing they want is some man that does not understand their issues making decisions for them.

You are absolutly right, I do not know what women think. If I could capture that I would be one of those men on the cover of Forbes;-)

Cody Covey
03-06-2012, 06:48 PM
We can't make their decisions we just have to pay for them...what a lucky system. I would love a new truck but don't want to pay for it. I think owning a truck is a mans issue where do I get the government to pay?

roseberry
03-06-2012, 07:54 PM
why else would obama be singing al green tunes on tv lately? because he can't play a saxaphone and wear shades like bill clinton!

sambo has the ladies down cold......they always fall for it don't they sambo!

ARay11
03-06-2012, 11:23 PM
[QUOTE=sambo;934332]Because Fluke was fighting for what she believed was women's right, right or wrong, a republicans, druggy Rush, call this young women a whore, slut and countless other things for voicing her opinion:mad:

If what she was saying was stupid, why challenge it? But if you are going to, do it with some class. But all this guy wants is contriversy, I bet most of you have not missed his show since he did it;-)

I spent a many a year working with professional women that fault hard to get where they are now and the last thing they want is some man that does not understand their issues making decisions for them.

You are absolutly right, I do not know what women think. If I could capture that I would be one of those men on the cover of Forbes;-)[/

Rush is a media pandering idiot. I do not hold regard for him. But, that doesn't change my thoughts of the repub party. I try not to lump all Repubs into one basket. Or all dems for that matter. If that idiot is all it takes to sway the majority of women, we have not become the independent thinkers we claim to be. :(

JDogger
03-06-2012, 11:34 PM
Amazing BON, no one wants to touch this thread.:D

RK

Lecturing, pontificating, is your bailiwick, Stan. No one wants to rise to your level. We are poor peasants, with dung between our toes, and wait with drawn breath for your pearls of wisdom to drop upon us, humble servants as we may be. We await. :rolleyes: JD

road kill
03-07-2012, 07:16 AM
Lecturing, pontificating, is your bailiwick, Stan. No one wants to rise to your level. We ??? are poor peasants, with dung between our toes, and wait with drawn breath for your pearls of wisdom to drop upon us, humble servants as we may be. We await. :rolleyes: JD

You got a mouse in your pocket??;-)

RK