“Access” – The Left’s New Buzzword

There isn’t anything I like about Sandra Fluke or the story surrounding her.

Miss Fluke attends one of the country’s most prestigious law schools.  She should know that forcing a religious organization or, for that matter, any employer with a religious conscience to provide birth control, as well as abortifacients, to their employees is a First Amendment issue and not a “women’s issue.”  I’ll give her a pass if she hasn’t taken Constitutional Law but she still should know better.  Long before Miss Fluke came on the scene, the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Debbie Wasserman Schultz  had already taken contraception out of the constitutional realm and perverted it into a women’s rights issue.  Miss Fluke just popped up and began spewing the same rhetoric.

The mainstream media’s depiction of poor Miss Fluke as a “victim” in the whole Limbaugh controversy is outrageous.  The moment she walks out of law school, she can expect an offer of at least $160,000, the median private sector starting salary for a graduate from Georgetown.  Doesn’t sound much like a victim to me.

As someone who went to law school in the evening after a full day working as a legal secretary, because I couldn’t afford to go full-time, and as someone who paid every dime out of my own salary, because I wasn’t a trust fund baby nor did I have parents to put me through school nor did I ask the American taxpayer to front the money for me, I really resent the fact that Miss Fluke has the time to make her little speech in Congress and make numerous television appearances on NBC, CBS, ABC and CNN and probably a lot more since I last checked.

When I went to law school three nights a week, I could look forward to reading dozens and dozens of cases during my lunch hours and spending my weekends preparing for the next week’s classes.  I had to find the time to do the massive amount of reading and writing in preparation for school, work a 9-to-5 job, and take care of a home and husband – usually in that order.

How this woman finds the time and energy to traipse around the country, make her appearances, attend full-time law school, and still have time to engage in behavior which requires contraception, is beyond me.

There isn’t a question in my mind that she’s a shill for the left and its agenda.  Someone like her doesn’t get thrown into the limelight on her own without some powerful people doing the maneuvering.  It doesn’t surprise me that she’s now represented by the SKDKnickerbocker Agency, which has as one of its Managing Directors, Anita Dunn, who used to work in the White House.

But what bothers me the most is Miss Fluke’s contention that women should have “access” to contraception.  I’ve got news for Miss Fluke:  Women already have access to birth control.  No one’s taking their pills away from them.

What she really means by “access” is that someone else should pay for them.

I hear the word “access” more and more these days from the left.  I haven’t checked lately, but I’ve heard you can get a month’s supply of birth control pills at Walmart for about $9.

If someone can’t afford $9 a month, I have a few questions to ask of them.  How much did you pay for that cell phone you’re using?  How much is your monthly bill?  How big are your tv screens?  How much do you pay for satellite/cable every month?  How often do you go to Starbucks and order a $4.50 coffee?  Give up two days’ worth of coffee and you’ll be able to afford your own damn birth control pills!

Oh, and by the way, there are already free contraceptives available everywhere.  So what is Miss Fluke talking about?

Earlier in my career, my employers never provided health insurance nor did I carry it on my own.  But I paid for my own doctors’ appointments and every birth control pill myself. I never felt like a victim and I never expected anyone to pay for what I consider to be my personal responsibility.

When did a person’s choice to be sexually active become society’s responsibility to subsidize?  I find the whole thing absolutely outrageous that it is our responsibility, as taxpayers, to pay for things so that others may have “access” to them.  And you have to know that if the insurance companies are now going to have to provide free contraceptives, the premiums on everyone’s insurance will go up.

With the burgeoning demands of those with the entitlement mentality, expect to see more Sandra Fluke clones seeking “access” to just about everything – at our expense.

I don’t get it, but if you do, God bless you.

Author Bio:

For over twenty years, Leona has tried to heed her husband’s advice, “you don’t have to say everything you think.” She’s failed miserably. Licensed to practice law in California and Washington, she works exclusively in the area of child abuse and neglect. She considers herself a news junkie and writes about people and events on her website, “I Don’t Get It,” which she describes as the “musings of an almost 60-year old conservative woman on political, social and cultural life in America.” It’s not her intention to offend anyone who “gets it.” She just doesn’t. Originally from Brooklyn, and later Los Angeles, she now lives with her husband, Michael, on a beautiful island in the Pacific Northwest, which she describes as a bastion of liberalism.
Author website: http://www.idontgetit.us
  • peterfitzwell

    Good one Leona.  I guess this is what happens when we live in an entitlement society.

  • Ron F

    I have read Ms. Fluke’s testimony before the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee several times and I still do not understand why everyone is so upset about her testimone.  .  I disagree with most of what she said but did not find it offensive.  I don’t think she ever said anything about her own sexual activity or her personal need for birth control.  She never said that she wanted government to pay for birth control.  I believe that the medical plan that she pays the entire cost of the medical plan that she has at Georgetown.  She has always been an activist in the area of birth control but I do not know if that makes her a shill of the Democrats or liberals.  Republicans selected the speakers at the committee hearing on contraceptives.  Since Reprentative Issa was seeking a predetermined result, were they all shills?  I fount it offensive that she was personally attacked because she took a position and spoke about something with which we disagreed.  Frankly, the hearings by the Republicans were silly and designed to embarass President Obama.  We did not need any hearings to know that his edict violated the religious freedom of religious organizations.  I disagree with Ms. Fluke but I am not sure why she should be personally attacked because she spoke before a Congressional subcomittee.

  • Wallace Flint

    Hi Leona,  
       Many thanks for your article! That Fluke kid is a damned joke! Why should anybody else have to pay for that kid to have a good time in bed? This country is crazy if it goes along with her way of thnking. It’s unbelieveable!

                                In God We Trust!
                               Wally Flint- Boonville, NY

    E-mail address is Wallaceflint@aol.com

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Dave-Koffer/1020263329 Dave Koffer

    Great article, Leona!

  • martah11

    Sandra Fluke Funked. But she got a lot of attention. So, in her mind she’s a star (for maybe a week).

  • Chief98110

    The main stream media are the real shills for the liberal agenda. In any
    other non presidential election year she and her activism story would
    have wound up on the obituary page. I watched her testimony before that
    hag Pelosi, Ms Fluke was definitely savoring her 15minutes. Enjoy, young
    lady, you have a long way to go before you grow up. 

  • Superamerica

    Starbucks lattes are a health issue and I want access. NOW. The government should bring it to me right now, in bed.

  • Drew Page

    Ms. Salazar, thanks for putting this in perspective for other women who may not have made up their minds on what to think of this brouhaha.    Your comments would most likely never be taken seriously if uttered or written by a man, most likely any man dumb enough to venture an opinion on this would most likely be labled ‘sexist’, or ‘misogynist’ , or some other kind of ‘ist’.   

    Somebody says “pay for your own birth control pills” and right away the liberals announce “the Republicans have declared a War on Women”.    For cryin out loud, grow up.  As a young man back in college, I would have been more than happy to pick up the tab for these items, given half a chance.

    • LeonaSalazar

      Thanks, Drew.  I am sick and tired of hearing from crybabies who expect me to pay for what should be their responsibility.  I feel exactly the same way about women who have children outside of wedlock and call themselves “single mothers” and who, somehow, expect to get special consideration/free pass/sympathy because of their situation.   I say, “man up!”  and stop playing the role of a victim.

  • Dave O’Connor

    She’s got what she lusted for – probably more than sex. Now she’s a celebrity with fawning disciples; maybe clothing line will follow (like MnicaKneePads), talk show invitations.
    And, to whom does this sexual revolutionary owe much of it; an educational institution that surrendred it values to the secular.

  • Dbo Dbo

    She’s got what she lusted for – probably more than sex. Now she’s a celebrity with fawning disciples; maybe clothing line will follow (like MnicaKneePads), talk show invitations.
    And, to whom does this sexual revolutionary owe much of it; an educational institution that surrendred it values to the secular.

  • E. Jay Nilsson

    The infamous ,  ubiquitious, and obnoxious “F… word” has acquired a new spelling.
    E. Jay Nilsson

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/CPID4OMCC57PUAIEWALJOOFBOE dan foley

    Steve’s right, this is very well said.  But while “the mainstream media’s depiction of poor Miss Fluke as a “victim” in the whole Limbaugh controversy is outrageous” it is also true that Rush was both crude and unfunny.  True again that he was not nearly as crude and unfunny as Bill
    Maher, Ed Schultz, etc.  For some strange reason,
    Maher & co. don’t seem to bother the pious left as much as Rush
    does. But I’d suggest it’s good to be held too a higher standard. Worse was the
    goof Rush made. By calling poor Sandra a slut (and to be fair, he didn’t really
    CALL her a slut–more of a syllogism; it was merciless logic, not Rush,
    calling her a slut) he conceded that the issue was about
    contraception–you know, because she needed a really lot of it. Just
    after it broke, the Blaze had a story on Sandra’s background.  The issue is indeed why on earth the goernment
    should be forcing others to pay for it. Rush was lazy. Much better
    the other day when talking about the Catholic Church going along with
    the welfare state, and perhaps now getting that welfare is NOT charity.
    Charity is an individual virtue that can help others. Government
    welfare is a breeding ground for vice and corruption.  Here’s a funnier take on the issue: http://wfnt.com/strippers-in-neck-braces-have-rights-too

  • M. Rhoades

    There’s little doubt that Fluke’s masters can arrange for her to pass her classes at Georgetown while she spends time promoting the leftwing feminist agenda. If not, she is either the brightest law student that ever lived or she doesn’t intend to finish law school. I too worked a full-time job as a law clerk while attending law school at night. With classes and briefing cases there was no time left over for extracurricular activities. This whole affair reeks of political motivation. Too bad for the democrats that the majority of American women aren’t buying it.

  • Steve

    Well said. Don’t forget the left’s cynical use of women in this case. This allows them to have the “sexist” shield at the ready should any male dare to criticize Fluke’s outrageous position, just like they flaunt the faux “racist” shield against Obama’s critics.

    • Brhurdle

      My congratulations on an astute assessment! The Democrats have politicised “race” to the extent they have convinced the public that only Democrats can represent minorities since Republicans hold a deep animosity towards minorities.  They are now seeking to do the same thing with “gender” – seeking to convince the public that only Democrats can fairly represent females since Republicans  hold harsh attitudes towards “women’s issues”. Is the US public so gullible that they will be unaware of this “divide and conquer” agenda? I’m not so sure that the media has either the intelligence or integrity to keep it from happening.

      • Drew Page

        Liberals would have others believe that Republican males do not care for the females in their lives.   They would have everyone believe that Republican males don’t give a hoot in hell about their mothers, grandmothers, sisters, wives, daughters and granddaughters.   They would have others believe that only liberals have any love, compassion, or feelings for the poor, blighted female members of a Republican male’s family.   They tell us that Republican men only want to see women barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen,

        It would be interesting to do a study, by party affiliation, to see what the percentages are of men who provide their wives and daughters with health insurance; pay for their daughters’ college educations; pay for their daughters’weddings; encourage their wives and daughters to persue their careers and when they die, how much they provided for their wives and children.   It would also be interesting to determine the party affiliation of men(?) who fathered children, without benefit of marriage and child support, leaving them to fend for themselves, on welfare, aid to dependent children, Medicaid, food stamps and rent subsidies in public housing projects. 

        Then let’s talk about who doesn’t give a damn about “womens’ issues”.

  • Roxiebell

    Leona, good article and of course you’re spot on and I’m looking forward to visiting your Idon’tgetit website.

    • LeonaSalazar

      Thanks so much.