And now we know why.
Over at HotAir, one of Tina’s recent posts shares this sigh-worthy morsel. For those who don’t want to watch the video, basically, it’s a Georgetown Law student complaining, before Congressional Democrats, that the repeal of Obama’s contraception mandate would harm Georgetown Students. Her reasoning is, basically, as follows:
- We have sex.
- Contraception costs money.
- We should not have to choose between having money or sex.
A few things stand out, however. First, she suggests that, over the course of law school, contraception costs a student roughly $3,000. That’s $1,000 a year, or under $100 a month. For a student with no income, yeah, that may be substantial, but so is attending Law School. For comparison, Georgetown Law charges $1,675 per credit hour or a tuition of $23,432 per semester. Over the course of three years, a Juris Doctor from Georgetown Law will cost $140,592, assuming that tuition stays static (it won’t) and that there are no other fees associated with it (there are). For some reason, expecting students that can pony up enough to buy a Mercedes Benz G-Class SUV with $20k to spare for a road trip to Vegas for a piece of paper to dish out a measly $100 a month to cover their own contraception does not seem like an untenable burden, as she suggests.
Secondly, she laments her friend’s inability to have children after requiring surgery because she could not afford a contraceptive medicine that would treat a certain medical condition. However, I can only assume that the insurance company covered the surgery, but I can’t deny that having to have surgery because you can’t get a medicine you need probably really sucks. However, after pointing out her friend’s homosexuality as a justification for an exemption for this medicine, turning around and saying that Georgetown’s policy deprived her of children is duplicitous at best, down-right dishonest at worst. I don’t mean to be judgmental, but don’t many homosexual couples start families through the great American institution of adoption?
Lastly, at some point, Miss Fluke said, and I’m pulling this directly from Tina’s article, “We refuse to pick between a quality education and our health and we resent that, in the 21st Century, anyone thinks it’s acceptable to ask us to make that choice simply because we are women.” In Obama’s America, the ability to lead a promiscuous lifestyle free of consequences isn’t a choice, it’s a right, and even more than that, it’s women’s “health.” This sort of doublespeak is a reason why politics in this country almost never gets anywhere, and instead devolves into rhetorical fear tactics designed to dupe average voters who, despite not paying close enough attention to the issues to see through Democratic newspeak, have enough opinions to be manipulated into the Democratic camp through the debasement of our political discourse into an emotional game where the most hateful and spiteful candidates have a natural advantage. It looks like Georgetown is training the next generation of leftist brownshirts well.
My favorite author once wrote that “reason is poor propaganda when opposed by the yammering, unceasing lies of shrewd and evil and self-serving men.” Maybe ‘men’ should be replaced by ‘hoyas.’
P.S. Yes, I stole the title from a t-shirt sold at Villanova.