From CNS News, a very funny story.
Excerpt:
A Georgetown co-ed told Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s hearing that the women in her law school program are having so much sex that they’re going broke, so you and I should pay for their birth control.
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.
$3,000 for birth control in three years? That’s a thousand dollars a year of sex – and, she wants us to pay for it.
Yes, us. Where do you think the insurance companies forced to cover this cost get the money to pay for these co-eds to have sex? It comes from the health care insurance premiums you and I pay.
But, back to this woman’s complaint that she’s spending $3,000 for birth control during her time in college.
“For a lot of students, like me, who are on public interest scholarships, that’s practically an entire summer’s salary,” she complains.
So, she earns enough money in just one summer to pays for three full years of sex. And, yes, they are full years – since she and her co-ed classmates are having sex nearly three times a day for three years straight, apparently.
The problem with government-run health insurance is that it turns into nothing but vote buying. The government forces everyone to pay for coverages they don’t want so that they can redistribute the wealth from people who don’t engage in risky, costly behaviors to people who do. It encourages people to be more reckless and irresponsible when someone else is paying for it. In economics, this is called “moral hazard”. Promiscuity costs money – money for contraceptives, abortions, etc. What happens when support for promiscuity it is counted as “health care” is that people who abstain from promiscuity end up subsidizing the promiscuity of others. And that’s why we get more of it – you get more of anything when you reduce the costs of it.
The most troubling thing about subsidizing premarital sex is that research has shown that premarital sex reduces the stability of marriages as well as the quality of marriages. Another study showed that teenage premarital sex increases the risk of divorce. Furthermore, the more marriages break down, the more society pays to deal with the fallout – $112 billion per year according to a recent study.
The same thing happens with subsidized single motherhood by choice – the more that the government subsidizes single motherhood by choice, the more of it you get. Many women want the baby without the husband now, and it’s easier for them when the government pays for it by taking money from workers and businesses. This is in spite of the research showing how harmful the decline of marriage is to society, especially because the decline of marriage leads to increased child poverty and increased violence to women and children.
The testimony by Sandra Fluke reminds me of that Christina Hoff Sommers book “Who Stole Feminism?” where the feminists just make up numbers out of nowhere in order to blame men and portray themselves as helpless victims in need of new laws, policies and bailouts. I guess this is what they learn to do in Women’s Studies programs.
What’s scary to me is that women like Sandra Fluke become lawyers and judges and they do influence what society will look like. Men have to make decisions about what to do in a society that does not support men or marriage very much anymore.
UPDATE: A little bit more information about Sandra Fluke.
I put that in quotes because in the beginning she was described as a Georgetown law student. It was then revealed that prior to attending Georgetown she was an active women’s right advocate. In one of her first interviews she is quoted as talking about how she reviewed Georgetown’s insurance policy prior to committing to attend, and seeing that it didn’t cover contraceptive services, she decided to attend with the express purpose of battling this policy. During this time, she was described as a 23-year-old coed. Magically, at the same time Congress is debating the forced coverage of contraception, she appears and is even brought to Capitol Hill to testify. This morning, in an interview with Matt Lauer on the Today show, it was revealed that she is 30 years old, NOT the 23 that had been reported all along.
In other words, folks, you are being played. She has been an activist all along and the Dems were just waiting for the appropriate time to play her.
The whole thing was engineered, but don’t expect the mainstream media to report that to you.
Related posts
- Research paper explains why college students abandon courtship for hook ups
- Pro-lifers should not condone premarital sex as a pathway to marriage
- Study: 80% of single evangelicals aged 18-29 are no longer virigins
- Should Christian men marry? What’s the worst that could happen?
- New study finds that female teachers give male students lower marks
- For women under 30, most births occur outside of marriage
- How feminist pastors like Mark Driscoll and Kevin DeYoung undermine marriage
- Is Mark Driscoll afraid to hold women accountable for their own choices?
- In the UK welfare state, single motherhood is passed from mother to daughter
- Conservative woman blames liberal women for choosing bad men
- New study finds that women choose mates based on appearance
- New study finds that teens who lose their virginity are more likely to divorce
- New study finds that cohabitation damages children
- New peer-reviewed paper highlights the benefits of pre-marital chastity/abstinence
- Does being a virgin before marriage affect marital stability?
- How more compassion and less moral judgments increases teen pregnancy
- Can a person be a feminist and still believe in marriage?
- What happens when the government pays people to have babies out-of-wedlock?
- New survey finds women more sexually active than men in high school
- Research to help you understand the “hook-up” culture on campus
- Why do feminist academics think that feminism has empowered women?
- Who is really responsible for the abolition of marriage? Men or feminists?
- Who is to blame for the hook-up culture?
- How the feminist welfare state causes generations of fatherlessness
- Obama’s new proposals penalize married couples and stay-at-home parents
- How feminism’s war against men ends up hurting women
- Less than half of 7 to 21 year old women think marriage precedes child-bearing
- How socialism undermines the traditional family in Sweden
- What causes women to become single mothers, and how are children affected?
- Which family configuration is best for raising children?
- New Scientist article shows why fathers are necessary for children’s well-being
- New study finds that cohabitation damages children
WINTERY KNIGHT 