por admin » Lun Mar 05, 2012 9:37 pm
El escandalo de la semana. La izquierda me da nauseas.
-------------
Limbaugh y nuestro falso debate de contracepcion
La semana pasada Sandra Fluke, una estudiante de la universidad Georgetown (Abogacia) fue al Congreso a pedir ayuda. Ella quiere que les paguen las pastillas para no salir embarazada y quiere que el gobierno fuerze a su universidad a que se las de.
Yo soy graduada de Georgetown Law y he sido jefa del counsel de la House Subcommitee on the Constitution. Basado en su testimonio, Me pregunto cuando realmente sabe Ms. Fluke acerca de la universidad o la constitucion.
Cuando yo era estudiante hace 20 anios, no estuve confrontada por los crucifijos en el salon o, a decir verdad, por imagenes religiosas en todas partes. En ese respecto la universidad tiene otra sensacion que la universidad. La capilla del departamento de abogacia, no tenia adornos, habia un salon en el sotano que tenia multiples usos, para misas o reuniones. Uno de los clubes eran el de los homosexuales y lesbianas, el cual era muy vigoroso.
Yo no era catolica cuando estudiaba en Georgetown, pero la universidad si lo era. Ms. Fluke tambien lo sabia. Ella le dijo al Washington Post que ella eligio Georgetown sabiendo especificamente que la universidad no cubria ninguna droga que iba contra los principios morales de la iglesia. Durante sus anios en la universidad ella fue la presidenta de "Los estudiantes de la justicia reproductiva" e hizo el objetivo y mision de su vida el lograr que la universidad renunciara a una de los principios mas improtantes del catolicismo. Ms. Fluke no es el ejemplode cualquier mujer americana, ella es una activista politica.
Georgetown Law School ha abierto sus puertas al mundo no catolico. Tolera y acomoda a todos los miembros de sus clubes y sus actividades que son contrarios a la doctrina catolica. Pero no esta inclinada a pagar o proveer por ellos. Y tiene el derecho para no hacerlo.
Cuando el congreso hace un llamado para ventilar un tema escucha a dos tipos de testigos, los expertos y las victimas. Tener que comprar tus propias pildoras anticonceptivas, es una carga, dijo Ms. Fluke. Ella testifico que en toda la universidad ella podia ver en las caras de las mujeres el sufrimiento por que la unversidad se niega a abandonar sus principios catolicos.
Exactamente como luce la cara de una estudiante que tiene que pagar por sus pildoras? Yo las vi alrededor mio todo el tiempo y no lo sabia? Y los estudiantes hombres que tienen que comprar sun condones tambien tienen la misma cara? Ms. Fluke deberia haber llevado fotos al congreso para ilustrar su punto.
En su testimonio, Ms. Fluke dijo que " sin seguro medico, las pildoras pueden costarle a una mujer $3,000 durante los anios universitarios" Eso es $1,000 al anio. Pero un empleado de la farmacia Target cerca a la universidad le dijo la semana pasada al Weekly Standard que ella pagaba $9 al mes por sus pildoras. Ese es el precio sin seguro dijo la empleada. (tambien es $9 al mes en Wal-Mart)
Y que paso con Rush Limbaugh? No voy a defender el uso de adjetivos (por los cuales se ha disculpado), pero si entiendo su punto de vista. El asunto de las pildoras no es como inhaladores para los asmaticos, o insulina para los diabeticos. Contraception no es como otra tipo de problema de salud. Si una pildora puede prescribirse para otros problemas medicos, pero es realativamente raro y la iglesia no tiene problema en cubrirlo en esos casos.
Aun asi, Ms. Fluke no esta satisfecha, por que? porque esto no es acerca de la cobertura de una condicion medica.
La cruzada de la justicia reproductiva es simplemente una demanda a la Iglesia Catolica a que page por las drogas que hacen posible que ella pueda tener sexo sin quedar embarazada. No hay nada grande o noble en eso. La negativa por parte de Georgetownno significa que ella vaya a tener mas o menos sexo, solo significa que ella tiene que ser responsable por ello.
Deberia Ms. Fluke dejar de tomar uno o dos cafes en Starbucks al mes para pagar por sus pildoras, o deberia Georgetown renunciar a su religion? Creo que hasta un estudiante de primer anio de abogacia sabe lo que dice la constitucion al respecto.
Ms. Ruse, senior fellow for legal studies at the Family Research Council, received her J.D. from Georgetown Law in 1989.
Limbaugh and Our Phony Contraception Debate
A student demands that a Catholic school give up its religion to pay for her birth-control pills
By CATHY CLEAVER RUSE
Last week Sandra Fluke, a student at Georgetown University Law Center, went to Congress looking for a handout. She wants free birth-control pills, and she wants the federal government to make her Catholic school give them to her.
I'm a graduate of Georgetown Law and former chief counsel of the House Subcommittee on the Constitution. Based on her testimony, I wonder how much Ms. Fluke really knows about the university or the Constitution.
As a law student 20 years ago, I wasn't confronted by crucifixes in the classroom or, in truth, with any religious imagery anywhere. In that respect the law school has a different "feel" than the university. The law school chapel was an unadorned, multipurpose room in the basement used for Mass when it wasn't used for Gilbert and Sullivan Society rehearsals and club meetings. Among the clubs while I was there, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance was particularly vigorous.
I was not Catholic when I attended Georgetown Law, but I certainly knew the university was. So did Ms. Fluke. She told the Washington Post that she chose Georgetown knowing specifically that the school did not cover drugs that run contrary to Catholic teaching in its student health plans. During her law school years she was a president of "Students for Reproductive Justice" and made it her mission to get the school to give up one of the last remnants of its Catholicism. Ms. Fluke is not the "everywoman" portrayed in the media.
Georgetown Law School has flung wide its doors to the secular world. It will tolerate and accommodate all manner of clubs and activities that run contrary to fundamental Catholic beliefs. But it is not inclined to pay for or provide them. And it has the right to do so—to say "this far and no further."
Enlarge Image
CloseGetty Images
Sandra Fluke, a third-year law student at Georgetown University, testifies during a hearing before the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee on February 23.
.When congressional committee counsels plan hearings, they look for two kinds of witnesses: "experts" and "victims." The experts are typically lawyers or law professors who can explain the constitutional authority for the new law and its legal impact, and the victims illustrate why the law is needed.
At the hearing of the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee chaired by Nancy Pelosi, Sandra Fluke testified as a victim. Having to buy your own contraception is a burden, she said. She testified that all around her at Georgetown she could see the faces of students who were suffering because of Georgetown's refusal to abandon its Catholic principles.
Exactly what does the face of a law student who must buy her own birth-control pills look like? Did I see them all around me and just not know it? Do male law students who must buy their own condoms have the same look? Perhaps Ms. Fluke should have brought photos to Congress to illustrate her point.
In her testimony, Ms. Fluke claimed that, "Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school." That's $1,000 per year. But an employee at a Target blacklisted_site near the university told the Weekly Standard last week that one month's worth of generic oral contraceptives is $9 per month. "That's the price without insurance," the employee said. (It's also $9 per month at Wal-Mart.)
What about Rush Limbaugh? I won't defend his use of epithets (for which he's apologized), but I understand his larger point. At issue isn't inhalers for asthmatics or insulin for diabetics. Contraception isn't like other kinds of "health care." Yes, birth-control pills can be prescribed to address medical problems, though that's relatively rare and the Catholic Church has no quarrel with their use in this circumstance. And the university's insurance covers prescriptions in these cases.
Still, Ms. Fluke is not mollified. Why? Because at the end of the day this is not about coverage of a medical condition.
Ms. Fluke's crusade for reproductive justice is simply a demand that a Catholic institution pay for drugs that make it possible for her to have sex without getting pregnant. It's nothing grander or nobler than that. Georgetown's refusal to do so does not mean she has to have less sex, only that she has to take financial responsibility for it herself.
Should Ms. Fluke give up a cup or two of coffee at Starbucks each month to pay for her birth control, or should Georgetown give up its religion? Even a first-year law student should know where the Constitution comes down on that.
Ms. Ruse, senior fellow for legal studies at the Family Research Council, received her J.D. from Georgetown Law in 1989.