“Sandra Fluke is a tool” of the misogynist Left.

I had started a post on the ridiculousness of the manufactured controversy over Sandra Fluke’s testimony, and the ensuing use by Rush Limbaugh of an anagram of “lust” on the air, the other day.

But Lori Ziganto, who has, as she calls them, “a fancy womb” and “brass ovaries,” pretty much did the job a thousand times better than I could have.

Just one of her graphs…

Not one has even questioned the veracity of the statements in her ‘testimony’, which were so absurd they were almost comical. Most of it was typical slacker/entitlement mentality nonsense. We are to feel sorry for her, a thirty year old woman at Georgetown Law School, because she can’t afford some things. Paying for one’s own birth control is an ‘untenable burden’. No, really. She said that. If this mandate is supposedly (wink, wink, nudge nudge) to help The Poor ™, why is she asking – nay, demanding – that religious institutions be forced to subsidize self-absorbed 30 year old students at a fancy pants school? Instead of a law degree, she should receive a PhD in mooching; Doctor of Entitlement! Listen, honey, grow up. Get a real job and not some made up ‘reproductive rights activist’ job and, you know, stop buying stuff you can’t afford. Prioritize, baby! It’s easy. We grown-ups do things like that. Get out of your perpetual childhood-ridden Ivory tower. Try for a little less whinies and a little more thinkies. “Your body, your choice?” Your money, toots.

Classic. Check out the rest of her evisceration of the misogynistic Left over at RedState.

How long before MSNBC gives her a show with Eliot Spitzer?

The whole “I can’t get contraceptives” meme is a lie, folks, meant to distract us from the real argument—the one the Left knows it can’t win. They know they have to make it about access to contraceptives and make it sound like one of the most ubiquitous features of our society is actually stashed deep in the Vatican vaults so they can keep making it about “those backward Catholics trying to keep women barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen” rather than the assault on all of our liberty that it is.

As Lori points out, major figures of the Left have publicly referred to women with whom they disagree as “slut,” “K Street whore,” “bags of meat with lipstick,” and much worse, and questioned whether they really were women. (Because, you see, they dared stray off the script established for them by their leaders—the gall of those uppity women!—so it’s okay.)

I’m glad Lori and other strong women are fighting back and not taking this lying down. It’s time we all just told them what they can do with their faux moral outrage and rank hypocrisy.

And in so doing, keep reminding everyone that they, not we, are threatening to unravel the very fabric on which this nation was founded—liberty, especially religious liberty—over a manufactured “crisis” of access to a product as ubiquitous and inexpensive as they come.

2,036 views

Categories:Uncategorized

28 thoughts on ““Sandra Fluke is a tool” of the misogynist Left.

  1. Marsha says:

    “Sandra Fluke is a tool.” Tom, your first words said it all. You too see Sandra not as a human being but as an instrument to be used. No wonder you attack her as you do.

    1. Sean says:

      With all due respect, Marsha, Mr. Crowe is quoting Lori Ziganto, whose article is the subject of this post. How you inferred that Mr. Crowe does not see Sandra Fluke “as a human being but as an instrument” is quite a stretch and slanderous accusation. According to Apple Dictionary, the term “tool” used in this context means, “a person used or exploited by another.” That is an accurate and fair description of Ms. Fluke. Calling attention to a victim’s circumstance does not transfer guilt from the perpetrator to the person identifying this circumstance.

    2. Tom Crowe says:

      Hi, Marsha… Up to your old tricks of misdirection and grabbing at victimhood, I see…

      1. Marsha says:

        Hey Tom. You did what you accused me of. Oops. Trust me, I’m not a victim of anyone. And how is it misdirection to point out a poster’s projections?

        1. Tom Crowe says:

          No, I merely ignored your comment while telling you I was ignoring it, since your comment is simply incorrect and fails to address the substance of the post. So I simply failed to respond to your non-response except to point out that you were not responding. Cheers!

          1. Marsha says:

            Tom, is it a non-response to point out the projections of someone who posts his or her personal perspectives? I would think that it’s important to point that out so that others who read the post can keep this in mind. So when I don’t respond to your specific post I’m misdirecting and when you do the same you’re ignoring. How interesting. You have a wonderful way of ignoring your own misdirection.

          2. Chip Jones says:

            Is it me…? Or did she really ignore the large, curved, double marks on either side of the words she is decrying?

            Lori Ziganto wrote a post. In that post, Lori Ziganto used the statement above (the one in quotes).

            Now…I dint go to know hig-falutin’ school (just teh United States Military Academy)…but maybe I’ll git it if you splain it agin.

            Exactly how is Tom “projecting” a hidden attitude or whatever in his post?

            Good Lord.

  2. mominvermont says:

    Y’know people who have college degrees are healthier, so actually Obamacare should cover Sandra’s $60,000 college tuition as well…all part of Women’s Health. That oughta fix our economic problems.

    1. Joe M says:

      If $20 a month for contraceptives represents an “untenable burden”, what is still tenable? Toothpaste?

  3. GREG SMITH says:

    Tom – In the battle of you tube, if you pit a well spoken, nice looking, young lady against a fat, nasty, hyperactive pit bull with a drug problem, the lady’s side wins. That might not be fair a but that’s how it goes. _ Greg

    1. Tom Crowe says:

      Greg Smith— No question about it. Which is why I was happy to let Lori take the lead here and Emily Stimpson take the lead on another one I was going to write about but tossed to her instead. I think the part for guys is to call out other guys who are either taking advantage of women as sex objects (regardless of whether or not the women make themselves into sex objects) and to call out other guys who go namby-pamby on defense of authentic morality to which all of humanity is called.

  4. Joe M says:

    Thank you Tom. Lori’s article is a fantastic screed. Great to see the Democrats called out for their increasingly brazen politics. — This reminds me of the time that Democrats accused Republicans of using “dangerous rhetoric”, then promptly proceeded to provide us with a litany of war and violence related statements of their own, pointed at Republicans. As they say, when you point your finger, there are three pointed back at you.

  5. Jeff says:

    How is it “entitlement” to receive a health care benefit without paying a premium? I had mallet finger surgery in September…over $13,000 worth. Thanks to the good fortune I have with quality insurance, I paid no premium. Why is that not the “typical slacker/entitlement mentality?” And this is not about whether contraception is or is not proper for premium payment…because that’s not what she wrote. She specifically calls out the mentality of people receiving things for free because they can’t pay for it.

    1. Tom Crowe says:

      Jeff— Did you mean no premium? Or no co-pay/deductible? But that question aside, I hope you see the difference between $13,000 surgery to repair a badly damaged finger and demanding that someone subsidize your promiscuity. Also, fact of the matter is, tax payers already largely do subsidize promiscuity by passing out condoms like lollipops at health centers, Planned Parenthood clinics, in the girls dorms at colleges, in the boys dorms at colleges, in Kenneth Cole stores in NYC, in bars, and so many other places. Mallet finger surgery isn’t *quite* as ubiquitous.

      1. Jeff says:

        The latter, my apologies.

      2. Jeff says:

        Yes, I am well aware of the difference. However, the author does not cite that difference in her text. She states quite simply: if you can’t afford it, deal with it. To be quite blunt, that doesn’t fit Catholic teaching when it comes to health care.

        1. Tom Crowe says:

          Jeff— I think it’s an understood subtext. Further, to return your blunt-ness, Catholic teaching when it comes to health care can mean that not all surgeries are due to someone whether because they are not legitimately needed, or because they are simply not reasonably affordable/available. For many, many years people would get injured and then live out their days with their injury. Not that it was the best situation, but people can and do learn to adapt. I mangled the fingers on my left hand pretty badly some 18 years ago. Still play piano and I’m a pretty fast typist—I adapted. I didn’t whine about the cost of a good prosthetic, though I think I would have a better case for it to be subsidized than she does for her contraceptives. If the surgery cannot be responsibly subsidized it is not a violation of Catholic social teaching to say, “this cannot be reasonably subsidized.” Like breast implants. Or sterilization. Or even some surgeries that are actually health/well-being procedures that are not life threatening. She said it bluntly because, well, sometimes a blunt response is called for when people are being ridiculous. And since I don’t see anyone testifying before Congress whining about the cost of their mallet finger surgery, I think it is safe to say (and charitable for you to assume) that she meant contraceptives.

          1. Jeff says:

            I guess you’ll need to explain to me how the Vatican’s calls for universal health care for all fits your definition…I really don’t see how it does.

          2. Joe M says:

            Jeff. Ziganto wasn’t referring to health care. At least not as the Vatican defines it.

        2. Joe M says:

          Jeff. You seem critical of Tom and Lori’s article due to perceived differences with Catholic teaching. So, then, does that mean that you agree with Tom and Lori on the same basis? In other words, that what Democrats and Sandra Fluke are fighting for is a violation of Catholic teaching? — Correct me if I’m wrong. But, for you to bring up the nearly irrelevant nuance of Lori Ziganto’s perception of health care suggests that you frankly just don’t want to accept that Democrats are running rough-shod over religious freedom.

  6. BethAnn says:

    Tom, why is it OK for writers you feature to clearly oppose Church teaching? Why does she refer to The Poor (TM) and the obvious connotation when the Bishops have clearly called for universal minimum welfare coverage?

    1. Tom Crowe says:

      BethAnn— I hope you simply mis-read what she wrote. When she references “The Poor” in the sentence,

      If this mandate is supposedly (wink, wink, nudge nudge) to help The Poor ™, why is she asking – nay, demanding – that religious institutions be forced to subsidize self-absorbed 30 year old students at a fancy pants school?

      I think (hope) the syntax and context makes it clear that she is saying a) the person in question (Fluke) is not “poor” in the sense of “those whom we as Christian have a duty to assist”; and b) recognizing that this mandate is intended to do lots of things, “helping the poor” not amongst them. Also, I do hope you recognize that there is no way to make the case that our Christian duty to assist the truly poor requires us to assist them in acquiring contraceptives. So I really don’t know what case you’re trying to make here at all.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

STAY CONNECTED


DON'T MISS A THING

Receive our updates via email.