Top College News Subscribe to the Newsletter

Law Student Mired in Birth Control Debate

Published: Thursday, March 1, 2012

Updated: Sunday, March 4, 2012 00:03


After three years of petitioning the university to amend its health insurance policy to include coverage for contraception, Sandra Fluke (LAW '12) was used to sparking controversy.

But when Fluke was barred from testifying on the issue before the House Oversight Committee earlier this month, she became embroiled in a much larger and more vitriolic debate.

Radio host Rush Limbaugh provoked a media firestorm when he called Fluke a "slut" and a "prostitute" Wednesday for advocating that employers include coverage for contraception in their health care plans at a meeting of the House Democratic Steering Committee. Fluke was invited to appear at the meeting after she was prevented from testifying before the House Oversight Committee.

"So Miss Fluke and the rest of you feminazis, here's the deal," Limbaugh said on his show Thursday. "If we are going to pay for your contraceptives and thus pay for you to have sex, we want something. We want you to post the videos online so we can all watch."

Fluke responded with a statement, saying that remarks like Limbaugh's would not silence her or her fellow advocates.

"This language is an attack on all women," she said. "The millions of American women who have and will continue to speak out in support of women's health care and access to contraception prove that we will not be silenced."

On Friday, several Georgetown administrators came to Fluke's defense, including University President John J. DeGioia.

"One need not agree with [Fluke's] substantive position to support her right to respectful free expression.  And yet, some of those who disagreed with her position – including Rush Limbaugh … responded with behavior that can only be described as misogynistic, vitriolic and a misrepresentation of the position of our student," DeGioia wrote in a message emailed to the Georgetown community.  

DeGioia went on to call for a greater degree of civility in public debate.

"If we, instead, allow coarseness, anger – even hatred – to stand for civil discourse in America, we violate the sacred trust that has been handed down through the generations," he said. "This is our moment to stand for the values of civility in our engagement with one another."

Georgetown Law also released a statement on the issue, which was signed by over 100 members of the school's faculty and about 50 representatives of law schools at other universities.

"As scholars and teachers who aim to train public-spirited lawyers, no matter what their politics, to engage intelligently and meaningfully with the world, we abhor these attacks on Ms. Fluke and applaud her strength and grace in the face of them," the statement said.  

After several sponsors pulled patronage of Limbaugh's show as a result of the controversy, Limbaugh issued a statement on his website saying that he didn't mean a personal attack on Fluke

"My choice of words was not the best, and in the attempt to be humorous, I created a national stir," he wrote in the statement.

The hearings that sparked this controversy were originally convened to address a mandate set by President Obama last month, when he announced that most religiously affiliated employers would be required to provide contraceptive coverage for employees under the new health care legislation.

Obama then modified his position to allow institutions to apply for an accommodation that will allow them to outsource contraceptive coverage to independent insurance providers.

Committee chairman Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) said that Fluke's name had been submitted too late to be considered for the oversight committee's hearing two weeks ago. The panel Fluke wanted to be a part of ended up consisting entirely of men.

Two of the committee's female members, including the District's non-voting representative Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.), walked out of the hearing to protest the absence of women on the panel.

The Democratic hearing that convened a week later was intended to be a response to the Oversight Committee panel and an opportunity for Fluke to give her testimony.

"I think it was definitely a useful thing," Fluke told The Hoya. "The legislators I met with privately, outside of the hearing, were very interested in hearing about it. They weren't aware of some of the issues."

Though the debate surrounding the mandate has circulated primarily around the use of contraceptives as birth control, in her testimony Fluke stressed that many women require contraception for medical purposes.

Speaking before the Democratic steering committee, Fluke told the story of a fellow student who needed prescription birth control for polycystic ovarian syndrome but was denied coverage under Georgetown's health insurance plan. According to Fluke, her friend was unable to pay for the prescription out of pocket and ultimately had to undergo surgery to remove the cyst that developed.

"These denials of contraceptive coverage impact real people. In the worst cases, women who need this medication for other medical reasons suffer dire consequences," she told the committee. "When you let university administrators or other employers … dictate whose medical needs are good enough and whose aren't, a woman's health takes a back seat to a bureaucracy focused on policing her body."

Tanisha Humphrey (SFS '12), the outreach coordinator for H*yas for Choice, hopes that the attention paid to Fluke will help bring the contraception coverage issue to the forefront for students.

Recommended: Articles that may interest you

13 comments

Anonymous
Sun Mar 4 2012 14:53
Baloney. The commerce clause is just the excuse that is used to justify unconstitutional government control of the people. Everyone who has studied the Constitution knows, if they are honest, that the intent of the commerce clause was to prevent trade barriers being placed by one state on the goods produced by another state. Now, it has been used to justify governmental authority in controlling every aspect of an individual's life - even including matter such as how much food you can grow for your own use. Oh, but the Supreme Court could never be wrong - can you say Dred Scott! This is now a battle between those whom believe in invididual freedom,inalienable rights coming from God and individual responsibility (and the Constitution as originally framed) versus those who believe in collective rights granted by the government (and taken away by the government) at the expense of the individual (those who believe that the Constitution is something to be twisted and distorted to accomplish their political goals).
Anonymous
Sun Mar 4 2012 14:35
Ding ding ding! You are correct, the commerce clause gives the federal government this power. It's not an "excuse," it's the supreme law of the land.
Anonymous
Sun Mar 4 2012 11:35
Three years at GeoTown Law costs $212,000 (including housing.) It's 215K if you have to buy your own BC. Aside from condoms handed out for free at some locations, GeoTown students must walk a whole 1/2 mile to a pharmacy to buy BC. That route is often uphill both ways while snowing. In the meantime, what part of the US Constitution says the government can force a company to provide certain health care? (Maybe the commerce clause...that's usually a good excuse.) Perhaps someone can argue the constitutionality of this issue.
Lauren
Sun Mar 4 2012 11:17
So why hasn't the issue of Safe Sex come up in this. You can take birth control all day long, but it is not going to protect you from STDs.
Anonymous
Sat Mar 3 2012 17:14
Just because someone files a lawsuit doesn't mean they're right.
Anonymous
Sat Mar 3 2012 13:17
In response to the 23:01 2 Maech GULC graduate, who apparently doen't believe that the Constitution provides for a federal govrnment with specified, limited powers,

Already, seven state attorneys general have sued the Obama administration over its order requiring some religious employers to cover birth control in their employees' healthcare plans. In the suit, the states argue that the White House infringed on the religious freedoms protected by the First Amendment.

"This violation of the [First] Amendment is a threat to every American, regardless of religious faith," Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning said in a news release. "We will not stand idly by while our constitutionally guaranteed liberties are discarded by an administration that has sworn to uphold them."

Hard to believe that you are a licensed attorney.

Anonymous
Fri Mar 2 2012 23:01
As another GULC grad, all I'll say is that I get the feeling that the GULC grad who posted at 15:03 clearly didn't take Con Law II. What a joke.
Fact-checker
Fri Mar 2 2012 22:26
It's $3,000 for THREE years, not one year, but that's beside the point.
Anonymous
Fri Mar 2 2012 16:18
i completely agree with the previous comment. There is something much larger at stake here - freedom of religion and freedom of conscience. Stand on the side of liberty.
CAS and GULC grad
Fri Mar 2 2012 15:03
Georgetown's president cotinues to prove that Georgetwon is no longer a Catholic University. He feels that it is more appropriate to come to the assistance of a law school student who is apparently so promiscuous that she spends over $3000/year for birth control, instead of standing up for Catholic morals. Further, Fluke is openly encouraging the federal government, to violate the 1st Amendment rights of the Church by compelling Catholic organizations not only to provide birth but to provide it for free. Mind you, no pharmaceuticals required to keep a person alive are provided for free but recreational drugs, like the pill, should be! I'm sure that Fluke would also like free abortifactants, as is being pushed by Obama. Ironically, In defending Fluke, Georgetown President John DeGioia, after making uncivil comments about Rush Limbaugh and after failing to stand with the Catholic Bishops on this 1st Amendment violation, said that this is our moment to stand for the values of civility. So Georgetown, civility is now more important than morality.
Anonymous
Fri Mar 2 2012 13:22
That first anonymous comment is extremely offensive. What about all the women who take birth control as a preventive measure? (i.e. preventing them from getting cervical cancer).
Anonymous
Fri Mar 2 2012 10:41
What a distugsting comment!
Millions of woman use different forms of birthcontrol each year, it is not a "habit". It is used for the obvious, as well as to control a number of other issues that go along with being a woman. There are far more things that the government pay for that should be cut out of the budget. Birthcontrol should not be considered as one of them.
Anonymous
Fri Mar 2 2012 10:31
I'll gladly pay for permanent sterilization for Ms. Fluke - it would be a far less costly option than being forced to subsidize her $3000.00 a year habit.




log out