Monday, March 5, 2012

if the condom fits, you must convict


a bit of editorial paraphrasing of the late johnnie cochran..

so the left has made the topic of distraction, or the minute, just how much a law school students gets nailed, during their time supposedly spent learning a trade.

sandra fluke got up, so to speak, in front of a bunch liberal democrats and moaned about making $3000 dollars at a summer job, most of which goes toward birth control, to wit;

“Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school. For a lot of students who, like me, are on public interest scholarships, that’s practically an entire summer’s salary. 40% of the female students at Georgetown Law reported to us that they struggle financially as a result of this policy.
“One told us about how embarrassed and just powerless she felt when she was standing at the pharmacy counter and learned for the first time that contraception was not covered on her insurance and she had to turn and walk away because she couldn’t afford that prescription. Women like her have no choice but to go without contraception."

note that fluke repeatedly uses the word contraception, which as you know broken down means against conception. the left would have us believe that this is a "medical catastrophe", in fluke's own words. it's no medical problem at all. this lady is, i believe, talking specifically about a preferred form of birth control, the pill.

as we all know, the pill is really good at preventing pregnancy, and apparently pretty good at treating other female reproductive disorders. but the pill is simply abysmal at preventing sexually transmitted diseases.

according to the CDC there are about 19 million new std infections per year in the UNITED STATES. they also claim that about 24,000 women a year become infertile in the U.S. due to STDs. this would constitute a personal medical catastrophe, but not one the taxpayer should be asked to cover. which is what fluke, the liberals, and our dear leader are demanding.

according to a 2008 CDC study, girls (15-19yoa) and young women (19-24yoa) have the highest rates of chlamydia and gonorrhea infection, and the same study noted a 36% increase in the incidence of syphilis in women compared to 2007. the CDC says the best way to prevent these infections, aside from abstinence is...

Consistent and correct use of the male latex condom...

i checked with the wife and some other women, who informed me that the pill typically cost between $35 and $40 dollars per month, which is $480 a year, on the high side, and $1440 for the 3 years fluke is claiming. if this is true, on a national as compared to regional level, that is a $1560 dollar savings, which I was able to figure out without a georgetown law degree.

further "research" also determined that 1,008 *beyond seven* condoms from CONDOMDEPOT would only set aspiring attorneys back $125 dollars. be advised that when buying in quantities this large, you DO NOT get free shipping. this "package" would however allow law school students to practice procreation 3.5 times a day for 1 year, assuming a normal 7 day menstrual cycle twelve times a year, which most guys will run away from. taking up an additional hobbies would allow the frugal solicitor to stretch their spending dollar, and rubber stockpile further.

so at the end of the day was RUSH wrong to call fluke a slut? unless he knows something more about her personal character or behavior patterns, I would have to say yes. could the law students at georgetown be using 2 forms of contraception in tandem, such as the pill with a condom fail safe? maybe, but that only adds up to around $1900 dollars over 3 years time. i really doubt this is the case, as fluke stated that, a female student left a pharmacy counter embarrassed, without a prescription (for the pill?), because her insurance would not cover it. and that she had no other choice but to go WITHOUT contraception. all this leaves one believing that indigent men around law schools score repeatedly, and at will.

would RUSH have been more correct to call fluke a disingenuous liar with an agenda? in my opinion, yes.
!-- Site Meter XHTML Strict 1.0 -->