Sex in Spain and Italy on a Budget

As we learn via Twitchy and Gateway Pundit, it seems (gasp, such surprise!) Sandra Fluke isn’t nearly so poverty-stricken as we were led to believe.

You may recall that she went before congress a few weeks ago to testify that she was having so much sex that she needed $1,000 a year to pay for the contraceptives necessary to prevent the natural outcome of sexual intercourse. Being a law student at one of the nation’s most prestigious (if not expensive) universities left her and her fellow female law students with little or no cash to purchase contraceptives, we were told.

It was therefore necessary to quash the religious freedom of others using government coercion to force them to provide the contraceptives she and her fellow law school students could not afford–even though several investigative reports found that such contraceptives could be obtained for less than $10 a month within 3 miles or less of Georgetown University.

But now we learn that this deprived law school student is now off in Spain and Italy with her boyfriend (is she struggling to pay for contraceptives there, or do their socialist governments provide contraceptives to impoverished tourists?), doing things most working Americans (who pay for many of the things she wants to suck through the teat of government largess) can only dream of.

In reality, we once again see that we have been fed a line of bull by a Leftist who wants to force others to provide for them what they should (and could) be providing for themselves.

In fact, she could have a little charity (as her independent, non-government-teat-sucking forefathers had) and pay for the contraceptives of another or two of her “needy” fellow Georgetown University law students.

But no: it’s easier to trample someone else’s freedom than to provide for yourself or help your needy friends.


  1. WXRGina says:

    Talk about “rubbing our noses in it”!

    Well, the cost of her trip probably equals one-year’s salary for me (not just one summer)!  I don’t make much money, of course.

  2. jaytheatheist says:

    Trampling your freedom?

    You have no freedom guaranteeing you that society must work in the way you believe it should. You have a freedom to complain about it but no freedom to receive a remedy based on it.


    • Bob Ellis says:

      It’s a freedom known as the freedom of religious expression. It’s found in the First Amendment to that document that liberals keep in their restrooms for unmentionable purposes. Most Americans still consider that document to be the most important one in our country, however. You should get familiar with it sometime, even show it a little respect.

      • jaytheatheist says:

        I have much respect for our fundamental freedoms which is why I commented against you. As with all of our freedoms, while they guarantee personal expression, they do not guarantee that a particular point of view is correct. While you are both free to disagree with Ms. Fluke and practice your faith as you wish, her freedom of expression is not ‘trampling’ you rights.


        • Bob Ellis says:

          So it was a little too much truth and clear identification of bad behavior for a “fair minded” person to handle, then? In othe words, “fair minded” people can’t handle too much moral clarity up front?

          So we cannot have fundamental freedoms without having opposition to those fundamental freedoms? That statement is pretty devoid of logic and reason.

          Your second statement that freedom of expression does not guarantee the veracity of that expression is logical, however, and is illustrated by your first statement, as well as your previous comment.

          When one advocates that the denial of rights of another person, i.e. advocates the use of government force to coerce one person to provide goods and services to another person against their will–especially if the provider’s religious freedom is violated in the provision of said goods and services–then one is advocating that the provider’s rights be trampled.

          That is unconscionable and un-American.

          • jaytheatheist says:

            Your attempt to draw this into a morality argument is noted. 

            Your ability to oppose something is also not at issue. You are of course free to oppose whatever you want.However, it should be noted that it started out with your claim that your rights were being trampled. I still maintain that no rights of yours were being trampled by someone else using there freedom of expression. Furthermore, even if the Government does force employers from having a say, this still does not trample any rights of yours. You are still free to practice your religion as you see fit. You are not free to impose your morality on others.-J

            • Bob Ellis says:

              I have not “attempted” to draw this into a morality argument, any more than I have “attempted” to make the sun hot by pointing out that it is burning at about 11,000 degrees.

              What you are doing is attempting to avoid the clear and obvious fact that Sandra Fluke has advocated that the religious freedom of others be trampled using the power of government force. That is undeniable by any rational person, and you might consider what it says about you that you are trying to avoid this truth.

              While the imposition of morality on others is highly debatable (because morality is imposed with each and every law that is passed and enforced in this and every other nation on earth), what is clear is that while no conservative is trying to impose their morality on Sandra Fluke or anyone else by opposing the Obama mandate, Sandra Fluke and Barack Obama are most certainly trying to impose their distorted morality on others via the use of government force.

              • jaytheatheist says:

                As mentioned earlier, there is no right guaranteed to you that your view of morality need be honored.

                You have a view. Good for you. It is a view that Sandra does not share. Good for her. Freedom of expression works.

                Unfortunately for you in this circumstance, the Government more closely aligns with her and is throwing [your] money down on it. This action does not in the least impact your rights of expression or your freedom to worship as you please. It may run afoul of your thinking and sensibilities and it may truly trouble and disturb you – join the club. Everyone that opposed the Iraq invasion feels the ** e x a c t ** same way.

                The remedy is; (1) Complain (2) mobilize like minded people and (3) vote. Those are your rights.


              • Bob Ellis says:

                No one has said there is a guarantee that the Christian moral code must continue to be honored in America (if we have any sense, it would be, but there is nothing requiring the American people not to be stupid). You are either somehow managing to completely miss the point even after having had it explained multiple times, or are deliberately trying to construct strawmen to fight so you can avoid an inconvenient truth that even you know inside is right.

                No, the United States government does not more closely align with her. If it did, the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights would not exist. Obama’s ObamaCare scheme is an illegitimate usurpation of the powers granted by the American people to the federal government, as is Obama’s and Fluke’s desire to force Christians to violate their conscience to provide Fluke and her friends with things Fluke and her friends should constitutionally and morally be purchasing for themselves if they want them.

                Regarding Iraq, you should also check the Constitution that you hold in such disdain there also. You’ll find national defense to be (unlike government health care schemes and plans to force Christians to violate their values, which won’t be found anywhere in the Constitution) among the powers granted to the federal government. You’ll also find that our action there–to topple a murderous, terror-supporting dictator who had plotted to assassinate an American president, who had fired on our warplanes patrolling the no-fly zone some 200 times or more in the year prior to the invasion, and who had defied 17 resolutions backed by US military power–was authorized by congress and was fully legal and constitutional.

                ObamaCare and plans to trample religious freedom to provide contraceptives to promiscuous young women, however, is not found in that Constitution.

                I don’t know how I can possibly make this very simple issue any more clear without being extremely insulting.

              • jaytheatheist says:

                There is no difference with the Government declaring a war and the Government passing a law requiring insurance companies to offer birth control. Both powers are the result of the elected Government acting on behalf of the electorate.

                Consequently, both actions will trouble some and please others. This is a direct result of people’s personal beliefs – be they religious or not.

                You have no Constitutional rights to be ‘un-troubled’ or ‘pleased’ by what the elected officials do. This seems to be the gist of your argument and it simply is not true.

                Yes, you have a freedom of religion – to celebrate it your way but you do not have a freedom to impose that on others. Except to some extent via voting. Even then, the courts can step in and have the final say.


              • Bob Ellis says:

                It’s truly astonishing that you could be so monumentally ignorant as to make a statment like, “There is no difference with the Government declaring a war and the Government passing a law requiring insurance companies to offer birth control.”

                Have you even read the United States Constitution, much less have the most fundamental grasp of it or American government in general? While it’s possible that you may have done the former at some cursory point, it’s clear that the latter is miles beyond you.

                I’m sorry, but I have a low tolerence for asininity from ostensibly educated adults, and I’m not going to waste my time or anyone elses in allowing such breathtakingly obtuse statements from you on this subject any more.

                You were either cheated out of a decent education, or you squandered what was offered to you.

              • Bob Ellis says:

                Sorry Jay, I’m trying to break my fruitless habit of trying to reason with people who can’t manage to deal with facts and live within the real world just because they find such things inconvenient to their agenda. I might has well go to an insane asylum and try to have a meaningful dialog with the inmates. It’s too frustrating for all concerned and a complete waste of everyone’s time.

              • WXRGina says:

                If our world were not in such dire straights because of the hellish forces that inspire people like “Jay” the PROUD “atheist,” I would almost feel sorry for him. But, as it is, I do not feel sorry for people like him who aggressively reject plain truth and common sense. People like him will one Day come to a terrible knowledge of the Truth, a painful knowledge at which they will be eternally horrified.

    • dr. theo says:

      I take it then that you are all for lawlessness, Jay.  The way our society works is specified in our founding documents with the belief that a nation governed by law is preferable to a nation governed by the whims of men in power.  If you deny this then you really should find a place where your philosophy is appreciated and exercised–Venezuela would be an excellent choice. 


      • jaytheatheist says:

        Reductio ad absurdum.

        Of course I am not for lawlessness. I’m not sure how you would derive that from my comment. I agree that the power of the government is derived from the governed; that really forms a basis for any Democracy. However, laws are not derived by the whims of society either. At least for our Democracy, core values must support the root of any law.

        For instance, something that we both can agree on. Flag burning. I find it abhorrent as well as foolish in its attempt at making a point. I’m fairly certain that a sizable portion, if not a majority, would support a law against it. However, if we are to honor the core values, their freedom of expression of that individual must be protected even if the majority don’t quite see it that way.


        • dr. theo says:

          When government takes money that I have earned, by coercion, to provide sterilizations and abortions that I abhor, what “core values” are being honored, Jay?  Is not my right to “free expression” of my religious beliefs a “core value?”

          How can it be morally, ethically or politically right to forcefully take what rightfully belongs to one person, against his will, and give it to another?  The evil is compounded when that stolen wealth is used to support an even greater evil (that violate my deeply held religious “core values)?

  3. Bob Ellis says:

    Oh, but our right to freedom of religious expression IS most certainly in question. That is precisely what this mandate in ObamaCare tramples, and it is what Sandra Fluke is stumping in support of.  

    She and President Obama want to force people and groups to provide things to her even though those things violate their religious convictions.  Fluke and her friends remain free to have as much extramarital sex as they want, and they remain free to purchase contraceptives to attempt to avoid the natural consequences of such actions. They do NOT have the right to force someone else to provide it to them.  That is immoral, un-American and unconstitutional.

    No, society is not required to abide by the Christian moral code, beyond what is legally enacted into law.  However, since the Christian moral code has produced the greatest nation this planet has seen (including unparalleled freedom and prosperity), we would be utterly insane to abandon what has worked so exceptionally well in exchange for what without fail produces oppression and suffering everywhere it has ever been tried throughout history.A particular value system always wins out in any society.  The question for America is: which one do we want to win out–the one that made us the greatest nation on earth, or the one that produces misery and decay everywhere it is tried?  The answer should be pretty obvious to any sane people.

  4. dr. theo says:

    ” The Government is extended the ability by the governed to spend our money as it sees fit.”  That is a monumental example of ignorance of our Constitution and our founding principles of government of, for and by the people.  The government is constrained in its actions by the Constitution and is bound by oath to act only within the bounds of those constraints. Legal declaration of war is a God-given right and responsibility of legitimate governments, and is clearly specified in the Constitution. Taking from some to give to others is not.

    Your list of “core values” is a little shaky, Jay.  Perhaps a careful reading of the Bill of Rights would help you think more clearly.