Senior Women Web

Testimony From Sandra Fluke and Limbaugh Apology: “A woman’s health takes a back seat to a bureaucracy focused on policing her body”

Written by

SeniorWomenWeb

in

, , , , , , , , , ,

We had viewed Sandra Fluke’s televised testimony live on February 23rd, but realized, sadly so, that many are hearing references to it that are not only preposterous but perhaps actionable, and those people might want to view the entire testimony. We’ve updated the post by including the printed apology byRush Limbaugh:

What follows are C-Span Video Library’s recordings, a Limbaugh statement and Sandra Fluke’s testimony:

A Statement from Mr. Limbaugh:

“For over 20 years, I have illustrated the absurd with absurdity, three hours a day, five days a week.  In this instance, I chose the wrong words in my analogy of the situation. I did not mean a personal attack on Ms. Fluke.”

“I think it is absolutely absurd that during these very serious political times, we are discussing personal sexual recreational activities [Editor’s Note: our bolding of the phrase] before members of Congress. I personally do not agree that American citizens should pay for these social activities. What happened to personal responsibility and accountability? Where do we draw the line? If this is accepted as the norm, what will follow? Will we be debating if taxpayers should pay for new sneakers for all students that are interested in running to keep fit?In my monologue, I posited that it is not our business whatsoever to know what is going on in anyone’s bedroom nor do I think it is a topic that should reach a Presidential level.”

“My choice of words was not the best, and in the attempt to be humorous, I created a national stir. I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for the insulting word choices.”

Sandra Fluke’s testimony.

We’ve included a link to the pdf released with the transcript of the testimony, as well as some portion of it:

will benefit from the Affordable Care Act contraceptive coverage regulation.  My
name is Sandra Fluke, and I’m a third year student at Georgetown Law, a Jesuit
school.  I’m also a past president of Georgetown Law Students for Reproductive
Justice or LSRJ.  I’d like to acknowledge my fellow LSRJ members and allies and
all of the student activists with us and thank them for being here today.
Georgetown LSRJ is here today because we’re so grateful that this regulation
implements the nonpartisan, medical advice of the Institute of Medicine.  I attend a
Jesuit law school that does not provide contraception coverage in its student health
plan. Just as we students have faced financial, emotional, and medical burdens as a
result, employees at religiously affiliated hospitals and universities across the
country have suffered similar burdens. We are all grateful for the new regulation
that will meet the critical health care needs of so many women.  Simultaneously,
the recently announced adjustment addresses any potential conflict with the
religious identity of Catholic and Jesuit institutions.
When I look around my campus, I see the faces of the women affected, and I have
heard more and more of their stories.  .  On a daily basis, I hear from yet another
woman  from Georgetown or other schools or who works for a religiously
affiliated employer who has suffered financial, emotional, and medical burdens
because of this lack of contraceptive coverage.  And so, I am here to share their
voices and I thank you for allowing them to be heard.
Without insurance coverage, contraception 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.   Forty percent of female students at
Georgetown Law report struggling financially as a result of this policy.  One told
us of how embarrassed and powerless she felt when she was standing at the
pharmacy counter, learning for the first time that contraception wasn’t covered,
and had to walk away because she couldn’t afford it.  Women like her have no
choice but to go without contraception.  Just last week, a married female student
told me she had to stop using contraception because she couldn’t afford it any longer.  Women employed in low wage jobs without contraceptive coverage face
the same choice.
You might respond that contraception is accessible in lots of other ways.
Unfortunately, that’s not true.  Women’s health clinics provide vital medical
services, but as the Guttmacher Institute has documented, clinics are unable to
meet the crushing demand for these services.  Clinics are closing and women are
being forced to go without.  How can Congress consider the Fortenberry, Rubio,
and Blunt legislation that would allow even more employers and institutions to
refuse contraceptive coverage and then respond that the non-profit clinics should
step up to take care of the resulting medical crisis, particularly when so many
legislators are attempting to defund those very same clinics?
These denials of contraceptive coverage impact real people.  In the worst cases,
women who need this medication for other medical reasons suffer dire
consequences.  A friend of mine, for example, has polycystic ovarian syndrome
and has to take prescription birth control to stop cysts from growing on her ovaries.
Her prescription is technically covered by Georgetown insurance because it’s not
intended to prevent pregnancy.  Under many religious institutions’ insurance plans,
it wouldn’t be, and under Senator Blunt’s amendment, Senator Rubio’s bill, or
Representative Fortenberry’s bill, there’s no requirement that an exception be
made for such medical needs.  When they do exist, these exceptions don’t
accomplish their well-intended goals because when you let university
administrators or other employers, rather than women and their doctors, dictate
whose medical needs are legitimate and whose aren’t, a woman’s health takes a
back seat to a bureaucracy focused on policing her body.

“Leader Pelosi, Members of Congress, good morning, and thank you for calling this hearing on women’s health and allowing me to testify on behalf of the women who will benefit from the Affordable Care Act contraceptive coverage regulation.  My name is Sandra Fluke, and I’m a third year student at Georgetown Law, a Jesuit school.  I’m also a past president of Georgetown Law Students for Reproductive Justice or LSRJ. I’d like to acknowledge my fellow LSRJ members and allies and all of the student activists with us and thank them for being here today.Sandra Fluke

“Georgetown LSRJ is here today because we’re so grateful that this regulation implements the nonpartisan, medical advice of the Institute of Medicine.  I attend a Jesuit law school that does not provide contraception coverage in its student health plan. Just as we students have faced financial, emotional, and medical burdens as a result, employees at religiously affiliated hospitals and universities across the country have suffered similar burdens. We are all grateful for the new regulation that will meet the critical health care needs of so many women.  Simultaneously, the recently announced adjustment addresses any potential conflict with the religious identity of Catholic and Jesuit institutions.

Comments

Leave a Reply

More posts