Study Says: Obama is 5th Best President

OReilly Obama Interview 2014

Bill O'Reilly pulls no punches in this head-to-head interview with President Obama.  He hits many of the major points which are controversial topics which have plagued the Obama administration.

Dr. Michael Savage has his own list of questions for President Obama.  I'll present his questions and see if I can guess Obama's answers...

Here are Savage’s questions for Obama and then my "What Obama Might Say" (WOMS) answers:

1. Why did you insist on pushing into the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department a lawyer who defended the assassin of a police officer? A lawyer who has such a hatred for the police and law enforcement that he called them “an occupying fascist presence”?

WOMS:  I thank you, Dr. Savage, for this question.  The fact is that in this country every person charged with a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty.  Even those charged with the most heinous crimes are entitled to as one of THEIR rights to have an attorney.  We must not blame Debo P. Adegbile for her role in defending Abu-Jamal.

2. Why did you refuse to send military help to the people trapped in Benghazi?

WOMS:  (Keep in mind, O'Reilly did ask about whether or not the Benghazi attack was called a "terrorist attack" when the president was first informed of it).  The only remotely timely military response would have been an air assault, and without knowing exactly where the Americans were, there was simply not enough to go on to authorize such an attack.

3. Why did you attack Israel and have John Kerry threaten the Jewish people with another intifada and boycotts unless they gave away half their nation?

WOMS: I did not "attack" Israel and there is no demand or even request for Israel to "give away half their nation."

4. Why have you fired so many combat generals on such slim charges at a time when China is on the march and the Islamo-fascists are stronger than ever?

WOMS: Dr. Savage, without specific charges and examples of said "firings" I cannot answer.  China is not "on the march" and we're getting along quite well with Islam in the United States.

5. Why have you dismissed almost the entire nuclear command on trumped-up charges?

WOMS:  They were making me look bad.

6. Why do you keep expanding the welfare state when the economy is so weak? Such as expanding unemployment payments? Not reining in the 12 million, and growing, army of Americans cashing in on disability payments? Failing to stop the unchecked growth of the number of people on food stamps? Virtually eliminating the work requirements for receiving welfare benefits?

WOMS:  I have to keep my supply of voters/supporters!

7. Why do you keep pushing for amnesty for 30 million or more Mexicans and other illegal aliens when they are here illegally? And we cannot afford them? When they won’t learn English? Or learn our history? When they wave Mexican flags at sporting events and speak of the “gringo” with such contempt?

WOMS:  I have to keep my supply of voters/supporters!

8. Why won’t you stop the IRS from targeting conservative groups? Harassing them with audits and blocking their non-profit status? Why did you let Eric Holder choose a lawyer who had contributed thousands of dollars to your campaign to head the Justice Department IRS investigation when a special prosecutor is needed?

WOMS:  Dr. Savage, that was three questions!  Need I remind you of my previous two answers?  Those conservative groups were getting in the way.

9. Why won’t you stop the NSA from spying on innocent Americans?

WOMS:  Equal treatment under the law...  and of course, some are more equal than others.

10. Why don’t you prosecute gangsters on Wall Street and those corrupt senators and congressmen who are stealing billions through front groups and relatives? Through manipulating markets? On contracts?

WOMS:  Those are some pretty serious, but also non-specific charges.

11. Why don’t you approve the Keystone pipeline which will bring much-needed oil from Canada to refineries in America, for Americans? Instead of forcing the Canadians to ship this precious black gold to China?

WOMS:  Because that is what the Republicans want, and I can't be seen or perceived as bowing to their wishes.

12. Why don’t you encourage the expansion of charter schools so that underprivileged minority students have a chance at a real education? So they’re not trapped in a school system that dooms them to never realize their dreams? When 90 percent of African-Americans voted for you?

WOMS:  When those people are "trapped," as you call it - they are also dependent upon the government for their existence.  Again, I need to keep my supply of voters/supporters growing.

13. Why do you make policy and change laws by presidential executive order when the Constitution grants those powers only to Congress?

WOMS:  I believe Senator Jeff Sessions said it well... “I think the American people are coming to recognize that the President sees the Constitution as an inconvenience…a handicap to achieving the agenda that he has.”

14. Why won’t you speak out against the Islamist radicals who massacre Christians throughout the Middle East and North Africa?

WOMS:  They are not potential voters/supporters.

Nevermind "The Back of the Bus"

In a Tweet from "BarackObama" on the anniversary (Dec. 1) of Rosa Parks act which was called "civil disobedience" we see in an attempt to recognize her President Obama has not merely pushed her to the back of the bus, but removed her completely!

On December 1, 1955, in Montgomery, Alabama, Parks refused to obey bus driver James F. Blake's order that she give up her seat in the colored section to a white passenger, after the white section was filled. Parks was not the first person to resist bus segregation. Others had taken similar steps in the twentieth century, including Irene Morgan in 1946, Sarah Louise Keys in 1955, and the members of the Browder v. Gayle lawsuit (Claudette Colvin, Aurelia Browder, Susie McDonald, and Mary Louise Smith) arrested months before Parks. NAACP organizers believed that Parks was the best candidate for seeing through a court challenge after her arrest for civil disobedience in violating Alabama segregation laws though eventually her case became bogged down in the state courts. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosa_Parks).

Now, would not the following picture have been a bit more appropriate?

A Lesson In Socialism

Yes, this about sums it up!

Obama Like Jesus Christ

At a Neighborhood Restaurant

I was in my neighborhood restaurant this morning and was seated behind a group of jubilant individuals celebrating the successful passing of the recent health care bill. I could not finish my breakfast. This is what ensued:
They were a diverse group of several races and both sexes. I heard the young man exclaim, “Isn’t Obama like Jesus Christ? I mean, after all, he is healing the sick.” The young woman enthusiastically proclaimed, “Yeah, and he does it for free. I cannot believe anyone would think that a free market would work for health care. They are all crooks and thieves and don’t deserve all of that money.” Another said, ‘The stupid Republicans want us all to starve to death so they can inherit all of the power. Obama should be made a Saint for what he did for those of us less fortunate.” At this, I had had enough.
I arose from my seat, mustering all the restraint I could find, and approached their table. “Please excuse me; may I impose upon you for one moment?” They smiled and welcomed me to the conversation. I stood at the end of their table, smiled as best I could and began an experiment.
“I would like to give one of you my house. It will cost you no money and I will pay all of the expenses and taxes for as long as you live there. Anyone interested?” They looked at each other in astonishment. “Why would you do something like that?” asked a young man, “There isn’t anything for free in this world.” They began to laugh at me, as they did not realize this man had just made my point. “I am serious, I will give you my house for free, no money what so ever. Anyone interested?” In unison, a resounding “Hell Yeah” fills the room.
“Since there are too many of you, I will have to make a choice as to who receives this money free bargain.” I noticed an elderly couple was paying attention to the spectacle unfolding before their eyes! , the ol d man shaking his head in apparent disgust. “I tell you what; I will give it to the one of you most willing to obey my rules.” Again, they looked at one another, an expression of bewilderment on their faces. The perky young woman asked, “What are the rules?” I smiled and said, “I don’t know. I have not yet defined them. However, it is a free home that I offer you.” They giggled amongst themselves, the youngest of which said, “What an old coot. He must be crazy to give away his home. Go take your meds, old man.” I smiled and leaned into the table a bit further. “I am serious, this is a legitimate offer.” They gaped at me for a moment.
“Hell, I’ll take it you old fool. Where are the keys?” boasted the youngest among them. “Then I presume you accept ALL of my terms then?” I asked. The elderly couple seemed amused and entertained as they watched from the privacy of their table. “Oh hell yeah! Where do I sign up?” I took a napkin and wrote, “I give this man my home, without the burden of financial obligation, so long as he accepts and abides by the terms that I shall set forth upon consummation of this transaction.” I signed it and handed it to the young man who eagerly scratched out his signature. “Where are the keys to my new house?” he asked in a mocking tone of voice. All eyes were upon us as I stepped back from the table, pulling the keys from pocket and dangling them before the excited new homeowner.
“Now that we have entered into this binding contract, witnessed by all of your friends, I have decided upon the conditions you are obligated to adhere from this point forward. You may only live in the house for one hour a day. You will not use anything inside of the home. You will obey me without question or resistance. I expect complete loyalty and admiration for this gift I bestow upon you. You will accept my commands and wishes with enthusiasm, no matter the nature. Your morals and principles shall be as mine. You will vote as I do, think as I do and do it with blind faith. Thes! e are my terms. Here are your keys.” I reached the keys forward and the young man looked at me dumb founded.
“Are you out of your freaking mind? Who would ever agree to those ridiculous terms?” the young man appeared irritated. “You did when you signed this contract before reading it, understanding it and with the full knowledge that I would provide my conditions only after you committed to the agreement.” Was all I said. The elderly man chuckled as his wife tried to restrain him. I was looking at a now silenced and bewildered group of people. “You can shove that stupid deal up you’re a** old man, I want no part of it” exclaimed the now infuriated young man. “You have committed to the contract, as witnessed by all of your friends; you cannot get out of the deal unless I agree to it. I do not intend to let you free now that I have you ensnared. I am the power you agreed to. I am the one you blindly and without thought chose to enslave yourself to. In short, I am your Master.” At this, the table of celebrating individuals became a unified group against the unfairness of the deal.
After a few moments of unrepeatable comments and slurs, I revealed my true intent. “What I did to you is what this administration and congress did to you with the health care legislation. I easily suckered you in and then revealed the real cost of the bargain. Your folly was in the belief that you can have something you did not earn; that you are entitled to that which you did not earn; that you willingly allowed someone else to think for you. Your failure to research, study and inform yourself permitted reason to escape you. You have entered into a trap from which you cannot flee. Your only chance of freedom is if your new Master gives it unto you. A freedom that is given can also be taken away; therefore, it is not freedom.” With that, I tore up the napkin and placed it before the astonished young man. “This is the nature of your new health care legislation.”
I turned away to leave these few in thought and contemplation and was surprised by applause. The elderly gentleman, who was clearly entertained, shook my hand enthusiastically and said, “Thank you Sir, these kids don’t understand Liberty these days.” He refused to allow me to pay my bill as he said, “You earned this one, it is an honor to pickup the tab.” I shook his hand in thanks, leaving the restaurant somewhat humbled, and sensing a glimmer of hope for my beloved country.
Use reason, it is the closest you are going to get to Godly conduct.

Post Published: 04 May 2010
Author: The Eagle

What Happened to the 33?

33 people were rescued from Benghazi, what happened to them? Best case scenario would have been 33 hostages; worst case would have been 33 more casualties. If those men had not defied orders, we would have been looking at one of those scenarios! But we've heard nothing from these rescued Americans, why?

Things Which Make You Say: "Help Me Jesus"

Cash For Clunkers a Good Idea?

DO YOU REMEMBER THE CASH FOR CLUNKERS BIT?

The person who calculated this bit of information is now, and has been a professor at the University of West Virginia in Morgantown for the last forty some years.

He says that:

A clunker that travels 12,000 miles a year at 15 mpg uses 800 gallons of gas a year.  A new vehicle that travels 12,000 miles a year at 25 mpg uses 480 gallons of gas a year.

So, the average Cash for Clunkers transaction reduced gasoline consumption by 320 gallons per year.

The government claims 700,000 clunkers were replaced so that is 224 million gallons saved per year.  That equates to a bit over 5 million barrels of oil. 5 million barrels is about 5 hours’ worth of US consumption.  More importantly, 5 million barrels of oil at $90 per barrel costs about $450 million dollars.

So, the Government paid $3 billion of our tax dollars to save $450 million.  They spent $6.67 for every $1.00 they saved.

We've been assured, though, that they will do a much better job with our health care.

Republicans Hate?

I got into a little "debate" of sorts with a friend...

After just a couple rounds, suddenly his account

no longer exists on Facebook!

Actually, I don't think they love America at all. If they did they wouldn't constantly be shredding the Constitution that they claim to love with their talibangelical philosophies.

• 

  CathApol Windsor I'm a Republican and I don't hate President Obama. I have extreme displeasure with many of the things President Obama has done, but I do not hate him. As for the Constitution, um, it is President Obama who has been thumbing his nose at it frequently ...See More

  16 minutes ago · Like
• 

  Obadiah Robert Robinson Tell me what part of the Constitution President Obama has gone against?

  14 minutes ago · Like
• 

  CathApol Windsor Answering a question with a question again, I see. Some things never change. As usual though, I will answer your question - will you answer mine?http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/national-politics/20130125-obama-s-recess-appointments-to-labor-board-violated-constitution-federal-appeals-court-rules.ece
  

  
  

  Obama's recess appointments to labor board violated Constitution, federal appeals court rules

  www.dallasnews.com
  

  WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama violated the Constitution when he bypassed t...See More

  10 minutes ago · Like · Remove Preview
• 

  Obadiah Robert Robinson One thing. Any others?

  7 minutes ago · Like
• 

  CathApol Windsor How many do you need? Remember, YOU said it was Republicans "shredding the Constitution" and YOU have been challenged to document where - when they are not even in control of enough to do any such "shredding." So, you want more? Try this "Top Ten List:"http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/president-obamas-top-10-constitutional-violations
  

  
  

  President Obama's Top 10 Constitutional Violations

  www.cato.org
  

  One of the biggest political changes that 2011 brought — in large part due to th...See More

  3 minutes ago · Like · Remove Preview
• 

  Obadiah Robert Robinson None of those "top ten" are violations of the Constitution.

  a few seconds ago · Like
• 

  CathApol Windsor Also, remember, I said he's "thumbing his nose" at the Constitution, not "shredding" it. How about supporting the ordering of drones to kill Americans without due process - a Constitutional RIGHT for all Americans?

  Unable to post comment. Try Again

Passivity Lost This Election

As it turns out the biggest loser in this election was President Obama!  He received nearly 10 million fewer votes in 2012 than he did in 2008!   That being said, Governor Romney received nearly 3 million fewer votes than McCain did in 2008.  The startling fact is that if Romney had all of McCain's votes - he would have won, at least in the popular vote (maybe not in electoral votes, they're still trying to figure that part out).  Romney COULD have won this - IF the Republicans who supported McCain had supported Romney the same way.  It was ultimately those who stayed home who passively decided this election.  Sad, but true. 

Who Won Hofstra Debate?

OK, my take on this debate is that both candidates "came out swinging" this time.  This says a LOT more for President Obama compared to the first debate.   It was more like a "brawl" this time around.  Both made points.  Governor Romney made a mistake (several times) in asking open-ended questions of the President.  In a debate one should never ask a question to which they either a) don't already know the answer to, or b) have not already telegraphed the answer to, leaving your opponent no alternative than to give the answer you expected - that is, if both your expectation and your opponent are honest.

Overall, on substance I believe Governor Romney still "wins" - but in "debate points" I may lean toward President Obama.  The problem is, while he wins the debate points - once the "fact checking" takes place, he loses the actual argument.  For those who just watch the debate and do not watch for the fact checking, I believe there's a slight edge to the President.  For those who do wait for the fact checking, I believe the evidence will be overwhelmingly in Governor Romney's favor.  So, while Obama "wins the night" (barely), Romney actually "wins the debate."  One fact I've already heard verified was where Gov. Romney claimed a 50% drop in drilling contracts - the fact is it's over 60% for off-shore drilling and about 33% for on-shore drilling (Chris Wallace).  To that point, I must add, Governor Romney asked a specific question, "How much did you cut them by?"  President Obama diverted and answered about how much oil is being drilled... he answered a question which Romney didn't ask.

Who Won?
National Journal:  Obama wins debate points - but ultimate verdict is uncertain (in short, a tie).

A "Quick Poll" on Huffington Post says Obama wins:

 CNN says "Obama comes on Strong, Romney holds his ground."  Their poll suggests Obama won, but also conceded that the results were within the margin of error.

The Global Post states that while Obama "held his own" it also says "but Romney didn't lose much."

Foxnews says it's a split decision - Democrats say Obama won, Republicans say Romney won.

The bottom line is, after President Obama's dismal showing in the Denver debate, he needed a grand slam, knock it out of the park victory tonight in order to quell Governor Romney's momentum - and while Obama was more aggressive, Romney stood his ground - or as the Global Post put it, "Romney didn't lose much."  Therefore, President Obama didn't get the kind of win - if there was any "win" at all for him - he needed this time round so I predict that Romney will continue to overtake Obama - and in some polls, he already has.

Sesame Workshop Response to Obama Ad

To paraphrase, they want Big Bird removed from the Obama campaign's recent anti-Romney ad.  Sesame Workshop (the host of Sesame Street, and Big Bird) is a non-partisan organization which does not support any political party or candidate.   You can see their response here.

The attack stems from Governor Romney's comment from the first presidential debate held last Wednesday where he said, "I'm sorry, Jim, I'm going to stop the subsidy to PBS. I'm going to stop other things. I like PBS, I love Big Bird. Actually like you, too. But I'm not going to -- I'm not going to keep on spending money on things to borrow money from China to pay for. That's number one."  President Obama's attack ad sarcastically states that Big Bird is "a menace to our economy" and that Governor Romney is "taking on our enemies no matter where they nest."  Now, is that what Governor Romney REALLY said?  No!  He said he likes PBS and LOVES Big Bird - but he cannot justify sending money to support PBS (including Sesame Street) if we have to borrow that money from China to do it.

Romney's side has used an image of "The Count" and references Big Bird and Elmo - counting the number of times the Obama Campaign has referred to Big Bird and Elmo compared to how many times Lybia or "Plans to Fix the Economy" have been mentioned.  

Again, Sesame Workshop requests their trademarked characters be left out of the political campaign ads.  The Republican image is not as offensive as the Democrat one, but both should respect the wishes of Sesame Workshop.
 

Time To Circle The Wagons

In the aftermath of last night's debate the liberal media has been, thus far, been expressing their disgust with President Obama's lack of preparation ... soon you can expect them to begin circling the wagons and rallying to support the president.   Watch and see! 

Romney Wins First Debate

It is clear, Governor Romney won the first debate.  President Obama did get in a few good points, but overall it was Romney's night.  Romney did miss an opening "zinger" when President Obama said:

And so I just want to wish, Sweetie, you happy anniversary and let you know that a year from now we will not be celebrating it in front of 40 million people. 

Romney could have responded:

Mr. President, first off, congratulations on your 20th anniversary. I will do my best to make sure you spend your next one in Chicago and not in the White House.

While not a lot of substance to the statement, it would have been a bit of humor which would have resonated with the observers.

Another thing I noticed was that when President Obama was asked a direct question by Mr. Lehrer his response was almost every time a distraction to another subject.  Lehrer, in my humble opinion, should have then stated, "but my question was..." and then repeat the question.  Obama should not have been able to get away with the red herring tactic so easily with such an experience moderator (Lehrer has hosted the first presidential debate every time since 1988).

President Obama seemed to be stuck on Governor Romney allegedly planning a 5 trillion dollar tax cut, even after Romney repeatedly stated he has no such plan.  If Obama believed he indeed had such a plan then he should have been prepared with the facts of when Romney announced such a plan - rather than just keep repeating it is Romney's plan after Romney denied it (several times).

Now this was just the first debate, not the election.  There's still plenty of time for President Obama to rebound - but if he doesn't rebound from this, the swing is going in Romney's favor.

Full transcript of the debate can be found here:
http://www.timescall.com/ci_21693042/presidential-debate-running-transcript-obama-romney-square-off
 

Please feel free to add your own comments.

Terrible Call or Horrendous Non-Call

The manner in which the mainstream media treats liberals, President Obama being the chief among them, can be compared to the replacement refs in the National Football League.  Week after week we're seeing terrible calls in the NFL, not the least of which was last Monday night's game where the game was lost to the Green Bay Packers (and I'm a Vikings fan, so I speak with some objectivity here!) due to two calls on the second to last play of the game (the last being the point-after kick).  It was actually one terrible call and one horrendously missed call.  

The terrible call was to call the catch in the end zone "simultaneous possession."  How could that be?!  Jennings is a good 8-10 inches higher than Tate, the ball is clearly IN his hands before Tate touches it - then as they go to the ground Tate grabs hold of the ball with Jennings - but Jennings already has it securely in his arms and against his chest!  It was clearly Jennings' ball that Tate was attempting to steal away.

The horrendously missed call was PRIOR to the catch - where Tate, with two hands, SHOVES #37, Sam Shields, out of the way!  That's what REAL refs would call "offensive pass interference" which would nullify any chance or argument for Tate catching the ball.  See for yourself:

OK, back to what I was saying about how the mainstream press treats liberals.  Let's just take the attack in Benghazi, Lybia - where the United States ambassador and 3 others were killed.  The Obama administration comes out and says it was a spontaneous attack brought on by protestors due to an insulting, and very amateur video (called a movie).  In reality it was a well planned terrorist attack on the anniversary of 9/11.  On top of that, being a US Consulate - it is consider "American soil," so it is a terrorist attack on American soil on the anniversary of the worst terrorist attack in history.  The Obama administration therefore MUST distract and play down the reality of the situation not only for that reason, but also the question arises "Where was the Ambassador's protection/security?"  He was virtually ALONE when he was attacked!  Two of those killed were former Navy Seals, who were not "on duty" - but heroically stood up in the face of certain death for the sake of the Ambassador.  There was NO security, NO increased protection on the anniversary of September 11, 2001 and this was AFTER there were warnings that the Ambassador was in danger!  One could say that President Obama made a "bad call" in this matter - or an horrendous non-call.

Rush Limbaugh Apologizes

With all the hullabaloo over what Rush Limbaugh said about Sandra Fluke, and Rush's apology, I have to add my 2 cents...

A Statement from Rush

March 03, 2012

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 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.

What did Sandra Fluke really say?  The source I am quoting from actually opposes Rush and is asking for support in that opposition - I do not support the opposition.
http://www.whereistheoutrage.net/wordpress/2012/03/04/more-on-limbaugh-and-exactly-what-did-sandra-fluke-say/

My name is Sandra Fluke, and I’m a third-year student at Georgetown Law School. I’m also a past-president of Georgetown Law Students for Reproductive Justice or LSRJ. And I’d like to acknowledge my fellow LSRJ members and allies and all of the student activists with us and thank them so much for being here today.

We, as Georgetown LSRJ, are here today because we’re so grateful that this regulation implements the non-partisan medical advice of the Institute of Medicine.

I attend a Jesuit law school that does not provide contraceptive coverage in its student health plan. And just as we students have faced financial, emotional, and medical burdens as a result, employees at religiously-affiliated hospitals and institutions 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 or Jesuit institutions.

When I look around my campus, I see the faces of the women affected by this lack of contraceptive coverage.

And especially in the last week, I have heard more and more of their stories. On a daily basis, I hear yet from another woman from Georgetown or from another school or who works for a religiously-affiliated employer, and they tell me that they have suffered financially and emotionally and medically because of this lack of coverage.

And so, I’m here today to share their voices, and I want to thank you for allowing them – not me – to be heard.

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.

Just last week, a married female student told me that she had to stop using contraception because she and her husband just couldn’t fit it into their budget anymore. Women employed in low-wage jobs without contraceptive coverage face the same choice.

And some might respond that contraception is accessible in lots of other ways. Unfortunately, that’s just not true.

Women’s health clinic provide a vital medical service, but as the Guttmacher Institute has definitely documented, these clinics are unable to meet the crushing demand for these services. Clinics are closing, and women are being forced to go without the medical care they need.

How can Congress consider the [Rep. Jeff] Fortenberry (R-Neb.), [Sen. Marco] Rubio (R-Fla.) and [Sen. Roy] Blunt (R-Mo.) legislation to allow even more employers and institutions to refuse contraception 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 de-fund those very same clinics?

These denial of contraceptive coverage impact real people.

In the worst cases, women who need these medications for other medical conditions suffer very dire consequences.

A friend of mine, for example, has polycystic ovarian syndrome, and she has to take prescription birth control to stop cysts from growing on her ovaries. Her prescription is technically covered by Georgetown’s insurance because it’s not intended to prevent pregnancy.

Unfortunately, under many religious institutions and insurance plans, it wouldn’t be. There would be no exception for other medical needs. And under Sen. Blunt’s amendment, Sen. Rubio’s bill or Rep. Fortenberry’s bill there’s no requirement that such an exception be made for these medical needs.

When this exception does 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 are not, women’s health takes a back seat to a bureaucracy focused on policing her body.

In 65% of the cases at our school, our female students were interrogated by insurance representatives and university medical staff about why they needed prescription and whether they were lying about their symptoms.

For my friend and 20% of the women in her situation, she never got the insurance company to cover her prescription. Despite verifications of her illness from her doctor, her claim was denied repeatedly on the assumption that she really wanted birth control to prevent pregnancy. She’s gay. So clearly polycystic ovarian syndrome was a much more urgent concern than accidental pregnancy for her.

After months paying over $100 out-of-pocket, she just couldn’t afford her medication anymore, and she had to stop taking it.

I learned about all of this when I walked out of a test and got a message from her that in the middle of the night in her final exam period she’d been in the emergency room. She’d been there all night in just terrible, excruciating pain. She wrote to me, ‘It was so painful I’d woke up thinking I’ve been shot.’

Without her taking the birth control, a massive cyst the size of a tennis ball had grown on her ovary. She had to have surgery to remove her entire ovary as a result.

On the morning I was originally scheduled to give this testimony, she was sitting in a doctor’s office, trying to cope with the consequences of this medical catastrophe.

Since last year’s surgery, she’s been experiencing night sweats and weight gain and other symptoms of early menopause as a result of the removal of her ovary. She’s 32-years-old.

As she put it, ‘If my body indeed does enter early menopause, no fertility specialist in the world will be able to help me have my own children. I will have no choice at giving my mother her desperately desired grandbabies simply because the insurance policy that I paid for, totally unsubsidized by my school, wouldn’t cover my prescription for birth control when I needed it.’

Now, in addition to potentially facing the health complications that come with having menopause at such an early age – increased risk of cancer, heart disease, osteoporosis – she may never be able to conceive a child.

Some may say that my friend’s tragic story is rare. It’s not. I wish it were

One woman told us doctors believe she has endometriosis, but that can’t be proven without surgery. So the insurance has not been willing to cover her medication – the contraception she needs to treat her endometriosis.

Recently, another woman told me that she also has polycystic ovarian syndrome and she’s struggling to pay for her medication and is terrified to not have access to it.

Due to the barriers erected by Georgetown’s policy, she hasn’t been reimbursed for her medications since last August.

I sincerely pray that we don’t have to wait until she loses an ovary or is diagnosed with cancer before her needs and the needs of all of these women are taken seriously.

Because this is the message that not requiring coverage of contraception sends: A woman’s reproductive health care isn’t a necessity, isn’t a priority.

One woman told us that she knew birth control wasn’t covered on the insurance and she assumed that that’s how Georgetown’s insurance handle all of women’s reproductive and sexual health care. So when she was raped, she didn’t go to the doctor, even to be examined or tested for sexually transmitted infections, because she thought insurance wasn’t going to cover something like that – something that was related to a woman’s reproductive health.

As one other student put it: ‘This policy communicates to female students that our school doesn’t understand our needs.’

These are not feelings that male fellow student experience and they’re not burdens that male students must shoulder.

In the media lately, some conservative Catholic organizations have been asking what did we expect when we enroll in a Catholic school?

We can only answer that we expected women to be treated equally, to not have our school create untenable burdens that impede our academic success.

We expected that our schools would live up to the Jesuit creed of ‘cura personalis‘ – to care for the whole person – by meeting all of our medical needs.

We expected that when we told our universities of the problem this policy created for us as students, they would help us.

We expected that when 94% of students oppose the policy the university would respect our choices regarding insurance students pay for – completely unsubsidized by the university.

We did not expect that women would be told in the national media that we should have gone to school elsewhere.

And even if that meant going to a less prestigious university, we refuse to pick between a quality education and our health. And we resent that in the 21st century, anyone think it’s acceptable to ask us to make this choice simply because we are women.

Many of the women whose stories I’ve shared today are Catholic women. So ours is not a war against the church. It is a struggle for the access to the health care we need.

The President of the Association of Jesuit Colleges has shared that Jesuit colleges and the universities appreciate the modifications to the rule announced recently. Religious concerns are addressed and women get the health care they need. And I sincerely hope that that is something we can all agree upon.

Thank you very much.

OK, this sounds quite noble of Ms. Fluke, but in reality she is asking a Catholic institution to go against its moral stance on contraception.  THAT is the bottom line.  Certainly there are exceptions to the rule, but where does one draw the line?  If Georgetown University just opens up and give all female students contraceptive coverage - where does it end?  What about MALE rights?  Are males to be given coverage for erectile disfunction?  Or, as Rush pointed out, do we provide sneakers for all students who want to run to stay fit?   

Yes, Ms. Fluke's comments do not directly state she is interested in having sex outside of marriage without any consequences - but then again she's not advocating purely for medically necessary treatments which include drugs which are also contraceptive.  No, she's there to applaud Congress and President Obama for the HHS mandate being forced upon Catholic institutions - and the HHS mandate is not purely for purposes of medical necessity - but ANY use of contraception, which is wholly contrary to the moral standards of a Catholic institution.  

It must be pointed out that Ms. Fluke lists a few anecdotal situations in the extreme, but at the same time states "40% of the female students at Georgetown Law reported to us that they struggle financially as a result of this policy."  So on one hand she lists extreme cases - and on the other she implies that 40% of the female students are in this predicament.  Considering that contraception is NOT as expensive as Ms. Fluke states (she stated it costs up to $3000 for the period of time students are at law school), "the pill" costs about $171 for the first year, a diaphragm costs about $160 and IUD's are about $131 (source) is she saying she'll be in law school for over 17 years?!  

To answer to Ms. Fluke's point about being told that she should have gone to school elsewhere, well, if you want coverage for something morally opposed by the institution's religious standards - then yes, you should have gone to school elsewhere.  There are plenty of schools out there with lower moral standards than Georgetown.  No one twisted your arm and forced you to go to Georgetown.  If you want a degree from a Catholic institution, then there are consequences (good ones, from my perspective!) which you must deal with.

In short, did Ms. Fluke admit to "slut" behavior?  No, but who does she think she's fooling?  In isolated cases of medical necessity a drug which also has contraceptive attributes can be used - even provided by Catholic institutions - but again, to think that 40% of the female population at Georgetown fits that category of "medical necessity" is ludicrous.  The fact is many, if not most, of those seeking contraception are doing so precisely for the reasons Mr. Limbaugh used his platform of absurdity to demonstrate.  Should Mr. Limbaugh have directly called Ms. Fluke a slut (among other names)?  No, but that she ultimately was standing up for slutty or otherwise immoral behavior contrary to the stance of a Catholic institution is undeniable.  So Rush's apology should be accepted, but his underlying point should not be ignored.