Georgetown co-ed: Please pay for us to have sex … We’re going broke buying birth control

At a hearing of the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee yesterday, a single witness — Georgetown law student and “reproductive rights activist” Sandra Fluke — told sympathetic policy-makers that the administration’s so-called contraception mandate should stand … because her peers are going broke buying birth control.
“Forty percent of the female students at Georgetown Law reported to us that they struggled financially as a result of this policy (Georgetown student insurance not covering contraception),” Fluke reported.
It costs a female student $3,000 to have protected sex over the course of her three-year stint in law school, according to her calculations.
“Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school,” Fluke told the hearing.
Craig Bannister at did the math — and discovered that these co-eds, assuming they’re using the cheapest possible contraception, must be having unprotected sex about three times a day every day to incur that kind of expense. What Fluke is arguing, then, is that her fellow law students have a right to consequence-free sex whenever, wherever. Why, exactly, especially if it costs other people something? When I can’t pay for something, I do without it. Fortunately, the case of contraception, women can make lifestyle choices that render it unnecessary.

And when there done with that can someone please pay my cable bill for me, I am going broke here.

At least they’re willing to use some sort of birth control. I know of a local attorney who represents welfare cases, and he has a client, on welfare, that has 25 children, from several woman, and the client is on Viagra.

$1,000/year won’t cover parking at Georgetown.

Perhaps the $23k a semester tuition is the source of the financial hardship, and not the money spent on birth control?

Abstinence is free and much more healthy - both physically and mentally.

and can some one pay my blood pressure and cholesterol meds. Pretty soon I’m gonna have to diet and exercise instead.

I struggle financially to pay for smokes. The government should be paying for my smokes since I can’t afford to. /sarcasm

Craig Bannister at did the math — and discovered that these co-eds, assuming they’re using the cheapest possible contraception, must be having unprotected sex about three times a day every day to incur that kind of expense.

Three times every day? :eek: When do they have time to, you know, study? I would imagine law school would be so taxing and draining one wouldn’t have the time or energy to think about sex let alone have it every day, several times a day.

I take those meds too. Why don’t the taxpayers pay for ours? We need them to survive. Does she? (Maybe she does.)

For her to go out in public on national television to make those statements is somewhat weird. Is she saying to the world “I am a slut?” Her parents must be very proud.

Good article. Consequence-free sex is not an inalienable right.

My only reservation is that the author seems to minimize the medical use of the pill by saying that it is not the only treatment for PCOS. Even a doctor has no basis on which to critique the treatment of patients without all of a person’s details. If people have a medical need they should get BC coverage.

Uncalled for - really. :frowning:

Don’t laugh. People who smoke generally cost the government less overall. When they get sick they tend stay sick then die. They don’t linger around and collect Social Security for decades while running up medical bills with treatable diseases.

I would expect the government to continue their subsidy of the tobacco industry for decades to come.



THis is actually true and the study that had confirmed it, but was never published was done by a major US tobacco company.

The study was done in Holland with the attempt to show that smoking wasn’t as bad for our health as thought. However, the study showed it was bad, but the bright side, smokers cost the government less in health related cost because they died earlier.


Unlike others I like sharing knowledge.

Last year a Dutch study was published in the Public Library of Science Medicine journal that claimed the average healthcare costs for a smoker from age 20 until death was $326,000. The average cost for a healthy non-smoker from 20 to death was $417,000. That means being healthy costs $91,000 more of the extent of your life! Crazy Dutch, what do they know?

As crazy as those pot-smoking Europeans are, they are onto something. The explanation is simple: people who smoke die sooner. Dying on average of 10 years before their non-smoking counterparts reduces the healthcare burden on governments and insurance companies. Why die of old age after 15 years of skin cancer and surviving prostate cancer when you can just die of a bad case of lung cancer?

And their study only covered the cost of health care - it didn’t even address the issue of being on government retirement for 10 fewer years.

The Tobacco Industry had their own study that proved the same but didn’t use it during the state lawsuits. They didn’t think proving their product did indeed kill people would be very helpful to their case.

This testimony was on the news a few hours ago. The co-ed was a Nancy Pelosi witness, so consider the source.

What did co-eds ever do before the pill when illegitimacy was much lower?

What ever happened to the concept of living within your means? If you can’t afford contraceptives (and BTW, what are they doing having sex outside of marriage), your options are:

  1. stop having sex
  2. insist that your boyfriend share the expenses
  3. cut back on your other expenses. (I bet she has NO trouble affording her phone bill or pizza and beer expenses.)

Presumably the burden of care (in earlier life) falls on private insurance companies then, otherwise why would they penalize smoking?

I debated on saying that I will admit. But how else can I interpret her comments? I could have said nothing.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit