Tag Archives: Fluke

What Makes Free Birth Control Expensive

Michelle Stansbury

Initially, when my local pharmacy informed me that the nine dollar co-pay on my birth control was now waived, I was surprised. When they went on to ask for my grocery card to give me gas points on the birth control I didn’t pay for, I was appalled. Free birth control and gas points sound picture-perfect, if you ignore the long term ripple effect.

Memorably, Milton Friedman said it best, “There is no such thing as a free lunch.”  If insurance companies are mandated to provide free services at the pharmacy or doctor’s office, they have to bill the recipient later through higher premiums to compensate for the added expense. Sky-high premiums are already expected to take effect for many starting next year; the plan my family and I are on will see a dismal increase of 27 percent.

If you aren’t already seeing a frustrating shade of blue, there are also twenty new tax hikes on families and small businesses scheduled in 2013 and onward courtesy of Obamacare.

Simply put, through increased insurance premiums and taxes, I’ll be paying for my birth control and for those around me several times over when I could have paid a measly nine dollars a month. My budget will tighten because our government and the Sandra Flukes of the world refuse to heed a basic life principal: Nothing is free; no matter how many times the government mandates otherwise.

Michelle Stansbury is a political consultant, paid speaker, and Fox Radio Political Commentator. You can follow her on Twitter: @MBStansbury and Subscribe on Facebook here.

Wake Up and Smell the Rosen

Democratic strategist Hilary Rosen is proving to be a thorn in the side of the manufactured “War on Women” campaign.  After making the comment that presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s wife “hasn’t worked a day in her life,” social media sites and cable news pundits have erupted in criticism.

How could an advocate for the democratic party, a Lesbian/Gay/Bisexual/Transgender activist, mother of twins with her former partner Elizabeth Birch, and managing director at SKDKnickerbocker (a PR firm started by former White House Communications Director Anita Dunn) be so insensitive to women?  Her bio at SKDKnick.com even touts her expertise in strategic communications.  She is a former editor at the Huffington Post. And as Michelle Malkin points out, Rosen is no stranger to White House public relations schemes.  In fact, Rosen has visited the White House at least 35 times since President Obama took office.  According to White House visitor logs, Rosen has had numerous meetings with press staff, Obama campaign manager Jim Messina, FLOTUS BFF and top advisor to the president Valerie Jarrett and at least 5 meetings with the president himself.

She MUST have known the “Republicans hate women” media diversion strategy.

Within hours of the statement airing on CNN, David Axelrod, Obama campaign PR guru, publicly denounced Rosen’s comments. Jim Messina took out his contempt for Rosen’s statement on Twitter.  A Huffington Post blog suggests Rosen should do more than apologize and donate to MS Foundation. Even First Lady Michelle Obama tweeted about it saying, “Every mother works hard and every women deserves to be respected.”

The almost immediate response from the White House and other leftwing talking heads seems to indicate strategy versus reaction.

An interesting string of events.

In the months before a Georgetown law student gave fake testimony in a fake hearing about her friends attending a law school that costs tens of thousands of dollars per year having trouble affording contraception, President Obama’s poll numbers among women were down significantly from 2008.

In keeping with the “Republicans hate women” campaign, SKDKnickerbocker (yes the same Anita Dunn PR firm mentioned earlier) trotted out their client, Sandra Fluke, with her sob story of too much sex/not enough free condoms.  This was on the heels of the Obama administration’s attack on the Catholic Church and that horribly obvious orchestrated debate question from former Clinton senior political advisor George Stephanopolous about contraception at the Hew Hampshire GOP debate.

President Obama has been working feverishly to regain favor with the 20% of female voters that have moved to the “disapprove” column in recent Gallup polls.  The president publicly supported Ms. Fluke and gave her a personal phone call. He attempted to force religious institutions to provide birth control and abortions via the Health Care Reform policy and weighed in on Augusta National’s policy on women even though he wasn’t asked.  But none of the campaign’s efforts seem to be working.  As of April 12, Obama’s approval rating among women is still less than 50%.

Enter Hilary Rosen.

As Obama’s poll numbers continue to slip among female voters, perhaps it was time for a new scapegoat to get the campaign out of this messy “war on women” business.  Rosen has since apologized to Ann Romney, mother of 5 suffering with Multiple Sclerosis and cancer survivor, but not before the White House, campaign strategists and the First Lady had a chance to publicly denounce Rosen.

It was Anita Dunn who once said the campaign “controlled” the news media and only let them hear what the campaign wanted them to play on their news programs.  We’ll have to see if the latest PR stunt provides the approval ratings for which they are hoping.

Obama’s Hypocrisy Exposed (Again)


This excellent video points out two cases of delicious irony in one fell swoop.  Our president has recently called Sandra Fluke to let her know that he doesn’t approve of meanies like Rush Limbaugh calling her a “slut” while simultaneously taking $1 million (via super pac) from Bill Maher.  (who “unapologetically” calls Sarah Palin a C_NT)   The Irony Police are looking over the report to see which smacks more of hypocrisy:  His condemnation of Limbaugh while glossing over remarks by Maher.  Or his sudden change of heart when it comes to embracing Super PACs.  Anyone else remember when he scolded the Supreme Court for the Citizens United decision?  (h/t @red_red_head on Twitter)

Mitchell & Ray – 3/8 – Stupid Tuesday, What the Fluke & Whose Narrative?

When: Thursday, March 8th, 10pm Eastern/7pm Pacific

Where:Streaming Internet Radio

What: Join independent political commentators Rich Mitchell and Michelle Ray as they discuss issues impacting Americans.

Tonight: Stupid Tuesday, What the Fluke & Whose Narrative is it anyway?
Special Guest: Allan Bourdius (@allanbourdius)

Show recording: 

Sandra Fluke Testifies Before Congress

The story known as “SlutGate” has been gathering more and more steam in the media.  It’s to the point that we spend more time talking about Sandra Fluke than we do about gas prices, national security, or even the unemployment rate.  As of this writing, The Huffington Post has an article on the front page with over 38,000 comments.  Folks, that’s a lot.

So whether you like it or not, this story is here to stay.  Another thing that may be here to stay is the progressive liberals’ new battle cry:  “The War On Women”.

So far, a lot of you may not have bothered to watch Sandra Fluke’s testimony before Congress.  Maybe you’ve relied on whatever analysis you’ve seen on this website, or even the news.

Given the increased gravity this story has been achieving, I would suggest you watch it for yourself.  The video is only 11 minutes long, and as you can see, Miss Fluke’s 15 minutes are not yet up.  So… Get to watching.

Tonight on the Dark Side with Kira Davis

Democrat Operative and excessive birth control user Sandra Fluke

3/4/12  Tonight on the Dark Side with Kira Davis: Slugate, Flukegate, Limbaughgate… I can’t wait for the day when someone named Gate screws up so we can finally have a Gategate. And what does the loss of Andrew Breitbart mean for conservatives and what comes next? Plus I’ll make my always accurate predictions for the upcoming week in news. Join us tonight at 10pm ET, 7pm Pacific on the CDNews Network on Blogtalk Radio. 

Government Sponsored Extreme Sexuality Sports

I know more students that watch collegiate sports than actually play or played collegiate sports. They have been treated far more fairly than some of the athletes themselves. Therefore I propose we appeal to Jonathan Swift for a modest proposal…

I have taken mild liberty to adjust Mr. Swift’s proposal to accommodate our present day circumstances. Correspondingly, lacking Swift’s flair to the rhetorical I offer this synopsis with greater brevity.

A Modern Modest Proposal

This is a Modern Modest Proposal for preventing the students in America from being a burden on themselves, their families, and for making them beneficial to the public.

It is a melancholy object to those, who walk through our great universities. These gifted student, instead of being able to work for their honest livelihood, and apply themselves to their studies, are forced to employ all their time in the risks of of unprotected gaming, some to the extent of sell themselves to drunkards and reprobates.

Thus, it is only reasonable that a solicitous proposal, submitted by fluke, should be more seriously evaluated and applied universally throughout our universities.

Specifically, I draw my attention to the desperate circumstances of collegiate athletes. I momentarily attend to the specific sport of “football”. Upon gaining entrance to a prestigious university these active sportsmen are outfitted with rigorous protective gear equal to the cost of satisfactory annual contraceptive. I.e. football protection for one year is nearly equivalent in cost to a full year of “protection” for a highly active sexual athlete at the same university.

It is true that the university pays for the extent of protective gear issued to its footballers. In the most recent decade many universities have bent to offer heterosexual sporting in some prominent sports programs. The boys on grid iron appear to be advantaged over the less funded sport of “Extreme Sexuality”. The question naturally is raised as to whether or not such disparity in funding common sports programs is truly equitable. Given that Extreme Sexuality is a far more popular sport among collegiate student (and perhaps the professorships as well) the only reasonable initial response would be that inequity surely does exist.

Serious consequences, in most cases, on the football field are protected against. Injuries and “sidelining” of players is far less frequent than would be expected with such aggressive encounters. The main reason being that protective gear is provided to athletes. The same cannot be said for the more popular sport of Extreme Sexuality, which incidentally the university offers no protective measures. This again, for emphasis, appears categorically unjust. Given the choice of participating in either football, a sport of repetitively attempting to push a ball forward, or Extremely Sexuality I will leave to the reader’s imagination as to which a preponderance of students and faculty would choose.

Why then is such a sport, and the protection of the participants therein, thrown recklessly aside while football is funded so heavily. This is Another seeming dilemma of inequity. Something ought to be done. Just by fluke, an informed student of Georgetown testified before the prestigious although highly political House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee. The essence of her testimony was rather simple, and appeared to answer the terrible inequity of protection provided in university sports programs. Her answer was void of malice and subject to rational discourse, rather than the tawdry commentary of liberal talk shows. She concluded that the government should fund Extreme Sexuality sporting events by providing subsidized protection.

My initial reaction was to wonder “why”, but upon closer examination I discovered the disparities which exist (as noted above). Ultimately I came to this alternate Modern Modest Proposal.

Athletes in collegiate sports programs, like football, reach that level of capability through years of training and practice. They hone both their bodies and mental stamina to prepare themselves for the extreme challenges of repeatedly being nailed flat on their backs usually on the semi-hard surface of the cold ground. Secondly, when functioning as a well oiled machine these sportsmen draw vast numbers of spectators. The Spectators pay good money to watch these sporting events. They cheer wildly when someone scores. Other sports where athletes are nailed by a well oiled machine could be treated equitably. You can see where my Modern Modest Proposal is headed I presume.

Perhaps universities would or should entertain (pun intended) the idea of publicizing Extreme Sexuality programs as an offset cost for these programs. This would allow for proper protection for the athletes involved in the sports. By publicizing and establishing quality observation arenas universities could charge high prices for a ready and willing supply of spectators. Seats directly at ringside could draw in excess of $250 per event. With the less exhausting effort (even appealing aspect) involved in the actual Extreme Sexuality competition a player could reasonably participate in three spectator events weekly without seriously effecting their ability to apply good study habits. Iron man events would require a higher level and frequency of commitment, but risk of injury would be offset by the protective gear provided by the University. National championships in Extreme Sexuality competitions would draw millions of dollars annually to participating universities.

The challenge for universities would not be achieving that funding requisite for the protective gear but finding the best competitors from the high school ranks. This would require years of training. Parents would presumably prepare their promising offspring beginning as early as age nine. Further, the investment by parents of promising young folks would also be minimal. In fact, in some communities, there would be a ready supply of adults willing to be perverted away from their business activities to “pay to play” in the raising-up of such future athletes.

Photo: AP

For less wealthy families, with skilled children trained at their father’s tender hands, the income from Casual Sexuality through the advanced techniques of Extreme Sexuality could easily augment family revenue in excess of five digit figures annually.

The social value of such a Modern Modest Proposal cannot be measured. The House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee would no longer need to address this serious flaw in our culture. Why? Because there would no longer be a need, even among the poorest of students, for federal assistance with sexual activities. Unfortunately, former House member Anthony Wiener is no longer in office to model and champion such a progressive policy.

This proposal obviously will meet with the usual opposition from those forces asserting moral values for society. I suspect that their first argument will be that The Modern Modest Proposal, may possibly not be so modest afterall.