Sandra Fluke -- Liberal Lesbian Activist on a Secret Mission?

COMMENTARY | While you might know that Sandra Fluke is a 30-year-old liberal activist who enrolled at Georgetown University with the express purpose of forcing the school to pay for students' birth control, what you might now know is that, as reported by The College Politico, her ultimate mission is to force them to pay for sex change operations as well.

Consider also the little matter of Fluke's efforts on behalf of the activist group called Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgendered Questioning.

An interesting report by Stephen Gutwski of Media Research Center exposed an article -- co-edited by Fluke and published in the Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law 2011 Annual Review -- titled Employment Discrimination Against LGBTQ Persons.

"A prime example of direct discrimination," the "gender law" article claims "is denying insurance coverage for medical needs of transgender persons physically transitioning to the other gender."

Really? Denial to pay for someone's sex change operation is a "prime example" of discrimination against transgendered persons? So, does that mean that denying coverage for breast augmentation or hair transplants would also qualify as discrimination against the mammary or follically impaired who are "transitioning" from having small breasts or a receding hairline?

Then there is this:

On March 1, a curious post appeared on MacsMind.com, the blog site for the conservative MacRanger Radio Talk Show stating receipt of an e-mail from a Georgetown woman who claims Fluke is gay.

"We have been intimate," MacRanger quoted from the yet-to-be identified woman's e-mail. "I know she hasn't been with a man since I've known her."

The woman further stated Fluke was "recruited" to testify under the pretense that she was personally at risk of pregnancy.

While MacRanger admits the veracity of the e-mail contents has not yet been proven accurate, "the email headers check out and it appears legit."

At this point, a series of questions come to mind. Is Fluke gay or not? Does it matter? And, more importantly, why was Nancy Pelosi so determined to shove Fluke specifically into the middle of the contraception controversy?

Let's begin by examining Fluke's testimony.

She identifies herself as "a third-year student at Georgetown Law School" and "past-president of Georgetown Law Students for Reproductive Justice."

She then clarifies that she is there to advocate the controversial contraception mandate for which Obama faced so much heat because she attends "a Jesuit law school that does not provide contraceptive coverage in its student health plan." Then she shares a sampling of the sob stories that she and other LSRJ members hear "on a daily basis."

First, while she admits to being "a past-president" of Georgetown LSRJ, why avoid mentioning that she's still an active member?

Second, if Fluke is a financially struggling heterosexual student, why is it she only shares the stories of other female students who have "suffered financially and emotionally and medically" because of the lack of birth control coverage?

Third, why did Fluke intentionally enroll in a Catholic school that she knew did not offer the birth control services she is now trying to force them to provide?

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

The thing is, women are treated equally at Catholic schools. Male students aren't provided with free birth control coverage either. So what Fluke is actually demanding is that women are given special treatment.

More significantly, while Fluke attempted to tie her effort to the usual liberal "it's to protect a woman's health" meme, she inadvertently admitted that the University's insurance program already provides contraception prescription coverage.

"A friend of mine," Fluke testified, "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."

Another interesting note: Fluke testified that she has been at Georgetown University for three years. That means she arrived right around the time the LGBTQ established a chapter there which, according to their website, was "the first such Center of its kind at a Catholic/Jesuit institution in the country." Coincidence?

Then there is this other curious thing.

In her testimony at the Pelosi Side Show, Fluke admitted that she attends Georgetown University on a "public interest" scholarship. What she did not disclose that the scholarship was granted by the Women Lawyer's Association of Los Angeles - conveniently located in Nancy Pelosi's home state.

Moreover, considering the financial link between Fluke and WLALA, why would WLALA President Tanya L. Forsheit be so flabbergasted to receive an e-mail from Nancy Pelosi and why would she be so amazed to discover that the Sandra Fluke of Georgetown University mentioned in Pelosi's unexpected e-mail was the Sandra Fluke of Georgetown University to whom WLALA granted a "public interest" scholarship?

When you think about it, this "unexpected" e-mail from Pelosi and the subsequent article by Forsheit expressing her surprise sounds less like a random occurrence of OMG and more like a coordinated case of CYA.

What is the name of the "public interest scholarship"? The Fran Kandel Public Interest Grant. What is it for? According to WLALA's website announcement that Sandra Fluke was the 2010 recipient of the $5,000 scholarship, the purpose of the Fran Kandel Public Interest Grant is "to fund summer public interest projects that make governmental and social institutions and agencies more accessible and responsive to members of society whose interests are not otherwise adequately recognized or asserted."

Rewind to Fluke's 30 years of liberal activism. Add her ties to the LGBTQ and her efforts to force schools to pay for sex change operations.

Now ask yourself these questions:

Is Fluke gay or not? Does it matter? And why was Nancy Pelosi so determined to shove Fluke specifically into the middle of the contraception controversy?

Published by Patricia Campion

As an avid political junkie, Patricia Campion was the first contributor in Yahoo! history to be honored simultaneously with a Rising Star Award and the prestigious Yahoo Contributor Award for content in the...  View profile

37 Comments

Sign in to Comment
  • David 2/4/2014

    Is this ho still in the news ??

  • Gary 1/21/2013

    Funny how Fluke had to pay $3000 for birth control pills when a person can purchase them for $5 month at Target, Wallmart, et al. Let's do the math; three years of law school (36 months) times $5 equals $180. Throw in a doctor bill for a couple of hundred to get the birth control prescription and it adds up to $380. A LITTLE less than the above stated $3000. Perhaps Ms. Fluke needs to take a math refresher class.

  • Veritas 7/18/2012

    She likes womens more than mens, L-E-S-B-I-A-N-S, lesbifr-, lesbifrie, LETS-BE-FRIENDS!!!!!

  • jake P 5/14/2012

    Guy needs to get over it!!

  • JMJ 4/13/2012

    Campion you're an idiot.

  • Patricia Campion 3/17/2012

    Guy, you're obviously trying to use me and my article as a means of working out a personal issue, and I wish you well with that. However, your need to keep coming back to insult me is quite disturbing.

  • Patricia Campion 3/17/2012

    Guy? See the question mark at the end of the headline? That means the headline in a question, not a statement. Why did write it? To provoke thought and promote conversation. That's what writer's do. In addition, I am not the only one ASKING that question so my query is not so abnormal as you are trying to imply. So what point are YOU trying to make?

  • Patricia Campion 3/17/2012

    "And what on earth does Ms. Fluke's sexual orientation have to do with anything whatsoever?" I don't know, Guy. After pointing out relevant facts, that's the question I asked... so, you tell me.

  • Richard Contreras 3/16/2012

    one hell of a article you wrote! great amount of information and reasoning :)

  • Aaron Gonzalez 3/15/2012

    wow lol i came back to see if anyone replied to my comment and wow... After reading all this I think we should go back to the absolute point of all this.

    We aren't against you doing whatever you want to do and paying for it yourself. When I want something in my life, I save up for it and do what I have to do to get it, I do NOT go asking the government for more money, nor should I been taking seriously if I ever chose to.

Displaying Comments 1 - 10 (of 37)
Next »