Posted on 12/12/2012 2:48:45 PM PST by NYer
Two-thirds of people who have voted in the polling associated with selecting Time magazine’s person of the year say they do not want Sandra Fluke chosen as its Person of the Year.
Time magazine doesn’t provide the raw voting totals but the results, so far, show 66.52 percent of those voting say “No way” to the pro-abortion birth control activist as its Person of the Year while just 33.48 percent of voters say she deserves the title.
The pro-life movement was up in arms when Fluke’s name was included among the list of those Time said had been nominated as potential Person of the Year selections. In a new article, pro-life writer Kathryn Lopez, an editor of the conservative publication National Review, explains why Fluke would be an ironic selection.
Though the online voting for the award isn’t currently in her favor, I’ll actually be disappointed if the Time cover features anyone but her. Let me explain.
Fluke represents a debate we ought to be having out in the open. Her Time cover status would highlight a claim that permeated the just-concluded political campaign and became for some a cultural mantra of the year: That the Republican Party and the Catholic Church leaders who oppose the Department and Health and Human Services mandate somehow are waging a “war on women.” The assumption behind it is that women will never be free unless they can medicate their fertility away.
As a prime-time speaker at the Democratic convention in North Carolina this summer, Fluke complained about being shut out of a hearing panel of religious leaders on religious liberty and the HHS mandate. Besides giving the erroneous impression that there were no women at the hearing because of her absence — something that had been claimed for months and, I fully expect, will live on as an urban legend — she spoke on the issue in terms of equality and freedom. Anyone half-paying attention to her speech might have found what she said completely unobjectionable. Listen to longer-form testimony, though, and the principled agenda of marginalizing religious liberty becomes much more clear.
But what she was advocating was to equate “women’s health” with the full panoply of reproductive drugs and services. What she was advocating was a bureaucratic regulation that treats pregnancy as a disease, and fertility as a condition to be suppressed. What she was advocating was a coercive, punitive policy that represents a dramatic narrowing of our understanding of religious liberty.
We didn’t actually have a vote on that. Media stories mentioned that contraception was involved, and that some Catholic bishops were upset. But nothing like a transparent national debate ever happened. This issue of the HHS mandate and its infringement upon religious freedom is something we need to discuss out in the open. And it’s imperative we do so not just as a national matter, but also up close and personal — parish by parish, in our homes and communities — because we probably want something better than what the HHS and the Obama administration has imposed upon us.
So, thank you, Sandra Fluke, and everyone who celebrated her activism. This was a pivotal moment in a revolution that has been ongoing. If we deny the revolution and mask its consequences, then we do so at our own peril and impoverishment.
No campaign to protect religious liberty will ever be successful without an appreciation of the fact that religious faith might offer a superior vision what it means to lead a good life, a life that is entirely within our grasp, a life filled with all the dignity and meaning that we lose whenever we pursue happiness in all the wrong places. Even fallen and frequently lost, we have the offer of redemption and the responsibility to rebuild. It’s time we did so. And that’s no fluke.
FMCDH(BITS)
Who really gives a rat’s bottom about whoever Time Magazine nominates for anything. I wouldn’t read that magazine today under any circumstance.
“The assumption behind it is that women will never be free unless they can medicate their fertility away”
No, it’s stupide’ than that. They can’t be free until other people defray the cost of medicating their fertility away.
“The assumption behind it is that women will never be free unless they can medicate their fertility away”
No, it’s stupider than that. They can’t be free until other people defray the cost of medicating their fertility away.
If she’d agree to clean the litter box on a daily basis, I’d consider that.
I don’t see this as good news at all.
If 1/3 WANT her to be Person of the Year, then America is indeed screwed.
I wonder if they would be willing to name her Ms. Condom Cruncher of 2012. She got the “lady parts” voters out for Barry Benghazi. She deserves some kind of trophy.
Time magazine can be useful in dentists offices (no matter how many decades they are out of date) — if that’s all there is to read there, after a while you’ll start looking forward to your root canal.
I think Sandra Fluke is quite fitting as Time magazine’s person of the year.
I’d say fluck fluke but they probably already did.
They should just give it to generic “Dumb Sluts”, not any one in particular.
“Dumb Sluts” were inarguably the most powerful influence in our society this year.
I do. Time is “what it is” ... we all now know “what it is and what it has become” (Sort of like the Nobel “Peace” Prize.) Fluke’s selection would simply reconfirm what we know and reaffirm that we are correct.
Leftist turd of the year hands down.
...the two men and three women who still read Time agree: Sandra Fluke is HOT....
ROTFLMBO!
TIME magazine will pick whatever or whoever they want. They even had Hitler once didn’t they?
They’ll just give the award to Putin or Merkel, then.
What is this idiot girl doing these days for a living? I know she graduated and passed the bar exam. Does she have a lucrative sub-cabinet post in the Baraqqi administration?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.