Jeff, you are usually right, but she did not do that.
She never mentioned her own sexual behavior once (probably by design and for good reson), but she just didn't.
I simply don’t belive she spent a cent on contraceptives.
I keep hearing that this Fluke girl is a lesbian...
Has that been confirmed??? Or denied??? (which to me is a confirmation)
Not that her sexual orientation is an issue, I could care less what floats her boat...
It would only establish her vunerability to be asked to present herself to Congress as an advocate for further progressive socialistic programs we’ll have to pay for their (liberal) promescuity...
She probably just had the right political pedigree to be the spokeperson for this effort...
Your point is well taken.
Sandra Fluck testified that other poor struggling Georgetown wymyn Law students needed $3000 to pay for birth control because the oppressive Jesuits won’t fund it
As for Sandra, well, an instinctive feeling tells me she and partner(s) spend their sex money for Snap-On Tools. I suppose we taxpayers could get billed for that, too
She indicated that she could not afford her birth control, that it cost her over $3000 for her time in college.
I guess she didn’t come out and say, “I have sex 3-4 times a week,” but it is clear dfrom what she did say that she is sexually active and requires...and looked for insurance coverage...that would cover this part of her lifestyle.
So, while she did not come out and say that she “has sex” that often, there is little doubt as to wy she asks for or would need so much of the product.
If she is not behaving in a way torequire the contraceptives, then she is simply either making it up, or buying oit to no use to make a political point.
Anyhow, technically you may be right, but it is clear that she is either promiscouos, a liar, or a deceiver trying to push a very bad political agenda that encourages the same.