[Sandra Fluke admitted openly, to a congressional committee, that she is openly and extremely promiscuous.]
You are wrong. No where, in her testimony before an UNOFFICIAL Democratic-sponsored hearing on Feb. 23 does she say that she PERSONALLY uses birth control or has sex. No where did she say she was 23 years old - as others have ranted about.
She said “without insurance coverage, contraception can cost a woman over $3000 during law school” and she wasn’t talking about condoms or BC pills, she was talking about overall BC INSURANCE coverage.
Here is the transcript of her testimony at the unofficial
Democratic-sponsored hearing on Feb. 23;
http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/Testimony%20-%20Sandra%20Fluke.pdf
I am a Catholic and oppose Obama’s efforts to go against our moral beliefs and the separation between church and government. We can’t let him win this and we know the democrats used this woman, as a tool, to scare women regarding the restriction of contraceptives.
At the same time, I support TRUTH above all and it’s obvious after reading posts for many days, that few people bothered to actually read her testimony. It seems that even Rush didn’t read it!!
> At the same time, I support TRUTH above all and it’s obvious after reading posts for many days, that few people bothered to actually read her testimony. It seems that even Rush didn’t read it!!
Thank you Potlatch, as another opponent of Obama and of Fluke the provocateur, but also one who read what she actually said.
I have gone back and read her testimony. I relied on what others said. it is clear her testimony ias full of lawywer speak and inuendo, things she implies without ever truly implicating herself.
She is a willing tool for those trying to desgtroy our way of life and encourage this destructive life style and behavior. Though she never admitted to it herself, she clearly indicates that the contraceptives cost far more than is true itself, and aludes to the type of promiscuity it implies...but, as you say, without herself admitting to any of it.
Going after her directly ios a trap...we need however to focus squarely ion the insidious over-reach she is helping Obama impose, and the behaovior it is encourageing...which does meet the definition.
Thanks for your remarks.