“How does the cost make her a “slut, tart, tramp”? It’s not like one needs to take more birth control if they’re having more sex; doesn’t work like that. Her remarks about the cost make her a liar, sure, but not a slut.”
You’re correct in that I’m assuming cost has some relationship to frequency of need - if she taking the pill continuously over a three-year period, but seldom having sex, I guess it’s probably more fair to impugn the extent to which her expectations match reality, rather than question what was once quaintly referred to as one’s “virtue”.
She’s the one who chose to make her sex life my business (by testifying about it in Congress, and by demanding others pay for her personal choices), but since I don’t really give a rip about her sex life, I’ll agree I really shouldn’t have expected her to clarify if she’s continually active, or just wants to be safe and prepared whatever the occasion. But again, she’s the one who brought it up; some speculation in that matter should hardly be unexpected.
it isn’t just about frequency.
She is not married.
According to the catholic teaching, she is requesting they finance fornication.
She doesn’t just think they should finance it....she is accusing them of cruelty and sexism if they do not finance it.
It is brazen arrogance which she attempts to hide under a mask of helplessness and mock injury.
She did not say a single word about her sex life. In fact, the vast majority of her testimony concerned the use of contraceptives for purposes other than preventing pregnancy. Of course, she's exaggerating that need, but that just makes her a dumb liberal activist liar. Not a slut.