I ask that you review them. You've claimed that "Ms. Fluke testified that 40% of the women in law school considered sexual intercourse a compelling or preferred recreational activity." It's not in either of those links, Mike.
It's not there.
It's not there because she never said that, Mike.
I don't know what your game is and what you're trying to do. You keep posting it, and I keep telling you she never said it. Please quit spreading confusion.
The Washington Times transcript says:
“Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school. For a lot of students who, like me, are on public interest scholarships, that’s practically an entire summer’s salary. 40% of the female students at Georgetown Law reported to us that they struggle financially as a result of this policy.”
There should be no confusion here. The Creator has not assigned human beings a breeding season. Therefore, it should require no leap of logic at all to say humans engage in sexual intercourse because they enjoy it. Whether married or single it is considered a compelling or preferred recreational activity. The choice is abstinence, which of course now seems too unpopular to consider.
By the way, the cost of a three year education at Georgetown, including surviving household expenses in the D.C. area, is around $200,000. So $3,000 is 1.5% of expense. Such a minimal fluctuation in a three year budget should not register even at the margin with a normal person.
I do see the logic you are following even though no one else seems to be concerned. In fact, the L.A. Times said they will publish the post as a letter. Probably use of the word “facetious” in the last paragraph helps. Anyway if I post it again I will use:
“Ms. Fluke’s testimony connotes that 40% of the women in law school consider sexual intercourse a compelling or preferred recreational activity.”