Replies

She did not say she was having a lot of sex.

There is no justification for Rush's gigantic blunder... BECAUSE RUSH HIMSELF KNOWS BETTER.. Rush could TEACH the principles for why he shouldn't have spoken the way that he did. He knows better. So this is not to defend Rush's mistake.

However, Rush was CORRECT on the theory behind his argument. It is not true that it costs "OVER $3,000" over 3 years for birth control UNLESS a person has having sex 2-3 times a day, paying for condoms at $1 per condom. (Rush assumed $1 each, when you can get them for 40 cents each.)

Sandra Fluke put forward financial numbers on the cost which can only be true if one is having sex 2 to 7 times a day.

So, yes, Sandra Fluke did claim to be having so much sex that she and others are going broke having sex.

While she did not explicitly mention herself, the meaning of her remarks clearly placed herself squarely in the center of the group she was speaking for. After all, her only relevance for being there was that SHE is a Georgetown University law school student, at a Catholic University. Her only reason to be there was to speak about her experiences, as part of the group of Georgetown women.

Let’s say I pay for a doctor’s visit, once annually, to prescribe contraception. $200. Pills on the expensive side, $50 a month, because the generics make me flatulent, or give me migraines, or take away my sex drive. And I use condoms because I’m scared about STDs. Or I really, really don’t want to have a baby in law school and I would never have an abortion, and I’m the kind of math nerd who says 1% x 2% pregnancy chance = 0.02% pregnancy chance.

Hey, I’m up to $1000 a year, and I’m only having sex every other day. Okay, I’m having sex every day, but my boyfriend and I split the cost of the condoms.

(Actually I think Fluke’s numbers and anecdotes were pretty bogus but you could get to “up to $1000 a year” without being insanely far-fetched about it.)