Fisking Fluke

Just for the record and the external memory drive, a point by point refutation of Sandra Fluke's speech before the media. I had precisely all these reactions when I read it, and am glad someone took the time to put pen to paper about it. Especially these two absurd claims (remember we are talking about Georgetown Law School).
Without insurance coverage, contraception 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.
First of all, I’d like to know how you arrived at that number, because folks have done some checking, and you can get a pack of generic birth control pills for $9 at a Target store just 3 blocks from the Georgetown Campus. That only adds up to $108. What does the other $892 pay for? Lingerie? “Toys”? Batteries? XXX-Rated DVDs? Chocolate? Wine? Dinner and a show?
And, really? “An entire summer’s salary” is only $1000 ($3,000/3 yrs of law school)?  A person getting paid minimum wage in the District of Columbia who works full-time for 3 months would make just a little under $4000 before taxes ($8.25/hr X 40 hrs X 12 weeks = $3960).
Are you telling me that law firms only pay their summer interns 1/4 of the minimum wage?
It seems to me that you might want to focus your advocacy on “Worker’s Rights” and “Economic Justice” for law students.
Forty percent of female students at Georgetown Law report struggling financially as a result of this policy.
Tuition for the 2011-2012 academic year at Georgetown Law was $46,865.   And you  expect me to believe that an additional $108/year is going to make someone “struggle financially”?  Give me a break.
And then there's the howler that a student didn't report a rape because the fact that the pill wasn't covered made her assume no women's health care was covered. Riiiiiight.
You know what I resent?
I resent someone like you thinking that it is acceptable to ask the rest of the country to listen to you whine about how life isn’t fair.
I resent someone like you storming your way into a private religious institution and telling them that they have to violate their religious tenets because you have a problem with it.
I resent someone like you trampling on a church’s First Amendment protections because you want to prove a point.
But you know what I resent most of all?
Knowing that someone like you - who doesn’t have a problem with making stuff up to advance a personal agenda - is going to be allowed to practice law.
Curtsy: American Digest