I don't know if it's because Bill O'Reilly's former producer refused to submit to his amorous advances, but Bill O'Reilly does seem to have a problem with strong women who stand up for their rights. Since Sandra Fluke's speech before a group of Democratic members of congress, O'Reilly has added his voice to the circle of right wing male jerks whose resentment of Fluke's advocacy for women's reproductive rights resulted in a cacophony of slut shaming. O'Reilly suggested that, rather than balloons, condoms would drop on Fluke during her speech at the Democratic Convention. He claimed that she "smirked" during her speech. And during last night's "Talking Points," he attacked Fluke again. But rather than just engage in insulting personal invective, he seems to have told a flat out lie about Fluke's alleged support for taxpayer supported gender reassignment surgery.
Last night, O'Reilly said this: "Now the performance today, the importance of it is that it shows America that the Democratic Party is not unified, there are moderate Democrats and there are far-left loons. And the loons have a lot of power. I mean think about it. Sandra Fluke wants us to pay for her birth control and not only that. She now wants us to pay for transgendered medical treatment. That means if Harry wants to become Sally, Fluke wants us to pay for it and she is a featured speaker at the Democratic convention, not someone mumbling on a corner."
The anti-choice, anti-Obama forces loathe Sandra Fluke because she spoke about the unfairness of Georgetown University's health care plan which covers birth control for employees and staff (Oh, my, at a Catholic school, no less!!) while students, who pay for their health care plan, are required to pay for their birth control. But for the right wing, and their media mouthpiece, Fox News, Fluke's testimony has been spun into a bogus narrative that Fluke is a selfish, slutty bitch who just wants free birth control courtesy of the taxpayers. In their quest to vilify Fluke, the right wing has gone into her past writings to show that she not only wants free birth control. If you google Sandra Fluke and transgender surgery you will find pages of material from right wing sources about how Sandra Fluke, in addition to advocating for free birth control, "pushed" for sexual reassignment surgery to be covered by health insurers. Fluke advocacy is seen as proof that Fluke is a liberal tool who is pushing radical agendas.
While the actual article, written by Fluke and Karen Hu, in the "Georgetown Journal Gender and Law," is available with cash only, it is summarized on a number of sites. The title of the article is "Employment Discrimination Against LGBTQ Persons." In the article, the authors describe "discrimination in benefits that they believe LGBTQ individuals face in the work place" such as discrimination that limits access to health benefits for LGBTQ workers. Fluke and Hu cite denial of health care coverage for sex change operations as a "prime example" of LGBTQ health care discrimination. They report that insurers don't cover this surgery because they consider it "cosmetic" while Fluke and Hu believe that it is medically necessary and as such should be covered.
O'Reilly claims that Fluke wants the taxpaying "us" to pay for this surgery; but a search of the available information shows no such advocacy. The right wing sources, even Newsbusters, all refer to the egregiousness of her wanting employees' insurers to pay for it.
Bill O'Reilly's pants are on fire??? (Ewwwwww)
Pot calling kettle black?
My respect and affection for you were strengthened by the fact that you reread the article with an open mind. What you have not yet done is realise that the topic of Priscilla’s article is NOT what Fluke and Hu may believe but rather how Mr. O’Reilly used an insignificant paper (classwork) to make vile accusations against a very ladylike young lady who’s behaved extremely well under the barrage of filth thrown her way. My opinion of course.
I take serious exception to that sort of quantum jump and O’Reilly is particularly inclined towards using them to slur and deviate attention from the true issues.
To illustrate how the O’Reilly quantum jump works, let’s consider the hypothetical case of a student charged with writing a paper on child abuse in the Catholic church. Let’s say that that this is a sociology student who tries to understand “why” such practices – the existence of which is no longer disputed – occurred and “why” they were kept quiet for so long. If this were a topic dear to the O’Reilly heart, he would probably accuse that student of 1) anti-religious sentiment; 2) justifying paedophilia or whatever. I have difficulty in following that man’s labyrinthine mind, actually.
Anyway, the purpose of the quantum jump is to deviate attention by provoking mindless outrage: it’s purpose is to prevent people from actually thinking things through. Using the same stunt, historians who try to understand why the Germans and the Italians got so enamoured of Hitler and Mussolini may automatically be accused of being Nazis or Fascists; people in favour of reforming anything in the USA may automatically be accused of a lack of patriotism. The quantum jump is one of the most common stunts used by the foxies.
That said, the cost to individual contributors of sex change surgery for one person in distress would be a pittance that I’d gladly pay if it can help someone feel better in his or her skin. And I’d far rather pay for it through a national system that weakens the ties between surgery and $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.
Unless we go into the semantics of the exact words – which is to say, Fluke thinks insurers should pay but she does not really want them to? Or that she wants them to just recognize that these surgeries are necessary and cover them – which is just six or half a dozen to me. Or is it the “taxpayer” part? Because the people who don’t pay taxes tend to not have health insurance or get it for free from the goverment. Or am I just wrong about the whole thing and she does not care whether insurers pay or not?
Also, I would not always defend someone on principle, but when I believe that the attacker is so far off base that the attacker might be in the wrong stadium I may. Also, when the list of comments show no sign of a dissenting view, I’m more likely to say something. I can respect your opinion that O’Reilly is a bad-mouthed, evil minded grouchy old man – whether I agree or not. “Where bill would like to live” – I find that frustratingly extreme and wrong and worse for how intelligently it was presented.
“This article is just plain wrong for arguing that when insurers pay, it had nothing to do with the rest of us.”
I think you should reread the article, dear.
And you might consider refraining from defending anybody on principle (which is what I think you’re doing). Objectively, Bill’s pretty vile when it comes to women’s rights and he paid out millions for harrassing a woman. He’s a bad-mouthed, evil-minded grouchy old man (IMO)
Under the shroud of being a “Fair and Balanced” do gooder lies a very unbalanced unfair evil man.
The key to reducing the demand for that sort of care is information and education for both players in the game (patient and physician) as well as a system of controls on the propensity of both to go for the quick fi. Physicians have the added attraction of $$$$$ (In certain hospitals in Italy, half or more of the births are by Caesarian section! That sort of abuse needs to be actively discouraged.)
A few weeks ago, sometime in August, three young actresses, rising stars of television in Afganistan, were attacked in the streets of Kabul by six courageous men (sneering intended) intent on asserting male privilege (perhaps rape, perhaps not). The three young women had been walking un-burka’d through the streets of Kabul but they were too young and beautiful for such freedom. One was killed and the other two ended up in the hospital where their virginity was also tested. The police had arrived quickly but, instead of going after the attackers, they arrested the women for “moral crimes”.
Here’s how judge Hedayat justified the charges: “The two (surviving) girls were tested at the hospital to verify whether or not they’d had sexual relations. Living as they do, on their own, without male relatives, allowed one to presume they were prostitutes. And that their rented room was a whorehouse.”
The woman who’d rented that room in her home to the three young women quickly distanced herself from them for fear of being targeted herself. That probably won’t get her off the hook if any of her male relatives wants the property.
I sense a lot of the sour grapes syndrome in Bill’s attitude. The more wrinkled he gets, the more he hates himself and – being incapable of accepting the fate decreed by his God – he vents his spleen on young women. Wouldn’t surprise me a bit to find out that he cowers before older women.
Anyway, the women of Afganistan are lucky that he doesn’t live there. We’ll just keep him here, where feisty women fought hard to get laws passed that will keep the likes of him in line. People like Bill are useful reminders of the fact that we have got to make sure those laws are never, but never, never, never rolled back.
Mackris! Mackris! Mackris!
But, seriously, I can’t listen to Bill without hearing that CREEPY CRINGE-WORTHY clip of him reading from his “novel”. /shudders
WHY CAN’T I UNHEAR THAT?
O’Reilly’s oinking has cost him 27% of his audience, and he’s shaping up to be down for this month already.
I’m waiting until I get to hear him echo his fans and scream “Ratings don’t matter!” when he’s knocked off his perch.
The only conclusion I can come to is that they know that most women are going to agree with her and vote for President Obama, so they have to do everything they can to try and make her look bad and discredit her. It’s the GOPig way.