Fluke writes: "Over the last seven months, I hope I've made it clear that I won't let personal attacks (or lies about my professional history) stop me from fighting for the policies I believe in."
Sandra Fluke with President Obama. (photo: Getty Images)
We're Not 'The Entitlement Generation'
12 September 12
ast weekend, Representative Walsh said he was "offended" by me, a "life-time student," and that he wanted me to stop acting "entitled" and "get a job." He explained that it wasn't my fault because my generation has been raised this way and doesn't know how to take care of ourselves.
Over the last seven months, I hope I've made it clear that I won't let personal attacks (or lies about my professional history) stop me from fighting for the policies I believe in. But I also won't stand by when a U.S. Representative blatantly misrepresents a policy that benefits struggling women in this country, or when he disparages my generation.
I testified before members of Congress not because "I wanted the American people to pay for my contraception," but because I wanted the private insurance that women pay for themselves to cover the contraception they need. I was there to tell, not my own, but the story of a close friend who, despite paying her deductible, lost an ovary when she was unable to afford the contraception her insurance failed to cover, but that she needed to treat her polycystic ovarian syndrome.
My friend was not alone. Hart Research Associates found that 55% of young women ages 18-34 report having had difficulty affording the contraception they need to treat medical conditions or to prevent unintended pregnancies. That's no surprise when you realize that for some women contraception can cost as much as $960 per year ($1,210 with the doctor's appointment), according to the Center for American Progress.
But what if I had been there to ask that the government help fund contraception? Federal programs like Title X exist to guarantee the poorest women in our communities affordable access to birth control. Those programs are under attack in Congress and by Gov. Romney, but they're good public policy. They ensure that all American women can control the timing of when they start a family, not just more privileged women. That allows women to set the course of their lives, pursuing their educational dreams and career goals, and allowing the rest of us to benefit from all that they accomplish. Not only do those policies help us create a more equitable society, they prevent unintended pregnancies that can add to the strain on our society's safety nets.
Rep. Walsh and many conservative voices would reduce that sound public policy to evidence of my generation's "entitlement," our reliance on "government [to] take care of [us]."
But my generation doesn't deserve to be labeled 'The Entitlement Generation.' We've supported Title X and fought for the Affordable Care Act's contraception policy, not necessarily because we believe we are automatically entitled to them, but because our vision for the future doesn't leave our fellow citizens behind. We've stood against Representative Ryan's budget attacks on Pell Grants, food stamps, housing assistance and Medicaid because we believe in a future in which we come together as a society to help those who are struggling financially, not one in which we tell them that they're on their own. This isn't about not knowing how to take care of ourselves -- it's about knowing we should take care of each other.
Yet, we're not entirely altruistic either. By fighting to protect our nation's social safety net, we ensure that all members of society have a chance to contribute, producing a diversity of ideas that benefits society as a whole. We've seen that affordable access to contraception allows women to contribute their talents to our companies, and the same is true of the host of economic supports under attack. Without President Obama's investment in Pell Grants, over three million additional students (nearly ten million total) might not have been able to afford to attend college last year. The majority of Pell Grant recipients are students of color from economically depressed backgrounds, so we know exactly which perspectives and voices the rest of us would be deprived of.
So we agree that "we've got Americans who are struggling." Our question is why so many elected officials have only one answer for them: cutting their safety net while telling them to "go get a job." My generation is looking for better answers than that.
Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |













Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
RoMONEY has a huge "entitlement attitude" than most people.
Its called arrogance of the wealthy and is exhibited almost every time he makes an unscripted statement/. He is definitely not USA presidential material.
Thank you Sandra for your input.
That is a uniting goal, not polarizing. Don't blame the messenger.
Polarizing? How So? By trying to educate americans that the issue of requiring health insurers to cover birth control is about alot more than sex (though that's an important one too)? Polarizing because Rush called her a slut and said that in return for covering her birth control prescriptions she should be required to post sex videos of herself online?
Those pesky slaves were polarizing too by wanting their freedom. Martin Luther King Jr. was polarizing by working for Civil Rights (not to mention Malcolm). Bobby Kennedy was polarizing when he talked about poverty in America or the need to get out of Vietnam. Did you oppose these folks as well?
The purpose of the RH Bill is for he government to provide the poor with a choice of and education about family planning methods including low cost or free access to contraceptives. I can't help but suspect a conspiracy between the CBCP and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops in this matter.
The biggest threat to the world is overpopulation. Don't give up your fight Sandra or we will all have to live with a one child law like China.
Oral and Anal sex are also 100% effective so at least present people with all of their options.
I think there may be a few other options you are not mentioning.
As the students said during May '68: "All Power To The Imagination"
I would hope that there are more than just a few
Right! How's that working for you? The states trumpeting 'abstinence only' are the leaders in teen pregnancies. There must be a link.
Not all women want to abstain from sex. The notion that women must choose abstinence over mind/body biological imperatives only serves to disenfranchise women from leading a productive and enriching life. Not just for themselves but for everyone, men and women. And, what about the case that Ms. Fluke went to Congress to testify about that had nothing to do with sex? Please at least read Naomi Wolf's articles about her new book.
It's worked really well for Priests too
So, we need to start saying, o.k. if you want to cut "entitlements" then everyone needs to be included so if you want to cut aid to poor families you also have to cut the mortgage tax deduction (e.g., you can only take a deduction on the first xxx $ but not the full value of your mortgage interest payment on your McMansion)....I f this were done in a progressive fashion it could solve the so-called entitlement problems quickly and easily (e.g., upping the cap to -- if i'm remembering right -- something like $175,000 or $250,000 on SS would make it solvant for another 75 years)
As stated previously, what we call things matters, and if this is what even WE call them, it is no wonder that the Repubs feel emboldened to try to eliminate programs established for the common good.
I simply do not understand why Democratic candidates and political strategists do not realize that we absolutly MUST take charge of the discourse and not give their opponents "naming rights" --
RSS feed for comments to this post