Since her controversial testimony on February 23, Sandra Fluke has been called many things, from a heroine to a “slut,” but actually, she may just be a fake. Gateway Pundit and Hot Air suggest that may be the case, with citations to a post by Jammie Wearing Fools that introduces the following interesting information:
For me the interesting part of the story is the ever-evolving “coed”. I put that in quotes because in the beginning she was described as a Georgetown law student. It was then revealed that prior to attending Georgetown she was an active women’s right advocate. In one of her first interviews she is quoted as talking about how she reviewed Georgetown’s insurance policy prior to committing to attend, and seeing that it didn’t cover contraceptive services, she decided to attend with the express purpose of battling this policy. During this time, she was described as a 23-year-old coed. Magically, at the same time Congress is debating the forced coverage of contraception, she appears and is even brought to Capitol Hill to testify. This morning, in an interview with Matt Lauer on the Today show, it was revealed that she is 30 years old, NOT the 23 that had been reported all along.
Though there aren’t links in the original post to the content mentioned, a little digging shows that it’s all true. Fluke has described herself as a third year law student at Georgetown University, and indeed, that is what she is. However, contrary to the narrative of innocent victimhood that portrays Fluke as a wide-eyed 23-year-old girl caught without contraception on a college campus full of predatory men, Fluke herself is really a 30-year-old women’s rights activist who not only didn’t get caught without contraception at Georgetown, but specifically knew the university didn’t cover it and chose to attend for precisely that reason.
First, there’s the matter of Fluke’s age. In a segment on Fluke’s battle with Rush Limbaugh, MSNBC reporter Anne Williams called Fluke “the 23-year-old Georgetown law student, prohibited from testifying.” Yet Fluke’s own Linkedin profile reveals a more mature woman:
In fact, according to that profile, she graduated from college in 2003. Barring Fluke being a child prodigy who somehow graduated college at the age of 15, this would make her at least 30 years old:
Now, to be fair, Fluke’s age could have been misreported by the media. Most 3rd year law students are at least 25, and they could have confused her for being an undergraduate senior rather than a 3rd year law student.
The idea that Fluke is herself an unwitting victim of Georgetown’s policy on contraceptives is another matter entirely. In several interviews, especially following Rush Limbaugh’s attack, Fluke has implicitly included herself in the group of women who allegedly unwittingly suffer as a result of Georgetown’s policies. This is a key point for the Democrats supporting her, for if Fluke did happen to read Georgetown’s insurance policy before coming and decide to come anyway, that would, at best, undermine her spokeswoman status.
But what if she not only decided to attend the university anyway, but decided to attend specifically so she could fight this battle? Consider this passage from an early Washington Post story done on Fluke before she was permitted to testify:
Fluke came to Georgetown University interested in contraceptive coverage: She researched the Jesuit college’s health plans for students before enrolling, and found that birth control was not included. “I decided I was absolutely not willing to compromise the quality of my education in exchange for my health care,” says Fluke, who has spent the past three years lobbying the administration to change its policy on the issue. The issue got the university president’s office last spring, where Georgetown declined to change its policy.
Fluke says she would have used the hearing to talk about the students at Georgetown that don’t have birth control covered, and what that’s meant for them. “I wanted to be able to share their stories,” she says. “My testimony would have been about women who have been affected by their policy, who have medical needs and have suffered dire consequences.. . .The committee did not get to hear real stories I had to share, about actual women who have been dramatically affected by this policy.”
That’s right. It seems Fluke intentionally chose to go to Georgetown so she could agitate and sway them to cover contraceptives. She then went to a hearing as a representative of women who hadn’t known about Georgetown’s policy until it was too late. Unsympathetic observers might liken this to James O’Keefe attending a hearing to speak against ACORN on behalf of pimps. It certainly raises the question of why the women Fluke claims to speak for couldn’t present their stories for themselves.
Indeed, in a video made after she was denied the opportunity to testify, Fluke raises two “stories” from women who had emailed her, supposedly about their non-sex-related need of contraceptive medicine. She does not identify the emailers by name, or even by school, saying simply that they are students at an unnamed Catholic University:
If Fluke’s stories are real, many will likely call on her to let the women who sent them speak for themselves and stop hogging the spotlight, given that she did choose to attend Georgetown knowing full well what its policy was on contraceptives, and with every indication of being willing to risk the price tag — whether that price tag would be $3000 over 3 years or not.