Skip to content
Published: February 2, 2013 3:07 pm to Analysis

Sandra Fluke equates birth control pills to leukemia treatment

Via CC 2.0 by Cirt on Wikipedia.

Sandra Fluke has become increasingly irrelevant after her one brief moment in the spotlight, where she whined about having to pay for her own birth control. Since then, she has been drawing crowds of a whopping ten people.

She must have missed the attention, as she’s come roaring back with yet another absurd claim: birth control coverage is the same thing as coverage for treating leukemia!

So let’s get this straight. Companies against the government forcing them to fund something that goes against their religious beliefs – that 99% of the time is nothing more than preventative care to allow women to have sex without consequences – is the same thing as denying someone life-saving treatment to fight against cancer? Talk about delusional.

It’s even more ridiculous when you consider that there’s already a free form of contraception. It’s called: don’t have sex if you don’t want a baby! But then, that of course requires us to accept that human beings are not animals who are incapable to fighting our urges. People like Sandra Fluke want us to feel like sex is something that we need to survive, like food or air. If you have the urge to have sex, then it’s just inhumane to expect you to abstain. Because, you know, we’re nothing more than animals who can’t control ourselves.

There’s also something rather disturbing about Fluke’s comparison of birth control to leukemia. Pro-aborts like her act as if pregnancy is some kind of strange disease that just happens. No one chooses to get pregnant. One’s actions have nothing to do with it. Women just mysteriously get pregnant unless they have the magical birth control pill to make it stop.

Meanwhile, leukemia is a disease that no one chooses to get. There are no preventative measures. There’s a choice involved in having sex. There’s no choice when it comes to whether or not you’ll get cancer. Comparing the two just goes to show not only how idiotic Sandra Fluke is, but also how sick her mind is.

About Cassy Fiano

Cassy Fiano is a blogger who lives with her husband, a United States Marine. They have a toddler named Ben, a second son named Wyatt, who has Down syndrome, and a little girl named Ivy.
View all posts by Cassy Fiano

  • Bridget

    Wait? Leukemia? Birth control causes cancer.

  • Jenny M

    I think it’s important to clarify one thing: ignorance vs. being “sick.” I agree with your disagreement of what she said, that is, the parallel she made between birth control and cancer makes absolutely no sense. Clearly she has an agenda and will stop at nothing to get what she wants. In addition, she sees no problem with infringing upon religious freedom like so many other pro-aborts. She is selfish, short-sighted, and very ignorant of the gigantic differences between the two. In other words, she’s spoke like an ignoramous; a person who lacks intelligence and insight. But, and I say this with respect and as a student of psychology, calling her “sick” is drawing a conclusion on her mental health. Whether or not she is mentally stable, I’m not sure. I have not seen or read any evidence to suggest it. I don’t like her opnion. I wish she’d be quiet and go away and stop bothering people. But nonetheless, our 1st ammendment gives her the right to speak ignorantly if she so chooses. So, I can only assume you are only using the term “sick” to demean her position and ideology, which again, is ludicrous (her idea, not you). I’ve read many of your posts and quite like your take on most issues. But I read this as more of name calling blog than a real argument against her stupidity and self-centered, it’s all about me,” pro-abort attitude. All that being said, I am a cancer survivor and thank you for speaking up!!! Keep on blogging!

  • grissleymama

    Why does anyone give this woman a second thought?

    • Del

      She was invited to give a prime-time speech at the Democratic National Convention.

      As much as we would like to ignore her for being stupid, there are still a lot of stupid people who paid attention.

  • G.E. Hoostal

    Contraception is not care, because pregnancy is normal & generally beneficial to women. However, contragestion (an abortifacient purpose of the ‘birth-control’ pill) is the opposite of care because it causes very many of the most helpless of us, those about one week from conception, to die of a lack of nourishment.

  • peach

    For someone who’s so irrelevant, you guys sure do talk about her a lot.
    And sometimes I really can’t tell which you lot hate more; abortion or sex.

    • Victoria

      We clearly like babies so it follows that we’re not against sex.

    • Angelina Steiner

      We talk about her alot because she needs to go away. She’ s (fluke) a fool and a fool need to shut up. My goodness she’s the Joan of Arc of Birth Control. I guess that’s her main mission in her pathetic life.

  • gigi4747

    Cassy, I’ve been involved with the prolife movement for 20 years and honestly I feel embarrassed for you and Live Action that you have chosen to express your prolife beliefs in such a childish, uncharitable way. Are you the person who posted about this on the LA fb page and said that Fluke’s mind was “sick”? Whoever it was, you’re not doing the prolife movement any favors by writing things like that or by encouraging your followers to act like the lowest common denominator. The prolife movement needs intelligent voices; please try to use your platform in a wiser way.

  • Sticky

    Do you people realize “birth conotrol” has other uses other than not getting pregnant? I wish they would stop calling it that, because it is a hormone treatment, and birth control is just a side effect. I used to get periods so bad that I couldn’t even get out of bed and BC is the only thing that has helped. No amount of midol or ibuprofun would help, I tried dieting and exercise and a multitude of other things. Turns out my hormones were just wacked out, so they put me on BC and I was finally able to function again like a normal human being. Otherwise, I would have to miss a whole week of school because of my period. Learn something about BC before you cry whore. It’s just ignorant.

    • http://www.facebook.com/beverly.harlton Beverly Harlton

      We certainly do realise that oral contraceptives have other uses apart from preventing conception, Miss Sticky. Many of us here are also aware that BCPs also are not the miracle cure that so many doctors trick women into believing. BCPs replace your natural cycle with an artificial cycle rather than treating the actual hormone imbalance. Feel free to call us ignorant, but it would behoove you to do your own research on menstrual-related disorders rather than to put BCPs unquestioningly on an undeserved pedestal.

      That being said, many women *are* prescribed oral contraceptives for legitimate health reasons, from PCOS to dysmenorrhea to acne. It is, in that instance, functioning as a medicine rather than as contraception. Contraception in itself is not healthcare, as it creates a state of disorder in the female body, preventing an otherwise normal reproductive system to function abnormally, becoming infertile.

      I cannot speak for the others here, though for myself, I can understand coverage for BCPs used to treat a disorder, though not for BCPs used as pure contraception, which creates disorder. Both as a Catholic and as a young woman conscious about the effects of artificial chemicals on one’s health, I would not be comfortable providing a hypothetical employee of mine oral contraceptives. To do so would be a mortal sin for me.

      Bear in mind that this debate is not about people on birth control being “whores.” It is about whose responsibility it is to pay for said birth control. If your friend wants to have sex, is it your responsibility to provide him or her with contraception? Why, then, must one’s employer provide one with contraceptive coverage? To withhold that particular coverage would allow the employee more money to take home and spend at her will, and if that includes oral contraception, she is free to do so.

      • gigi4747

        I like your post, but Sticky might be referring to the unbelievably nasty things people were posting about Sandra Fluke on the Live Action fb page in response to Cassy’s column. Whore, slut, and asshole were a few of the names people were calling her, which really scares and disgusts me. I’ve been involved with the prolife movement for 20 years and what I saw from Live Action’s followers is really not what I was working for, nor anything I want to be associated with. Thankfully it looks like LA has deleted the thread.

      • Just Curious

        “…I would not be comfortable providing a hypothetical employee of mine oral contraceptives.” Are you a doctor or a pharmacist? Because that is the only way you can provide contraceptives to someone. And plus, the Bible clearly states that all sin is equal. And it is because all sin is equal, and all men are sinners, that all men are equal in the eyes of God. So how is “providing” contraceptives any different from any other sin that you commit daily?

        • Kristiburtonbrown

          First, paying for something is clearly one way to provide it to someone. You don’t have to hand it to them to provide it.

          And second, whether or not all sin is equal isn’t the issue. If a person considers a certain act to be sin, they should never be forced to participate in it. That’s the issue here.

        • http://www.facebook.com/beverly.harlton Beverly Harlton

          Please forgive my unclear wording. I had originally typed “providing access,” but deleted “access” because oral contraceptives are readily accessible, and because many confused individuals think that employers are somehow a barrier to one’s acquisition of said contraceptives and that access is in some way limited. Regardless, I as a hypothetical employer would still be facilitating their access to something that I believe is morally wrong.

          In answer to your second question about sin, if I were forced to provide coverage for oral contraceptives and abortion, I would willfully be engaging in sin every single day, and though I may be penitent, I would have no intention of stopping said activity for fear of a hefty fine. This is far different from saying the Lord’s name in vain by accident or saying something hateful to a family member. In both cases, I would hopefully be sorry for my sins, ask God to forgive me, and work hard to sin no more. There is a huge difference between sinning followed by intent to sin no more and sinning followed by the intent to carry on sinning.

    • Del

      It is called birth control when it is used as birth control.

      When hormone supplements are used to mask the symptoms of serious disorders such as yours, it is called bad medicine. However, insurance covers these sorts of treatments anyway.

      Sandra Fluke was advocating for paid-for birth control. Part of her lying spiel was that insurance did not pay for hormone treatments. She was wrong, but the lie caught traction and was much repeated.

    • Maya

      cool story bro.. you should still have to pay for your own birth control!

  • Pingback: Sandra’s really Fluked up logic « THE FIRST STREET JOURNAL.

  • Timmehh

    “Sandra Fluke has become increasingly irrelevant after her one, brief moment in the spotlight, where she whined about having to pay for her own birth control. Since then, become more and more irrelevant, drawing crowds of a whopping ten people.”

    Like I have said before, if she is becoming increasingly irrelevant then stop writing about her. Seriously, if she makes you so mad then just ignore her like I do. If you guys keep writing about her it only increases the attention she gets in the media.

  • eastsidehunky

    Bravo! Involuntary coming down with leukemia cancer of a blood element can never be equated to being a slut and wanting taxpayers to foot the bill so you can pollute your body with high dose steroids, so as to avoid the consequences of your reckless behavior: children. She is a low as lowlife gets

    • Just Curious

      So…being married, and wanting to have sex with her husband, but not wanting to have children makes a woman a slut?

      • Del

        Wanting other people to pay for your sexual lifestyle choices is the “slutty” part.

        Believe or not, there are still a great many people who believe that engaging in sex while not being open to accepting new life cheapens the marriage and the dignity of the persons involved. It’s not a marriage anymore; it’s just two people using each other for pleasure.

  • Pingback: Fluke portends more slut behavior; compares it to ‘leukemia treatment’… « EastSideHunky's Klobasa Klub

  • mark

    I heard birth control pills can act as abortificiants (sp)? Anyone care to comment?

  • Pingback: Sandra Fluke Considering Run for Henry Waxman’s Seat