Why employers should only employ married men

Many social science studies have consistently shown that married men (on average) earn more than either single men or single or married women. In fact, this is the earnings order:

1. Married men
2. Single women
3. Single men
4. Married women

Dr. Warren Farrell documents this in his book "Why Men Earn More" which thoroughly debunks the "wage myth" that feminists use to reinforce their victim status.

The most reasonable explanations for the wage gap are motivation and specialization. Married men, especially with children, are found to be more dissatisfied with their wages and put in extra effort to earn more money to support their families. Single men without children simply don't have the same level of motivation to work, simply because their basic needs aren't being met. They are much more motivated towards other, more fundamental, things instead - like trying to have sex regularly.

Consider the other basic needs. When you are hungry, you can't really concentrate on other things like going to the gym, watching a movie, going to a concert, etc. Likewise if you need to go to the toilet, you can't concentrate on other things. Sex is similarly a basic need that needs to be met just like the other needs.

While work does have a direct relationship with hunger, it has only an indirect relationship with the fulfillment of sexual needs. That is, we satisfy our hunger by working. If we don't work, we don't get paid, and we starve. But most people do not work to get sex. Yes you can work and earn money and spend that money on prostitutes, but for the vast majority of men, such relationships are deeply unsatisfying because this lifestyle is not conducive to having children. Or you could work and earn status and power and wealth and these things increase your ability to get sex, but for most men this is too great an investment to make for a delayed and uncertain reward.

It follows that single men are less motivated to do work, because they've got nothing to work for. To them, life seems meaningless and empty. And they're constantly thinking about sex. They won't admit this of course, yet it's true.

Married men on the other hand, are more motivated because they have a wife and children to care for. Life doesn't seem so meaningless and empty anymore. Also, you don't just have the man's work - you have a woman's work behind it as well. Because a married man is simply more available for work, because his wife frees up significant amounts of his time by taking on domestic responsibilities that the man would otherwise have to do if he was single. In a sense, his wife invests her working potential in her husband's career for mutual gain.

Phyllis Schlafly would often speak at women's colleges in the late 70s and early 80s. She explained to them that even if they worked just as hard, and put in as many hours as their male counterparts, there is one advantage a man has that they'll never have; namely, a wife. And, of course, the response would come back, `Why can't a woman have a house-husband?'. Schlafly would respond, `Good luck finding one'. It's not impossible, but it's very improbable. (1)

If you are an employer, you would be wise to employ only married men. Your second choice would be single men, but only those who are planning to get married and have children in the near future. But if single women are more motivated and hardworking than single men, then why prefer men? Because if these single women are of childbearing age, then they are unreliable and potentially expensive employees - we must assume that they will get married or pregnant at some point in the future and you will have a higher employee turnover or other high costs (maternity leave, job sharing, etc) as a result. If you pass on these high costs to your customers, you will lose business to your more efficient competitors who don't employ women. If you pass on these high costs to your employees, you will lose your best employees to your competitors.

If instead perverse incentives are put in place that makes it "profitable to be inefficient" by penalizing companies that refuse to employ women, and by rewarding those who do employ women, then society as a whole will lose business to more efficient societies. Companies may move overseas, workers may choose to emigrate, etc.

1. Reader reviews of book "The Flipside of Feminism"

An impending shortage of women

I predict a massive shortage of marriageable women in the near future, if there isn't one already. My prediction may seem a bit strange, especially since in many western liberal democracies, there are more women than men. But the key word here is "marriageable".

Generally speaking, in any monogamous society, it is expected that most men and women who are born in some generation should pair off with each other, even taking into account that men are generally attracted to women a few years younger than themselves, and women are generally attracted to men a few years older than themselves. Over the long term, this system should more-or-less reach an equilibrium. For most people, there will be a man for every woman, and a woman for every man.

Over the last few decades though, women's liberation 'liberated' men from having to commit, 'freed' women from marriage, and often 'unshackled' women from having a family. Regardless of whether it is men or women who are at fault, the end result is that this situation has made a very large number of women unmarriageable: older, less attractive, emotionally damaged, less fertile, less feminine, cynical, jaded, career-driven and less able to devote time to family.

What's less apparent is the fact that while feminism has left huge numbers of women of the last few generations unmarriageable, men were often not affected to the same degree. A 40-year old single woman is unmarriageable. A single man of the same age is eminently not. Often a 40-year old single man is objectively more marriageable than a much younger man, even if we are socialized to believe otherwise.

Unfortunately, under the current feminist regime, women start to become unmarriageable rather early in their lives. Inappropriate sex-education, hormonal contraception, pre-marital sex, casual sex, cohabitation, higher-education, career, etc. take their toll and all of these put women on the slippery slope to unmarriageability. They are only able to get off that wild ride once they reach their thirties and their biological clocks start ticking loudly enough.

What the future holds may be this: men of those generations that suffered under women's liberation (lets call it Generation A), seeing that there are slim pickings of women in their own generation, will look to the following generation's women (Generation B). And these women of Generation B (the intelligent ones anyway) may happily oblige. And where will Generation B's men look for women? Their own women are pairing off with the men from Generation A. And a lot of the other women in Generation B are fast becoming unmarriageable thanks to feminism. Large numbers of men will face a life of singledom, and society will face significant costs associated with having large numbers of single males who have no chance of having a family.

I suppose there is also an impending shortage of men, because even unmarriageable women do want to eventually marry. But the men may not happily oblige. This is not as serious a problem as the shortage of marriageable women, however, because single women are capable of leading more functional lives than single men are.

Send your sons to boys schools

After doing a lot of reading up on social issues, I've learned a great deal about the state of schools in western countries. Schools have been very feminized to make it more conducive to learning for girls. Unfortunately what's also become apparent is that boys are very different from girls. Boys learn differently from girls. Boys and girls also learn at different speeds. Favouring one will disfavour the other. You might as well try to train cats and dogs together. The feminization of schools has resulted in entire generations of males being let down by the school system.

In the US, the feminization of schools has extended to physical activity and not just learning. Many schools abolished recess and cut down on physical activity. This has resulted in large numbers of boys diagnosed with ADHD and similar disorders because they have no way to burn off their energy.

Many extreme feminists are more than happy with this situation they created. But unless they're lesbians, they will soon find that - in Warren Farrell's words - "when one sex wins, both sexes lose."

As I've pointed out in a previous post, men need a proper education in order to fulfill their reproductive role. That is, to succeed in their ultimate goal of reproduction. But women also need men who have the capacity to provide for a family. A woman can't succeed in her ultimate goal of reproduction without a man's help. What the current school system is doing is creating generations of men who will grow up to be useless to women. This is already a problem and women are taking notice.

What should you do about your sons? Because boys learn differently from girls, they need to be taught separately from girls. In boys schools, they are also more likely to be exposed to male teachers, and that's a good thing because boys need plenty of male role models. Boys schools are also better equipped for sports and other physical activity. They are also able to study without being distracted by the girls.

How feminism widened the rich-poor gap

When women entered the workforce en masse starting from the 60s and 70s, the women took up many jobs that would have otherwise gone to men. Feminists claim that women don't take jobs from men. They say that the economy just expands to create more jobs. But this is not true - as the recent recession in the US showed. While Obama's policies created many jobs, feminists demanded that most of them go to women, even though it was mostly men who lost their jobs during the recession. Why would feminists demand that most of the jobs go to women? Wasn't it they who claimed that the economy would just expand to accommodate everyone?

"Assortative mating"  and hypergamy are important parts of female reproductive behaviour. It is commonly known that women are more likely to marry those with more or equal status to themselves. For most people, status means economic class.

Lets take a trivial example. Suppose in the economy there are 2 jobs, each paying $100. There are also 2 men and 2 women. If the men get the jobs, then female hypergamy ensures that each woman chooses one of the men. But more importantly, both women are happy, and both men are also happy. Each person effectively has $50, assuming that each family is taken as one economic unit (so if each economic unit makes $100, then that money is split evenly among everyone in that economic unit).

Suppose instead that one man gets one of the jobs and one woman gets the other job. Now this situation actually causes problems:

1. If the woman without a job marries the guy with a job, both are happy. The other woman is unhappy because she's stuck with a man who doesn't have a job, and the man's unhappy because he's unable to perform his role as breadwinner. The man is also in poverty because he doesn't have a job. It is a given that the single woman will not marry him. In this situation, the married man and woman each have $50. The single woman has $100 and the single man has $0. Now we are starting to see gaps and economic classes start to form.
2. If the woman with a job marries the guy with a job, both are happy. But the other two have nothing; they are living in povery. The single woman is also very unlikely to marry the single man. Here, the married man and married woman each have $100, and both singles have $0.

What if both women get the jobs and the men don't? In addition to economic inequality, everyone is also unhappy (money doesn't make women happy). This society will also eventually implode because when women are focussed on career, they can't perform the essential "mother" role. When a woman tries to be a man and a woman at the same time, she will most likely fail at both.

Feminists made a big mistake by not understanding the nature of production and reproduction. Production is only the means to an end. Reproduction is the ultimate goal of all life on earth. Women have reproductive power which can only bear fruit when combined with a man's productive power. But why do women need men's productive power? Because they can't exercise both productive and reproductive power at the same time. A woman's reproductive power is incomplete without a man's productive power (as a single mother with small children knows all too well).

Pregnancy: the new "disability"

Just read an article "Pregnant, and Pushed Out of a Job". The author seems to take a lot of things for granted and thinks that women should be entitled to a host of different things:

1. She can be less productive, and still get paid the same as everyone else. When a worker in a company does less work, everyone else has to pick up the slack. So while she's doing less work, everyone else is doing more, and yet everyone apparently should be paid the same.
2. She can keep her job despite there being many other unemployed women out there who are more reliable, who do more work, and who may need the money even more than she does.
3. She can avoid many of the job responsibilities (like heavy lifting and climbing ladders) and thereby shift the burden onto her co-workers, with no reduction in pay, and her employer is also not allowed to fire her.
4. She deserves special treatment because she's a single mother. Even if she deliberately chose to become a single mother. Her employer is to pay the price for the decisions that she has made. Her employer is responsible even if it was beyond her and her employer's control (her husband died or had an injury, for instance).

The author also wishes to blackmail us by saying that if they are not granted all of the above, they will inflict their dysfunctional children upon society by not breastfeeding them. Never mind that breastfeeding should be ideally done for about 2 years.

Then there is the plea for charity: "Pregnancy-related accommodations also promote economic security for families." Why this is should be an employer's problem is never explained.

There also seems to be a bias against hiring women with small children. You don't say!

Apparently, pregnancy is a disability. And this is the only "disability" that the victim deliberately inflicted upon herself.

Depends on the industry, but employing pregnant workers is generally worse for a company's bottom line. Contrary to the author's claims, there is more turnover, not less. There is less loyalty because more-productive workers are being paid the same as those who are less productive, and because they have to pick up the slack for no extra pay. And for obvious reasons, productivity is reduced. Morale is reduced. There are also more overhead costs associated with hiring and firing more workers.

But the problems associated with employing pregnant women aren't limited to the workplace. Employed women don't get married (to men; they get married to the government instead). They choose to become single mothers. Their children don't get breastfed adequately, and get put into daycare. And so on.

There is also the claim that making workplace accommodations for pregnancy results in healthier pregnant women. Ohkay, but making workplace accommodations for dolphins results in healthier dolphins. And making workplace accommodations for non-pregnant workers results in healthier non-pregnant workers. But given a choice between pregnant women, dolphins, and non-pregnant women, why should the employer prefer the pregnant woman?

There are some important voices that are not being heard.

1. What do her co-workers think? Are they inclined to take on additional work (like heavy lifting and climbing ladders) for no extra pay?
2. What does the employer think of the increased costs involved?
3. What do the customers think of  having to pay more because of higher costs associated with employing pregnant women?

There are some things that are impossible to articulate thanks to the climate of political correctness.

1. In a normal family, the man is responsible for earning the money. The woman is never under any obligation to earn money, unless he is disabled and can't work (in which case the family could be eligible for welfare). This idea is not so far-fetched. It was the norm in the stable nuclear family structure of the 1950s and previous.
2. The majority of single mothers today deliberately made choices that resulted in their single mother status. Either they chose to become single mothers, or they chose unreliable men. Only a minority of women are single mothers for reasons truly beyond their control.

The problem with subsidizing contraception

There has been some talk in the US about subsidizing the cost of the birth control pill. After reading all about it, I've come to the conclusion that it's a bad idea. Here are some of the reasons, taken from comments on articles relating to the issue (comments are not mine unless in square brackets):

• After spending $1000/yr for 10-15 years for birth control for these gals, how much are we going to be asked to spend on fertility treatments for them when they realize that their best reproductive years are behind them? Most IVF pregnancies are considered high-risk, so obstetrical care would be more than "normal". Many IVF babies are fragile at birth, so you're looking at NICU costs.
• It DOESN'T reduce the abortion rate, and it DOESN'T reduce the number of unwed mothers. Statistics pertaining to abortion and unwed and teen mothers show that those numbers have increased lockstep with the availability of low-no cost contraceptives (available at your neighborhood county health/PP clinic). [See the reviews of this book Promises I Can Keep: Why Poor Women Put Motherhood Before Marriage]
• So studies say free birth control pills are actually a cost savings. What does that have to do with the federal government mandating that every insurance policy (a private product) must include them? No one is outlawing birth control. The issue is whether the federal government should force private companies to provide a particular coverage at a particular cost.
• Why should I pay my money to buy protection for someone's else's sex life?
• Of course insurance companies overwhelmingly choose to provide BC coverage. But they don't for the most part choose to offer it without copays, and certainly not for the range of contraceptives that ACA is going to require them to offer. If every woman who currently has a $10 copay didn't buy her birth control and got pregnant, it might very well be more expensive for private insurance companies than if they'd just offered her the bc for free. But that's not what happens because women with insurance and some income will happily pay some small amount of money in order to not get pregnant. What this article and the research it refers to show is that for women who are in groups that are high-risk for unintended pregnancies, it is probably cheaper for the state to provide contraceptives because when the state provides them, contraceptive usage is actually getting shifted: by providing birth control to women with low-incomes, a lot more of them take birth control. But that's not what this particular policy debate is about: it's about women with non-public insurance, who are overwhelmingly not poor. They're not looking at their copays, deciding not to take birth control, and getting pregnant. (Or, like I said, if this is happening and there's anything approaching research showing that it's happening, we'd be hearing about it.) If the contraceptive provision of ACA were "simple math," we wouldn't have to legislate it because insurance providers would already be providing no-copay bc for a range of contraceptives. They don't, so it probably isn't simple math, and I'm suggesting this is because it's a rare women with non-public health insurance who looks at a $10 copay and decides to not get on birth control. (She may, however, be spurred by zero-copay contraceptives to switch contraceptive type to something with higher costs and only marginally better efficacy.)
• If WE keep them "healthy" after an entirely predictable outcome of having sex--what does that have to do with being healthy? Sounds pretty enabling to me. Note, of course, I'm not saying it should be illegal to make these decisions for yourself, just that I should not have to pay for it.
• It might help if you understood the purpose of insurance. There's a reason why BlueCross doesn't cover my Advil.
• Do you know what's a lot less expensive to ME than paying for other people's birth control? Not paying for it. Even when you start rationalizing my suffering from societal ills--color me skeptical.
• Plenty of societies have expected that if women aren't abstinent, then they should risk getting pregnant - heck, you probably don't have to look back more than 100 years.
• In what way is not covering birth control "punishing" women? My employer subsidizes medical and vision insurance but not dental insurance, and my daughter just got a cavity. I had to pay out of pocket for a dentist to fill it. Is my employer "punishing" me?
• The government is allowing the Amish to opt out of the contraception mandate but won't let Catholic dioceses and institutions, which are morally opposed to it, do the same. That's a bit more like "punishment."
• Insurance doesn't pay for your skiing, it pays if you have a health injury as a result of skiing. [And premiums for skiiers are higher, I imagine.] So it reasons that insurance doesn't have to cover your birth control, but it does cover your health costs if you become pregnant. To use a cruder analogy: Insurance should not cover condoms and lube, but if you contract HIV it does cover your health expenses. Do those who want free birth control pills also want to mandate free lube and condoms?
• By this argument everyone's medicine should be "free" at no out of pocket cost, no co-payment. This sounds great, everyone gets all the health care and medicine they want or need and at no cost to themselves. How wonderful. Unfortunately, its unlikely that this wonderful format would last long in the real world. 
• No health insurance coverage is "free," even when there is no copay for a particular service. And, copays and amount of coverage vary by policy. But, conservatives haven't been arguing FOR copays for contraceptive medications. They have been arguing AGAINST employers and insurers being required to provide ANY coverage for contraception, period, whether that coverage includes copays or not.
• If people know what something is really costing them, they are more likley to be responsible.  When everything is "free" not so much.
• As for theories about the cost savings of prevention -- many disagree with your assessment, including insurers. 
• The proposed regulations when they go in effect in 2013 will require the insurance company to offer contraceptives free and without a copay.
• If you are really paying for contraception with your premiums, then you should just be able to pay for it without the insurance plan at all.  The only reason for this policy is to shift the cost away from the person directly using the product.  Support this mandate or not, I wouldn't think this would be a point of contention.
• It is part of a compensation package that is part of an employment contract.  And only a part.  Religious and affiliated institutions are not requiring that as a term of employment an employee refuse to use contraception.  Religious institutions are stating that they would like to retain the freedom to offer a  compensation package to employees that does not include insurance coverage for contraceptives. The employee is not required to accept the terms of the contract -- they are free to reject the contract (i.e., not work for that employer).  The employee can also purchase their own insurance or supplement their employer-offered insurance that does offer contraception.  They also can purchase their own contraception. Of course on the flip side -- assuming that the provision of free contraception reduces medical costs -- which the insurer has a vested interest in doing -- insurance companies could also refuse as a vendor to offer packages that don't include free contraception. 
• Having a "greater tendency" towards an unexpected disease or covering an accident in a more dangerous profession clearly is not the same as a routine, fully foreseeable expense, that every person will have.   It is not a difficult concept:  You cannot "insure" against a certainty; the argument for paid contraception is simply an argument for expanding welfare benefits to a group that generally does not get them.  (Traditional cash welfare payments can of course already be used to purchase contraception.)  And there is a reason insurance costs more for firefighters, miners, smokers, etc -- because the relative risk of incurring large expenses is higher. 
• Whether or not "sexuality is an essential part of being human" or not is completely irrelevant.  Food is also essential for Ms. Fluke, but she would have been laughed out of Congress had she made a plea for food stamps for students at an elite law school.  Yet this is no different: She would like a normal expense of life paid for by someone else -- often, I note, by people with far less lifetime earning potential than she has.  This is neither progressive nor fair, and it does not make one a sexist to point it out.  I would add that the argument made by Mr. Fisher only holds if one considers people as a drain on the system and not as future resources.  You can't make the argument honestly without considering the lifetime earnings and contributions of the people being born, not just their expenses in childhood.  And if the argument is that we should be only discouraging reproduction in poor people because they are not likely to be net contributors to society, well, that's fairly odious in my book.  I don't think Fisher is saying that, of course, but it does mean his argument is half baked and not very persuasive.
• There is something faintly unsettling here, the underlying idea seems to be that children are a disease that women need to be protected from.  Children prevent women from gaining an education or a good job and they're so expensive!  While its true that poor, unmarried, young women will do a lot better if they don't have children while they're poor, unmarried and under educated, generalizing this idea out to the rest of the population because "half of pregnancies are unplanned" begins to seem like we wish to commit demographic suicide in the name of access to free birth control. 
• The argument appears to be that women have very little agency, indeed, the belief must be that they have so little agency--even in preventing their own unwanted pregnancies--that they won't take any such action unless its at no cost at all to themselves, no matter what socio-economic bracket or race they are.
• Thats an argument for government subsidy of birth control for poor women which already exists and which I support.  When you extend the argument for a subsidy of birth control for ALL women the argument you are making is that women have little agency and that children are such a terrible burden on society that no cost is too great in order to prevent pregnancies, this is a dangerous argument for any society to embrace.
•  There is a good  argument for subsidizing birth control for poor women, but it doesn't, in my opinion extend out to subsidizing birth control for all women.
• It makes a difference if there is a co-pay because the further you put the patient from the real cost of health care the more problems you will have controlling it.  Its the same reason why I  think even poor peole should pay some nominal taxs, even $15, so everyone feels they have some skin in the game.  No one who has insurance has any idea what the alleged "cost" is of any of the services because who looks at the bill?  I know I never did because I wasn't getting charged for anything. But, in terms of contraceptives, I don't see why they should be singled out for special treatment and be "free" when other drugs are not.
• Many girls grow up wanting to have their own live baby dolls so they can feel complete.  Government programs pay for young mothers to have their dream, to fit in with other girls who are also moms.  A young mom can have a child for free, get no child support from the father and let the government (our tax dollars) pay for her dream of motherhood.  Hospitals and unwed mom agencies send the bill for birth, diapers, formula and anything else a mom needs for her child.  Dad and mom never pay a dime back into the system and in fact become system reliant.  THE FIX = the bills follow the mother and named father for life until they are paid.  BIRTH CONTROL = young parents beware as you are going to pay your debt, no exception.
• I wish all employers chose to provide it. If they don't choose to provide it, I don't think it's right to force them to. Ends don't justify means. Society should find another way to help people get birth control if employers aren't cooperative. Also, the Catholic church is against vasectomies and other forms of sterilization. I expect if you look into it, you'll see that these are also excluded from many church based plans.  
• This is a good argument for Medicaid subsidizing birth control, but the contraception mandate won't be covering poor women, it will be covering middle-class women who get insurance through their employer.
• This debate has been framed wrongly by both sides. The left puts it in terms of health and the right puts it in terms of morality. Let me put it in terms of economics. The function of insurance is to spread risk among voluntarily participating parties.  "Insurance" that the law says you must buy, and that consists of mandatory types of coverage is not insurance at all, it's welfare. The opponents of Ms. Fluke seem to roughly understand this but are unable to express it. The real question is, why does a 30-year-old Cornell grad and Georgetown law student need or deserve welfare? If that is the threshold for welfare, 95% of the country would be on welfare. Only the most doctrinaire leftist would fail to see why this cannot be sustained.
• IMHO it is crazy to provide free birth control to middle and upper class employed women.  It is not crazy to provide low income women free birth control.  And it is appallingly easy to figure out  who they are.  Healthy insurers pay for not healthy insurers. 
• Strange how the number of unplanned pregnancies and out-of-wedlock children has soared *after* birth control came along. I agree that too many children are being born to unprepared parents, but that's a socio-cultural issue. Tell you what -- you can hand out birth control pills in the classroom if we get to address the family breakdown in a serious way.
• This only goes back to 1980, not prior to the advent of the pill but it is true that the number of live births to unmarried women per 1000 has increased dramatically over the last roughly 30 years -- from 29.4 to 50.6. What is worth noting -- for all the talk of the need of increased sex education the problem is not now principally one of teen moms which peaked in the early nineties and is now almost exactly where it was in 1980. It is for women age 18 to 39 at the time of birth -- thus for example the rate has nealry tripled for women age 30-34  from 21.1 to 59.0 (source).
• The government should simply issue individual plastic bubbles to every one of us to exist in throughout our entire lives.
• How many women with employer-based health insurance are getting pregnant because they're choosing no contraceptives or less effective contraceptives due to costs? If there were a strong case to be made for "many", we'd be hearing about it.
• Unintended pregnancies are caused not by people who are 'too poor to practice safe sex' as you put it, but by people who have sex when they are not ready to have children.  Basically, they are caused by irresponsible behavior. No amount of contraceptive coverage, forced or voluntary, will change this, because contraception reinforces, rather than prevents, sexually irresponsible behavior by offering people a false sense of security.  This same sexually irresponsible behavior also spreads sexually-transmitted infections, which are also a tremendous expense for us as a society. If we want to decrease the amount of money we spend as a society on these 'unplanned pregnancies', the solution is not to increase funding for contraception, or encourage its use. This has been exactly the policy of our government for the past forty years!  It hasn't worked very well, has it? Instead, the solution would seem to be to change the public attitude towards sex, encouraging responsible sexual  behavior.  This is very difficult, of course, because it involves pushing a cultural change, so it does not appeal to many. Nevertheless, it seems to be the only possible long-term solution.
• This isn't just about dollars and cents. The rhetoric used borders on the obscene. During the fascist reign in Germany the way that they prepared their population to accept the holocaust was to originally frame the argument in economic terms. Posters were hung that explained that it took 5.5 Reichmarks to care for a disabled person a day, and for that you could feed a healthy family of five for a day. Another proclaimed the disabled cost 60,000 RM over their lifetime. "Germans! This is YOUR money!" (See the Eugenics article on Wikipedia.) See! Killing is so cost effective! The web site of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museom reminds us that it was the intelligentsia and the medical profession that were the most easily co-opted by the siren song of totalitarianism. Unfortunately, very little has changed since 1945. What was condemned as a war crime at Nuremberg is now embraced as "enlightened policy" in most of the Western World. The future belongs to those that bother to show up. The West is aborting hers.
• Does Sandra Fluke own a smart phone ? She and her fellow students have money enough for all the trappings of modern life, yet we taxpayers are expected to pony-up to support her "life-style choices". I would like to know why we are obligated to her and her fellow "students". What is the origin of our debt to her?
• its not about being over educated or lacking comprehension or common sense. IT IS ABOUT AN AGENDA. An agenda devoted to destroying the fabric of society: The Family. An agenda devoted to destroying the first ammendment's guarentee of freedom of religion. An agenda about turning a once proud nation of freedom loving into a nation of Marxism and Communism. And above all else it is an Agenda to derail any GOP candidates and to turn the eye away from how poorly Obama has been as a president. There are ulterior motives in every thing a liberal progressive does and they need to be removed from power from this country.
• Some people are born with medical conditions which they must invariably treat but being born with a medical condition by no means obligates taxpayers to pay those bills. This attitude that society owes someone for their misfortune(s) completely ignores the misfortune to which the taxpayers are subjected when they are required to pay someone else's bills.
• Look up the term "red herring". Its irrelevent, the topic is not what one person wants or needs. The problem is that people who expect things for free are seeing the Government, and using deceit.
• Fluke still doesn't have her story right for it was reported elsewhere that Georgetown Law does cover contraceptives that are used to treat certain medical conditions, but they do not cover contraceptives used just as a birth control. Fluke's testimony was a nicely fabricated story completely to fit the agenda.
• why would she care what it costs, all she wants is a free ride.
• Hypocrisy is saying "Stay out of my bedroom and my womb but pay for my birth control." Sorry, but this naive youngster allowed herself to be victimized by the Owebama war against women.
• Sandra Fluck, how was your vacation in Spain with your wealthy boyfriend....I see you make it back to the States and your need for expensive contraceptives that I/We must pay for was no Fluke!!!! Way to Girl....Got laid by a wealthy guy who can't/won't pay for your "Birth"/Side effect control ... So I suppose we must do it for y'all!!!!
• Look, if the pill was THAT expensive, someone would be pimping them on the street corner. Never heard of a black market for BC pills.
• Bet she didn't know how much her plane ticket to Pompeii with her boyfriend was either. Can you say "plant".
• People who want to have sex every day with as many people as they wish is a privalege one can award themselves. I say have fun, be careful and by all means get protection. Cheaper than Target is any Planned Parenthood - who will freely give the condoms away at taxdollar expense.
• It's impossible to educate someone about something they are being paid not to understand. Ms. Fluke is the epitope of this statement. She is willfully ignorant of the many affordable options available because her ideology demands her not to know.
• What an idiot piece of human debris, she wants hand outs but none of the responsibility that is suppose to come with being and adult. I say again, go to any national park, you will see signs "please don't feed the animals, or they won't learn how to take care of themselves". And this turd wants to practice law.
• If she's in no danger of becoming pregnant then the issue is moot. If on the other hand she is conducting herself so that birth control becomes highly desirable, then she needs to take the responsibility to pay for them or curtail the activity. Why is she pointing at YOU and ME asking for free drugs so she can do as she pleases? It's not my job to support her habits, regardless of what they are. And yes her conduct is shameful and wrong in many, many ways.
• "Shaming is the law enforcement of the People. Nothing wrong with it."
• Fluke put herself on the public stage, and she lied and misled in her testimony. She wants free contraceptives for healthy women and she is trying to obtain her goal by using specific examples of unhealthy women. Shame Fluke, not the many people who see through her shameful sham.
• So now she WON'T need all that money for birth control? Just how many abortions per month was she going to need to have, and did anyone tell her that College is for studying, not sex? I don't care WHAT they say on MTV!!
• HAVE YOUR LIBERALS SPAYED OR NEUTERED, it's like adding chlorine to the gene pool!! Perhaps Fluke will be a volunteer since she is so terribly oppressed by her own femininity?
• Maybe she should tattoo 'No Rubber, No Road' on her backside. Then it would be up to her interloper to provide, not me.
• If you can't afford contraception, then you shouldn't be having sex in the first place! It's called responsibility!
• This woman is intentionally misrepresenting the issue. This is not about Contraception. Contraception costs very little. What she is talking about is a medical condition for which the answer is specific forms of the medicine that also works as birth control. Stop confusing contraception with personal medical needs. 
• So now refusing to pay for someone ELSE’S contraception is “impos[ing] [one's] anti-contraception views on the general public”???  
• If she gives up her morning $5.00 Starbucks Latte just ONE DAY a month, the money saved readily covers a months supply of birth control pills.
• If you’re 30 and can’t afford to buy your own birth control pills (though it appears she can buy clothes and jewelry), then you are a l-o-s-e-r.
• self control is free. Waiting until you are married and ready for a baby is free too!
• "I don’t care and neither should you get into the business of deciding what my health insurance covers!" But she is doing the exact opposite of what you want. She specifically chose a school whose health insurance was not in line with her beliefs with the express purpose of “getting into the business of deciding what my health insurance covers!”
• My health care insurance is already going up with ObamaCare (Affordable [NOT!] Health Care Act) and crap like this that should not be included in a pool of health care billings where ALL end up paying for it. So, the leftists don’t mind making me pay for a bunch of rabbits who can’t control themselves and want something for nothing as part of half of the country who doesn’t pay any taxes. So, yes, I damn well should care when someone is stealing my hard-earned money from me against my will.
• In the same way abortion activists try to hang their entire argument on the 1-3% (at most) of abortions that are done for “rape, incest, or life of the mother,” so this activist is trying to hang her entire argument on TWO cases, one of which clearly would be covered since it is not “contraception for the reason of preventing pregnancy” (her own words for the reason the 2nd woman’s insurance would not cover her birth control pills). Furthermore, although Catholic leadership and some other Christians frown on such contraceptives, these aren’t even the abortifacient pills that are the most egregious problems. In any case, there’s a world of difference (in my opinion) between these two women whose medical conditions require “hormones,” and Ms. Fluke, who merely wants free contraceptives to make her free and frequent sex with her myriad amorous (and hardly chivalrous) suitors free of responsibility or consequences.
• I already got kids to support, I’m not interested in supporting someone else’s 30 year old child with a spoiled brat attitude and an extreme narcissist complex.
• And to try to cover Birth Control as a medical need/treatment is to diminish the real medical needs. . vitamins and nutrition are more important than Birth Control. .shouldn’t everyone get FREE vitamins as part of nutritional health? And what about exercise?. .how about free gym memberships and free home treadmills as part of metabolic health? And how about free cholesterol lowering drugs. . .free for cardiovascular health?
• We lived in a town where not a soul in twenty years had the elite access to a school like Georgetown, and I’m supposed to feel SORRY for a 30 year old WOMAN in the elite stratosphere who is WHINING about “needing” people to pay for BIRTH CONTROL? SHe’s tracking to make ten times what we make and she wants subsidized pills? How CHEAP is she? Mummy and Daddy buy her everything her little heart desired and taught her to look down on anyone who wasn’t as smartl as she??
• Non of us should be concerned with what’s going on in anyone’s bedroom…and neither should we be required to pay for it. Any insurance is based on a pool of resources that the consumer agrees to join by choice! Obama and the Democrats have limited the choosing to none of those in the pool, only to some appointed government official. This is one of the first proofs of how bad the “Obama Care” legislation is, and is going to be.
• ADULTS pay their own bills.
• So are the college females we surveyed who’ve read this and also think Rush is correct that she’s an opportunitst political lying hack … are “male chauvinist pigs” also? I mean, they instantly understood his point and totally agreed. They not “female” enough? I mean, they want a guy to marry, how cavewoman of them, and they want “kids.” So, their voices aren’t GOOD enough for the feminist LEFT?
  
• I thought women were self-reliant, strong, and didn’t need help from anybody. Where are the feminists? Looks to me like these gals are unable to care for themselves and need big daddy government to take care of their needs.Perhaps Georgetown should buy every student a handgun too. Because if they don’t – the school obviously would be denying everyone’s constitutional right to bear arms.
• She is doing the same thing that Obama does when promoting his Obamacare. She is taking situations of the few and far between and trying to make people think that this is a valid reason to pass a law. The same thing is also done with abortion by using the excuse of rape, which accounts for less than 1% of the abortions in a year in America. You cannot pass a law based on the exceptions, that is not good law because it does not apply to the mass majority. The truth is that 99.9% of the people that use the contraceptives would be using them to prevent pregnancy. Married or not married, it just doesn’t matter; catholic churches nor anyone else should not be forced to pay for birth control. If they want to have birth control covered then they should seek employment in places that do cover it. Sometimes life just doesn’t give us everything we hold our hands open for, and Americans need to start realizing it no matter what your sob story is.
• In the video she talks about two woman who need birth control, one because hormonal imbalances cause seizures (is the pill the only way to balance hormones?) and the other because of risk factors involved in giving birth too close together. What is doesn’t mention but what is most likely true is that both woman received what they needed in some manner.
• with some very few exceptions, BC is NOT a medical necessity. In cases that it is, I have no problem it being covered.
• we’ve been INFORMED she’s speaking for WOMEN and what they NEED …. and that’s CRAP.
• I don’t care what people do in bed. I care,in this case, about being compelled to pay for non medically necessary things in my insurance contract.
• That was the one aspect of feminism I liked, that women were gonna pull themselves up by their bra straps.  But it's just vanished.  Now all of these things that feminism had as its goals, they're gone.  They really are gone.  They're back to being subservient and dependent and demanding, and demanding dependence.
• Viagra takes something that does not work as designed and makes it work again. Abortions, abortion pills, and even artificial contraception (IUDs, condoms, Norplant, etc.) do the EXACT OPPOSITE. They take something that works EXACTLY AS DESIGNED, and makes it no longer work. Or makes a human at an early stage of development, who has been given the gift of life, F&&KING DIE, in the case of abortions and abortion pills.
• women are doing just fine getting birth control on their own. It's government overstepping. Do no harm - unless it's to the child in the womb. That's okay. Forcing me to pay for it, that's overstepping.
• contraception is readily and freely available today, and there is no effort to control, rescind, or take that away. There is no "women's" issue here. Contraception is a choice (the pro choice crowd should like that), it is not a right. The decision is up to the family, or the woman. No one is prohibiting the use of contraceptives. Nothing diferent there.
• A large part of our health care cost problem is due to everyone wanting “something” and wanting “someone else” to pay for it. The purpose of “insurance” has been distorted(beginning with Teddy boy’s HMO idea in the 70′s). Insurance is intended to protect against catastrophic financial loss. Everyone seems to want it to pay for everything, so guess what, the cost is out of hand. Adding contraceptive coverage to a health “insurance” plan is simply going to raise everyone’s premiums another 100 bucks a month or so. I’m hoping the employers in the group market start passing some of this on to their employees.
• Let the guys in line pay for it. You want thrill pay the bill. Why should the taxpayer foot the bill? Taxpayers did not get the thrill.
• Fluke whines that the rest of us owe her free contraceptives, so she can have as much sex as she likes without consequences – while on scholarship at a very pricy law school. That’s the issue. Fluke spends whatever money she has elsewhere then demands that I (and you) pay for her contraceptives. That makes Fluke greedy, selfish and self-centered.