Originally posted by jibeho
reply to post by SaturnFX
I'm saying she enrolled with a purpose to fight. She chose to attend a Conservative Jesuit University... She chose to pay $47,000 a year for law
school. She chooses to take birth control. Plenty of other top notch law schools and universities that I'm sure would fit her needs for free pills.
She made the choice to attend and to fight a PRIVATE JESUIT university.
If you see the wall crumbling, and your motivated to fix it, you don't go to the strong points of the wall, you go to the place where there is a
problem. She may be an activist, in which case, it would be in her interest to go where the infection/broken part is at and shine a light on it.
This story isn't about one single girl and her pills, its about a much greater issue that effects plenty of people. So, it doesn't matter if she
personally is reporting from some hyper liberal area or neocon...the issue is health care coverage for women within a certain income bracket getting
help for the pill. You can say knowing this specific girl is important, and you will no doubt lose the entire argument focusing in on a irrelevant
Yes, people tend to send well spoken and educated activists to congress that have a strong allegory backdrop to further demonstrate the point.
Instead of her saying "I heard that a different plan/college/institution did this.." she is saying she is there where it happens.
So again...your complaining that someone testifying to congress is educated on the issue she is presenting...that somehow its unfair she got educated
(purposefully) on the subject.
I laugh at that mindset
Hint: best to keep to the discussion of the idea verses try to single this specific person out...Rush is learning this the hard way...seems many
People aren't into witch hunting anymore and those whom try are only showing themselves as the 17th century nutjobs they are.