On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 7:02 PM, William Bowen <william.bo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > "Co-ed" is an antiquated term. Referring to a female student as such > is demeaning. It suggests that a special allowance was made for her to > be attending the school because she is not of a privileged (read: > male) set.
That's what the media calls her, it makes her sound like she's just out of high school. > She *is* a law student. Got a link to an article that says she's not? She's also a Lawyer, has been for a while. She said she signed up as a student because the didn't offer contraception with their insurance. > So? Oh holy hell, Sam, you're not next going to suggest that she's > uppity, too, are you? So is she a co-ed student that can't afford condoms or birth control for $10 a month at Walmart or is she an activist lawyer looking for a cause? >> In one of her first interviews she is quoted as talking about how she >> reviewed >> Georgetowns insurance policy prior to committing to attend, and >> seeing that it didnt cover contraceptive services, she decided to >> attend with the express purpose of battling this policy. > > And? Being an active member of the Law Students for Reproductive > Justice (LSRJ) I would imagine she might indeed have something to say > on the subject. That's fine if you feel she's a legitimate witness. But remember, school health plans are not group plans and are not affected by any laws so it's a totally moot point. Not a very good lawyer I'd say. Plus, if she was an employee of Georgetown she would be eligible for free condoms even though that law has kicked in yet. >> During this time, she was described as a 23-year-old coed. > > By whom? Media outlets? Herself? Whom? You provide no link to a source > on what must be, surely by now, called "age-gate"... Because what else > should we talk about but her age and her subjective attractiveness (as > you do in a later post in this thread "You obviously haven't seen her > photo :) > Makes me wonder how she finds five victims a day")? From that > statement I can derive that you don't find her attractive, and since > you don't find her attractive, it must be inconceivable that anyone > else does. Therefore, I gather, I your opinion, her message should be > suspect. No, my opinion is she's not attractive, that doesn't mean she won't get some. Just sounds like the need for five condoms a day "might" have been exaggerated. But that's just me speculating. > Why, again, would her age matter? Because it's hard to believe a 30-year-old lawyer paying $60,000 a year to go back to law school can't afford condoms. > Oh bullshit, Sam. Really? Played? She's a woman, a law student an a > member of an organization which focuses on reproductive justice. I'd > say and that makes her a damn-sight better qualified to testify on > women's reproductive issues than any of these clergymen: > http://www.thenation.com/blog/166311/republican-hearing-contraception-no-women-allowed Actually the panel was about religion not about reproductive rights. The second panel had woman on it as you're updated article states. And, as I keep stating, it doesn't apply to this. The law does not apply to Universities offering health care. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:347853 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
