Off-Topic

the majority of students are not going to let this issue be the deciding factor in their school selection, this is the same argument that coltsfan made about employees deciding on jobs based on this issue. this is hardly about students or employees trying to break some contract.

the game has changed...they're in position to fight it.

No one said this issue would or should be a deciding factor in school choice. Clearly there are other things that are more important when choosing a law school.

However, for anyone who makes the choice to go to GU, they make the choice to conform to GU's standards. The government has no business trying to mandate that GU's standards should be changed to conform a specific desire of a percentage of its student body, regardless of how large or vocal that percentage may be. I'm not saying GU shouldn't reconsider its position because I personally think it should but not because the government forces it to. If enough people care enough about this issue to affect future enrollment at GU, then it may very well change its policy.

if you agree that other issues going into deciding a school then this statement becomes less relevant:

"Those students do not have to go to GU if they don't like the policy. That was a choice they made... to go to a Jesuit institution."

I understand you're not taking sides, I am trying to put to rest this notion that somehow the students gave up their right to argue this by going to GU in the first place.

yes I've read and now I've reread her testimony -- I have a $4,000 implant in my mouth that my insurance company "didn't cover" -- It took about two weeks and 5 phone calls and they paid.

I'm sorry if these potential attorneys cannot get an insurance company to cover something they are not suited for their future employment. Sure it can be a pain -- on any number of items -- but tenactity gets it done -- every time if it is a covered item. I can give you a list of things that insurance companies ahve said no to my family on in the last 25 years and I got corrected.

obviously this girl doesn't deserve to be a lawyer because she was unwilling to live her life in complete and utter pain for two weeks while being harassed about her sex life and whether or not her birth control is purely for medical reasons. if she had a little more TENACITY and GRIT, she'd be able to have it covered and wouldn't have ended up losing her ovary, amiright?

Where did you go to medical school again?

Actually most cysts don't cause symptoms and a lot of times women with higher tolerances of pain don't go to the Dr until it's too late to save their ovaries. It's also a huge problem with ovarian cancer too, women think the pain is just intense period pain and when they finally go to the doctor, it's too late. so yes, it's completely possible for her to have stopped taking the pills because her symptoms went away and the expense was too much and by the time her pain had come back, it was too late.

Perhaps she didn't have anyone to borrow the $100 from also. When I was in grad school at Maryland going to school and working an assistantship and living off loans (graduated in '11), I had about $400 a month to spend on groceries and non-rent expenditures, and I wouldn't have been able to spare 1/4 of my monthly income to anyone. this is the budget Maryland gave everyone who was living off loans, so it's very possible she didn't know anyone she could borrow the money from. she also could have very well been in the process of arguing with the insurance people while she lost her ovary, it's not always two weeks, it's often a long and arduous process, especially when you're dealing with bureaucracy. I'm just saying you're being presumptuous by saying she doesn't deserve to be a lawyer because she lost her ovary instead of fighting with insurance companies.

I don't even understand what this means. Or what it's supposed to mean.

Even ignoring the fact that (1) your argument recognizes that the insurance company was probably in the wrong here and (2) your argument is 2 steps away from a Tifflesian "my anecdote translates to the entire world" type of argument, you agree that her friend should have been covered in that instance?

Great, so you're on the side of people arguing that insurance coverage for that Georgetown student's contraception was appropriate and wrongly denied?

Then they should buy their own insurance instead of using the school's insurance. Maybe I missing something, but I'm pretty sure you don't have to use the schools insurance plan if you don't want to. If that's the case, then get insurance that covers it.

That's what they should do, not petition the federal government to force the school to cover it.

I'm on the side of saying that Fluke had an agenda long before she testified. And I beleive that if her examples could be vetted a different story would be told -- hence the examples I cited.

The very fact that she prepared her remarks on "Law Students for Reproductive Justice" letterhead shows to me a pre existing bias that I would want to further investigate her examples and background before I took them as absolute fact.