QOTD — Should Sandra Fluke Be Considered as Time’s Person of the Year?

Filed in National by on November 30, 2012

She’s in Time’s finalist group (sorry, this is presented as serious click bait) — a group that included Gabby Douglas, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Sheldon Adelson (!?), Paul Ryan (!?), Joe Biden, The Higgs-Boson, Malala Yousafzai , among others. Conservatives are having fits that Fluke is included, with this bit being fairly representative:

In a post on his Gateway Pundit blog, Jim Hoft wrote that Time “nominated Sandra Fluke, the Georgetown law student who demanded you pay for her $10 a month birth control pills, as person of the year.” Hoft wrote that the nomination “will put her up there with Adolf Hitler and Yasser Arafat.”

Right. Of course she belongs on this list. Sandra Fluke did something that women don’t do enough of anymore — remind people that women’s issues were not just important, but that there were massive forces aligned to roll back women’s rights. Rush Limbaugh taking so much time and energy to demonize her — well after it was clear that this was hurting him and really helping her — made it really clear what was at stake. When the mouthpiece of the GOP is so invested in working on minimizing reproductive rights as a major issue, you know that the usual forces are gathering. And when they are done, women everywhere will have lost much hard won ground. Not that there hasn’t been ground lost already.

Whether she deserves to win is another QOTD. I’d vote for The Higgs-Boson or Malala Yousafzai. I think.

So what do you think? Should Sandra Fluke be on of the Time Person of the Year finalists? And who would you vote for?


About the Author ()

"You don't make progress by standing on the sidelines, whimpering and complaining. You make progress by implementing ideas." -Shirley Chisholm

Comments (31)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Jason330 says:

    I like Fluke and think what she did was enormous – but I think it has to be Barack Obama.

  2. pandora says:

    I like Fluke, as well. Not sure who I’d choose, but I lean toward The Higgs-Boson.

    That said, if Fluke was picked I’d be happy, mainly because of this persistent nonsense: “Sandra Fluke, the Georgetown law student who demanded you pay for her $10 a month birth control pills”

    Every time Republicans tell this lie I see red. So, if Fluke winning would make their heads explode, I’m okay with that.

  3. puck says:

    Remember, the award goes to the person who had the greatest effect on the world for good or ill. I think Mitt Romney should be in the running for finally telling the truth about the Republican party. Paul Ryan for telling the truth about the GOP economic policy, and Akin and the rest of the Rapepublicans for telling the truth about Republican social policy. If you don’t think these men’s (losing) actions had much effect on the world, just ask Iran and its neighbors.

    Anybody who contributed to the unmasking and loss of the GOP should be considered. Fluke is a good choice too. The exploding heads thing gives her the edge.

  4. puck says:

    I’d be happy with the Higgs Boson winning as a validation of the European economic model and a condemnation of the US anti-science forces.

  5. X Stryker says:

    I’d nominate whoever recorded Romney’s 47% remark.

  6. socialistic ben says:

    can someone please explain the “.” comment to me?

  7. Jason330 says:

    He thought better of it, but yo can’t delete the whole comment. You see them from time to time.

  8. socialistic ben says:

    gotcha. I thought it was some blog custom for showing agreement with the previous comment in such a way as to suggest nothing else needs to be said.

  9. Rusty Dils says:

    Sandra Fluke is going to make well over $100,000 when she graduates from hear prestiges University. The government has no business paying for her birth control, pencils, golf tee’s, clothes, hair spray, or anything else she wants or needs. This thinking that the government should demand insurance companies pay for things that well to do people can afford is ridicoulus. Guys, we don’t have a budget surplus, we have a huge budget deficit. Just beccause the Socialist Obama thinks the government should pay for everything, does not make it so. I think Time’s person of the year should be someone who actually made sacrifices and helped some underpriveledged people. Not some selfish spoiled rich girl, who wants momy and daddy or the government or the insurance companies to give her a bigger allowance.

  10. puck says:

    “This thinking that the government should demand insurance companies pay for things that well to do people can afford is ridicoulus. ”

    I like your line of thinking, Rusty. Now we can cut off Social Security and Medicare social insurance benefits for the well-off.

    Of course, if you graduate from college with a toddler or two, you probably won’t be making $100k. Sandra Fluke of course will be well paid thanks to Rush Limbaugh.

  11. cassandra m says:

    Plenty of states have mandatory benefits that medical insurance must cover — stuff like minimum stays in hospital after childbirth, or covering breast reconstruction or covering some chiropractic services or covering adopted children. The list of mandatory coverage items is pretty long and whether or not you can afford the item in question is a silly requirement if you are talking about insurance.

    But then again, why am I doing this? RD has proven over and over again that he has no intention of understanding how the world actually works. Just because Fox News tells you is not the smartest way to face the world.

  12. kavips says:

    The person of the year is serious business. No one has heard of Sandra up until this one. See if she can repeat her performance next year, then she could be up for contention. If not, then this was just a fluke….

  13. cassandra_m says:

    Rush Limbaugh agrees with you, kavips. He thinks she isn’t important enough, because, after all, he made her famous. So HE should be on the Person of the Year list instead.

  14. metoo says:

    Her 15 minutes weren’t about opposition to any GOP attempts to roll back reproductive rights but about insisting that government health care pay for her birth control. Contraceptive pills have been covered by private insurance for decades. Surely she can pay for her own condoms. Hardly the stuff that makes someone “Person of the Year”.

  15. Roland D. Lebay says:


    I’d much rather pay for birth control for all men & women than pay for educating and/or incarcerating their offspring. Birth control is cheap. Children are expensive. It’s simple arithmetic, something “conservatives” simply cannot grasp.

  16. pandora says:

    Metoo is, of course, wrong.

  17. Pencadermom says:

    “Contraceptive pills have been covered by private insurance for decades. Surely she can pay for her own condoms.”- not true. At least not any insurance that I ever had, including some of the biggies like Blue Cross. And, I said to every one of those companies almost exactly what Roland wrote above. (Minus the incareration part lol)

  18. pandora says:

    Pencadermom brings the facts.

    Metoo (and other Republicans) can’t let go of the Sandra Fluke is a slut talk. They simply love it! Like I said in an earlier post… Republicans have no intention of changing their ways when it comes to women and minorities. Good luck with that, guys.

  19. cassandra m says:

    Thanks, Pencadermom! I’ve never had insurance (and I’ve had private sector insurance since my very first real job) that covered birth control. Even when that birth control was prescribed as treatment for another issue entirely.

    Sandra Fluke’s 15 minutes were not about contraception, but about helping to make way more visible the GOP’s daddy state plans for the women of this country. Her experience at the hands of conservatives made it possible to remind women in a real way that the GOP is hellbent on reinstating your second class citizenship.

  20. Mitch Crane says:

    Actually, Delaware Law DOES mandate that health insurance companies licensed in Delaware provide coverage for contraceptives. There is, however, a religious exclusion that I hoped to get deleted if I had the opportunity:

    78 Del. Laws, c. 194, § 2; 70 Del. Laws, c. 186, § 1.;

    § 3559. Reversible contraceptives.

    (a) All group and blanket health issuance policies which are delivered or issued for delivery in this State by any health insurer, health service corporation, health maintenance organization or any health services and facilities reimbursed programs for the State, which provide coverage for outpatient prescription drugs, shall provide coverage, under terms and conditions applicable to other benefits, for prescription contraceptive drugs and devices approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and for outpatient contraceptive services including consultations, examinations, procedures and medical services related to the use of contraceptive methods to prevent unplanned pregnancy.

    (b) All such entities and addressed in subsection (a) of this section shall provide coverage for the insertion and removal and medically necessary examination associated with the use of such FDA approved contraceptive drug or device. Any such policy or contract may not impose a copayment, coinsurance requirement or deductible for directly accessed gynecological services as required under this section, unless such additional cost sharing is imposed for access to health care practitioners for other types of healthcare.

    (c) Provisions of this bill shall be applied to the enrollee and all insured parties covered by the health policy.

    (d) A religious employer may request and an entity subject to this section shall grant an exclusion from coverage under the policy, plan or contract for the coverage required under subsection (b) of this section if the required coverage conflicts with the religious organization’s bona fide religious beliefs and practices. A religious employer that obtains an exclusion under this subsection shall provide its employees reasonable and timely notice of the exclusion

  21. kavips says:

    I was asked if I’d support the no-cost implementation of IUD’s into female school children at a certain age, and declined an answer because I have not yet thought through the problem…


  22. cassandra_m says:

    Why would it have to be IUD’s? And what population of female school children are we talking about?

  23. heragain says:

    IUD’s can be dangerous, so, no. No one wants another incentive for a technology that increases auto-immune problems. Also, they’re no help in preventing STD’s.

    However, hormone-based birth control is used (as Ms. Fluke pointed out) for a wide variety of issues, in addition to its primary purpose as a contraceptive It clearly should be covered by insurance.

    Love Sandra, but not sure she’d be my pick. However, on a list that’s really USA cetric, maybe.

    Higgs-Boson, no. Stretching it to refer to Hitler as a ‘man’ but an idea is not a man. Also, corporations are not people. 😉

    Of the ones in the original post,(never checked the full list) I’d have to go for Malala. If she’s not a symbol for change, the Mayans had better be right. 🙁

  24. socialistic ben says:

    I feel like (even temporary) mass-sterilization of young women, which is basically what mass IUD distribution would be, only serves the needs of horny guys who don’t like to wear condoms. It also would open the door to a higher STD rate. Reminds me of an exchange I heard in a TV show. (I think it was Community)

    Old guy: “man, back in my dad, before AIDS, sex was as casual as a hand shake”
    Younger guy: “yeah, hence AIDS”

    Right now, the focus is on pregnancy as the worst and more dire outcome of un-protected sex. First of all, it is the most reversible. Second, it is the only outcome people try for. The focus needs to be on STD prevention, because right now, everything that stops STDs also stops babies. win/win.

  25. pandora says:

    The problem with the question is that it removes CHOICE. No cost birth control of a woman’s CHOICE (adult or school age) should be an option. Basically, it’s a trick question, Kavips. Ignore it.

  26. Aoine says:

    And IUDs are considered an abotafacent – meaning it “aborts” the fertilized egg. Which might anger the pro-life crowd with person-hood etc….

    I probably spelled that wrong….

    IUDs are also responsible for a lot of PID and STD issues.

  27. cassandra_m says:

    I still want to know why IUDs especially AND what female populations — the whole thing has the whiff or something really horrific about it.

  28. Joanne Christian says:

    Back up everybody.

    1) IUDs aren’t even promoted as a choice birth-control unless you are well into your child-bearing years, and/or are reasonably comfortable you DO NOT want children or are pretty much finished having children–but maybe not “really sure”. No doctor discusses IUDs without first reviewing less invasive, less catastrophic side effect options. Yes, they are considered more for “longer term” contraception–greater than 2-3 years. Safe as they are–the negative consequences of scarring and infertility would be much harder to mitigate for a desirous child-bearing female, than reversing hormones.

    2) False propaganda to equate an IUD w/ abortive effects and blow that dog whistle. The IUD is implanted to “tease” the uterine lining, that something is already attached hence, not permitting further attachment of any product of conception, thus preventing the UTERUS from being hospitable. No fertilized egg is aborted. It just passes, as if “no room at the inn”, and presents just like any other “miss” into menstrual flow. If there is attachment, there can be miscarriage–and the likelihood greater. However, many a baby has been born to hand mom back her IUD. The ante is upped for complications of this birth control–which is why it’s generally a more mature option in mid to latter years of child-bearing. So kavips–you’ve probably been punked.

    3) And cass the “IUD placement”, is probably of the same urban myth thinking of dosing water supplies w/ hormonal contraception that pipe into junior/high schools.

    4) Mitch–and yes Delaware DOES require coverage, but the bottom line is, your insurance was the one who said which CO-PAY it fell under….so, until the last decade it was amazing how that co-pay was always the higher 25-35 bucks a month. Just sayin’……

  29. Roland D. Lebay says:

    I agree w/ cassandra_m.

    This smells like a eugenics experiment.

  30. pandora says:

    Thank you, Joanne! It boggles my mind how so many people don’t understand how different birth control methods work.

    Like I told you, Kavips… ignore this question. It stinks to high heaven.