Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)
By now, the name Sandra Fluke is familiar to many Americans. In a testimony before the Democratic Steering and Policy Committee, the 30-year-old Fluke explained that contraception could cost a law student $3,000 over three years. According to CNSNews.com, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) called the testimony “factual.” But the testimony wasn’t factual, clearly showing Democrat’s attempts to protect ObamaCare and the so-called “rights” they believe the law upholds.
In an article on March 5th, Gregory Gwyn-Williams, Jr. of CNSNews.com presented findings about the cost of contraceptives around Georgetown. You can read the article here. Despite Fluke’s testimony of contraceptives costing $3,000 over three years, Gwyn-Williams counters that the local Target store three miles from the law school, sells a month’s supply of contraceptives for $9 to those whose insurance does not cover contraceptives. According to the research by CNSNews.com. if purchased at Target, a law student could buy three years of contraceptives for $324. That is a far cry from the so-called “factual” testimony of Sandra Fluke.
CNSNews.com confronted Rep. Nancy Pelosi with these facts, asking if Fluke’s testimony “was accurate.” In response, Pelosi said, “I have a great deal of respect for the testimony that Sandra Fluke presented to Congress. She was factual, she was courageous and she made a difference in the debate and in the country, and we were honored by her presentation.”
Yet, Fluke’s testimony before the all-Democratic panel was not accurate and factual. Fluke even told the panel, “You might respond that contraception is accessible in lots of other ways. Unfortunately, that’s not true.” CNSNews.com, however, has confirmed that the local Target store pharmacy sells contraceptives for $9 a month and the CVS pharmacy even closer to the law campus has contraceptives for $33 a month.
As demonstrated, Fluke’s testimony was not accurate. Rep. Pelosi, however, called it “factual,” clearly showing Pelosi is less interested in fact and more interested in protecting “rights” that do not exist.
