Planned Parenthood of Montana is calling state Rep. Krayton Kerns’ comments about Sandra Fluke “degrading, sexist and inexcusable.” They may not go that far, but they sure are odd for a guy who is calling the debate over contraception a democratic trick to divert attention from the economy.
Kerns, a veterinarian, writes a weekly blog “Weekly Posting of the Conservative Cow Doctor.” In that blog, Kerns wrote of Fluke, contraception and a friend from his college days.
You have probably seen the hoopla over Sandra Fluke and the cost of contraception for her colleagues at Georgetown University Law School. Before a mock congressional hearing she testified $1000 per year for contraception is cost prohibitive for students and this expense should be borne by people who actually have jobs. (This makes sense to her because she is still in college.) When I finished banging my head on the table, I pulled out my imaginary photo albums and reminisced about the free-love college days in the ‘70s and ‘80s. Things were different then. I remember John earning $1000 per month for sex at Colorado State University, so contraceptive costs were meaningless to him. Let me tell you about John.
John was a swinger, but not your typical a sex symbol. He was hairy, had short legs, fat belly and he slobbered a lot, but the vet school rumor mill said he was earning nearly $300 per week practicing his trade. John’s registered name was John-Boy and he was a grand champion English bulldog owned by a pharmacology instructor at Colorado State. Lamenting John-Boy’s stud service popularity, Steve, a classmate of mine whined, “That dang dog makes $1000 per month in stud fees and I can’t even give it away.” Enough said about the good old days and this brings me to my point: How in the world did the political debate descend to the level of contraception for coeds?
That is supposed to be Kerns’ point for his writings: why are we debating contraception? The problem is that somehow Kerns draws a line between a bulldog and Fluke. After Kerns took criticism for the blog entry, he denied comparing Fluke to a bulldog. While Kerns doesn’t explicitly do that, neither does the bulldog sound relevant to contraception since the pooch didn’t use it.
Kerns is either trying to say that college students should be free to have sex and procreate without contraception getting in the way, or he is comparing a dog’s sex life to Fluke’s, or Kerns’ thinks that Fluke and her fellow students should buy bulldogs for stud to help raise that $1,000 yearly cost for birth control. On the other hand, Kerns could be so confused about the contraception debate that he threw in an animal story just because it sounded good.
Kerns finally gets to his point about why there is a contraception debate at all. Kerns appears to believe that ABC commentator George Stephanopoulos is a toady for the Democratic Party. Apparently, Stephanopoulos’ bringing up the issue of contraception in a January Republican debate was part of a massive conspiracy by the left to cover-up Obama’s failings in the economy.
“Sandra Fluke’s testimony was purposely designed to rally support behind the president’s plan for nationalized healthcare. Voters were prepped weeks earlier during a Republican presidential debate when George Stephanopoulos asked Mitt Romney whether states had the right to outlaw contraception. Mr. Romney should have answered, “That is an incredibly stupid question.” Unfortunately, he took the bait, answered the question, thus opening the door for the secular-progressives to focus attention on contraception rather than issues like the economy, the ballooning national debt and $5 gasoline.”
First of all, Kerns must not understand how testimony before a Congressional committee works. As a legislator in Montana he should know. Those who give testimony to a Congressional committee only appear through an invitation to the committee. People don’t just walk off the street and start talking. Anyone speaking before a committee does need to prep. Everyone does it. Both Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives take time while preparing their testimony for maximum impact. And Kerns thinks he has found some type of bombshell there.
While its true that Stephanopoulos was a Democratic operative, and many of his questions will naturally be slanted that way, there is no proof that he was the opening salvo in a “secular-progressive” attempt to change the political debate from the economy to contraception.
Seriously, are some of the nation’s top Democratic strategists going to sit around and find a way to redirect the country’s focus from the economy by choosing contraception as the main campaign issue? They probably do want to redirect that attention. Nevertheless, if anyone could foresee that contraception was going to be a big campaign issue three months ago, then that person needs to get the crystal ball out and tell the world what’s going to happen with some of the really big issues like climate change and Iran that are coming up.
Just for the record, Fluke is not an undergraduate coed, but a third year law student approaching 30. Regardless, that still doesn’t explain what her testimony about contraceptive coverage for students at religious institutions has to do with a bulldog siring puppies.