Will Sandra Fluke Promote Her View Of Mandatory Employer Paid Sex Change Operations At Democratic Convention ?

Tonight is Sandra Fluke's big night at the Democratic Convention. One hopes as an "expert" in matters we expect her to touch on her facts will be a little bit better since her last input into the public forum.

As noted at the above link :
...This inaccurate framing of the issue is just the beginning of a series of inexcusable flaws in Ms. Fluke’s article. She declares that, on the anniversary of Griswold v. Connecticut, “It is hard to believe that we are having this conversation” about permitting exemptions for those with religious objections to state-mandated contraceptive coverage...

Well I have to agree with that slightly from a different angle. I don't think many of us that oppose these threats to religious freedom on both a statutory and Constitutional  level saw them coming either. I am having a hard time recalling that this was promoted in the 2008 Democratic convention or on the trail in the various races.

However beyond her turning the Griswold case on it's head will Fluke be more forthcoming and expand to what else she thinks is in the " I can't believe we are having this conversation" category.


Such as employers having to pay for SEX CHANGE OPERATIONS.

The title of the article, which can be purchased in full here, is Employment Discrimination Against LGBTQ Persons and was published in the Journal's 2011 Annual Review. I have posted a transcript of the section I will be quoting from here. In a subsection of the article entitled "Employment Discrimination in Provision of Employment Benefits" starting on page 635 of the review Sandra Fluke and her co-editor describe two forms of discrimination in benefits they believe LGBTQ individuals face in the work place:

"Discrimination typically takes two forms: first, direct discrimination limiting access to benefits specifically needed by LGBTQ persons, and secondly, the unavailability of family-related benefits to LGBTQ families."

Their "prime example" of the first form of discrimination? Not covering sex change operations:

"A prime example of direct discrimination is denying insurance coverage for medical needs of transgender persons physically transitioning to the other gender."

This so called "prime example" of discrimination is expounded on in a subsection titled "Gender Reassignment Medical Services" starting on page 636:

"Transgender persons wishing to undergo the gender reassignment process frequently face heterosexist employer health insurance policies that label the surgery as cosmetic or medically unnecessary and therefore uncovered."

See the whole thing at  Sandra Fluke, Gender Reassignment, and Health Insurance.

I suspect this will be making the speech for obvious reasons , nor if in the future employers ( Faith associated  or private) will have to be paying for full fledged abortions.The problem with the contraception mandate is that if it succeeds there is really no legal logic I see to prevent that in the future. Let us recall few in the years of the Clinton Administration passed The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 could perhaps think we would be having a conversation about groups linked to the Church having to pay for contraception either.