Yeah, Yeah. Shut Up Elf.
It’s critical to conservatives ideology to imagine sex as a source of power struggle between men and women that prevents equality and friendship. They want a world where men are always trying to get it, and women are always trying to avoid having to have it, which makes platonic friendship impossible (because of suspicions that he’s trying to get one over on you) and makes sexual relationships fraught. Reproductive health care changes that completely, giving women an opportunity to explore our desires without worrying too much about unwanted childbirth or disease, and when we do so, we realize that actually, we’re just like men. And now instead of sex being the source of friction between men and women, it can bring people together. (Also, platonic friendships are a lot easier because people who are sexually satisfied aren’t injecting sex into every interaction.) There’s a reason that the same people who violently insist that men and women are complete opposites cringe at the idea of women having full reproductive health care; they fear men and women learning that in fact, we’re basically the same. Nothing distracts from how alike men and women are like making women subservient to our biology while men are allowed to be free.

You guys! Male birth control pills being difficult/next-to-impossible to obtain in the US because condom companies make more money and therefore lobby to make their option the primarily available one is TOTALLY THE SAME THING as women’s ability to choose to have birth control/abortions/tubal ligation being mandated to be illegal by the government (because religious “freedom” HAH) and therefore taking all of their options away! How dare we laugh and make light of the concept of men being allowed such things when our right to the same is being taken away!

No. REALLY.

middlemarching:

seeherwrite:

paradiscacorbasi:

masteradept:

holygoddamnshit:

ALASKA LAWMAKER WOULD ONLY ALLOW WOMEN ABORTIONS WITH WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM THEIR IMPREGNATORS
Alaska State Rep. Alan Dick says when a woman is pregnant, it’s not really “her pregnancy,” and thus should get permission before having an abortion.
He stated, “If I thought that the man’s signature was required… required, in order for a woman to have an abortion, I’d have a little more peace about it…” He didn’t say whether a rapist would be able to send his signature by fax from prison, or not. But he’ll have “peace” and women will require a permission slip for their own bodies.
http://www.alan.com/

Would someone please take this trash out.

Anti progress.

Alaska has an interesting political scene.  The Mudflats (a great website in general) has an article detailing the anti-woman laws that are on the table in Alaska.
http://www.themudflats.net/2012/03/20/help-help-theres-an-elephant-in-my-uterus/

is this really fucking happening

This cannot be real. I just really don’t want it to be.

middlemarching:

seeherwrite:

paradiscacorbasi:

masteradept:

holygoddamnshit:

ALASKA LAWMAKER WOULD ONLY ALLOW WOMEN ABORTIONS WITH WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM THEIR IMPREGNATORS

Alaska State Rep. Alan Dick says when a woman is pregnant, it’s not really “her pregnancy,” and thus should get permission before having an abortion.

He stated, “If I thought that the man’s signature was required… required, in order for a woman to have an abortion, I’d have a little more peace about it…” He didn’t say whether a rapist would be able to send his signature by fax from prison, or not. But he’ll have “peace” and women will require a permission slip for their own bodies.

http://www.alan.com/

Would someone please take this trash out.

Anti progress.

Alaska has an interesting political scene.  The Mudflats (a great website in general) has an article detailing the anti-woman laws that are on the table in Alaska.

http://www.themudflats.net/2012/03/20/help-help-theres-an-elephant-in-my-uterus/

is this really fucking happening

This cannot be real. I just really don’t want it to be.

bebinn:

keepyourboehneroutofmyuterus:

@monicaisliberal:

Here is senator Wendy Davis’ front door!

Again, no one was hurt.

Texas state Sen. Wendy Davis is an ardent supporter of Planned Parenthood, and spoke at a rally 10 days ago about her experiences relying on Planned Parenthood for her health care.
Coincidence? I THINK NOT.

bebinn:

keepyourboehneroutofmyuterus:

@monicaisliberal:

Here is senator Wendy Davis’ front door!

Again, no one was hurt.

Texas state Sen. Wendy Davis is an ardent supporter of Planned Parenthood, and spoke at a rally 10 days ago about her experiences relying on Planned Parenthood for her health care.

Coincidence? I THINK NOT.

gailsimone:

geekyjessica:

“I do not feel that it is reactionary or even inaccurate to describe an unwanted, non-indicated transvaginal ultrasound as “rape”. If I insert ANY object into ANY orifice without informed consent, it is rape. And coercion of any kind negates consent, informed or otherwise.”

“It is our responsibility, as always, to protect our patients from things that would harm them. Therefore, as physicians, it is our duty to refuse to perform a medical procedure that is not medically indicated. Any medical procedure. Whatever the pseudo-justification.”

Thanks to Phil Plait for the heads up on this one.

If you value women, the health of Americans, science, privacy, or freedom, PLEASE READ THIS AND REBLOG.

kateordie:

livelaughawesome:

awesome

#America

osheamobile:

thedailywhat:

Trojan Free Speech of the Day: Though the Salt Lake Tribune did run most of Garry Trudeau’s controversial Doonesbury story arc concerning the ultrasound bills making the rounds in state legislatures across the country, it opted out of publishing today’s strip, which features the purposely contentious line, “By the authority invested in me by the GOP base, I thee rape.”
The Tribune’s staff cartoonist Pat Bagley felt the decision was a blatant first amendment violation on the part of his paper, so he “snuck” the strip in by tacking it on to his own riff on Trudeau’s feather-ruffling plotline.
For the sake of context, Bagley’s strip is referencing disgraced former Utah House Majority Leader Kevin Garn, who was forced to resign after it was revealed that he had gone hot-tubbing in the nude with a minor.
[cagle.]

Dude.

osheamobile:

thedailywhat:

Trojan Free Speech of the Day: Though the Salt Lake Tribune did run most of Garry Trudeau’s controversial Doonesbury story arc concerning the ultrasound bills making the rounds in state legislatures across the country, it opted out of publishing today’s strip, which features the purposely contentious line, “By the authority invested in me by the GOP base, I thee rape.”

The Tribune’s staff cartoonist Pat Bagley felt the decision was a blatant first amendment violation on the part of his paper, so he “snuck” the strip in by tacking it on to his own riff on Trudeau’s feather-ruffling plotline.

For the sake of context, Bagley’s strip is referencing disgraced former Utah House Majority Leader Kevin Garn, who was forced to resign after it was revealed that he had gone hot-tubbing in the nude with a minor.

[cagle.]

Dude.

xylandaria:

elfgrove:

dendensden:

starline:

greaterthanlapsed:

We are talking about authorizing secular, for-profit employers to deny a woman coverage for birth control if the employer doesn’t believe that she and her partner should be allowed to have sex without getting pregnant. Yup, that’s right. If the owner of the Taco Bell where you work opposes birth control, Arizona legislators want to give him a legal right to deny you insurance coverage for your pills. Sadly, that isn’t even the half of it. You may want to sit down for this one. Arizona legislators know that whether or not her insurance covers it, a woman may get the prescription she needs to prevent an unintended pregnancy. They want to give her boss the right to control that too. The bill they are pushing would not only allow employers to take the insurance coverage away, but it would also make it easier for an employer who finds out that his employee uses birth control to fire her. You heard me right … to fire her.

Here’s a link to the bill’s overview and history, the last provision at the bottom is very relevant. Fuck this stuff ~_~

Okay. Let’s play informed politics time again. (Sorry for reblogging from you directly stranger dendensden, but I wanted to include your link.) I am also linking to this website where you can read the full text of the bill.

This bill is very troubling all on it’s own, but the ACLU article (which frustrates me to no end because all of their reference links are internal to their website and the never name or link to the text of the bill they’re reporting on in the article). That is some shady reporting practices, and it makes them look disreputable.

The bill is Arizona HB 2625. (Not to be confused with the 2008 Arizona Legislature bill using the same number code for immigrant housing.) I’ve actually read through it quickly, and the big problems I see here are:

  • The bill, with the current modifications (3/13/2012) does not require the “employer” in question to be a company operated with religion as a key part of it’s infrastructure.
  • It only requires contraception or abortion coverage be “CONTRARY TO THE RELIGIOUS BELIEFS” of the individual not just direct employer, but also the issuer, sponsor, corporation, purchaser, or beneficiary.

[sarcasm] I don’t know about you guys, but I just love the idea that anyone in my chain of acquiring insurance via my company or that one of my beneficiaries (child, dependent, or significant other) potentially might be allowed to lodge a religious objection to my ability to access these things based on the current bill language. [/sarcasm]

  • Anyone wishing to block these sections of coverage for being against these religious beliefs must file a written affidavit against it with the health provider outlining precisely the religious objection that must be kept on file and refiled each time the coverage is.
  • However, under the current language, there is not longer a requirement that the insured be informed of or allowed to see this affidavit. It can potentially sit unknown in the insurance documents until you actually try to acquire one of the blocked coverages.
  • Also, why is no one discussing that under this legislation, in addition to the need to prove you are using birth control for other medical reasons in order to get reimbursed for the expense of the medication that the health provider (presumably either employer or insurance company) will be permitted to charge you additional fees for having to process that claim.

This definitely seems to overstep religious freedom into forcing your religion on others.

Regarding the use birth control and get fired— Yes, the bill did remove the lines (Sec. 5 - E) specifically forbidding the employer for discrimination against someone for getting insurance coverage elsewhere or purchasing contraceptives outside of an insurance plan if they were not being provided due to this bill. However, it did not add lines allowing for this discrimination either. Therefore, under the law, someone choosing non-work-provided insurance or buying contraceptives without insurance due to religious differences permitting the employer to not provide them via bill HB 2625 should still be protected under existing religious discrimination laws that the employer cannot fire them for choosing a different health care option. So, the getting fired for using birth control statement is a bit of a logic leap and derails from the very REAL and direct issues this bill does present. If we lean on such dicey statements that can be taken as unfounded concerns, the real problems with this bill might be allowed to slide past. I know sensationalism is easier to advertise, but facts are better for accomplishing things in the long run.

Ok, so just so I get this right…

Insured under employer == you can get fired for using birth control for contraception.

Not insured under employer == you cannot get fired for using birth control for contraception.

Is this correct?

Not quite.

Like I said, the legislation it STILL shitty, but it’s not quite a direct line to firing.

Insured under employer (assuming they have filed that stupid, unconstitutional affidavit) == you have to initially pay for contraception out of pocket and must prove you’re using it for other medical purposes in order to be reimbursed. If you lie to get it paid for by insurance AND are caught, you’ve committed insurance fraud, which MIGHT get you fired.

You can’t get fired under this for using contraception unless they actually get you for doing something illegal like committing insurance fraud. It’s an at-will employment state, but if you haven’t done anything fishy with the insurance and they fire you upon learning you use contraception, it is still discrimination, and you still have a legal case.

Not insured under employer OR pay out of pocket for contraception == you cannot get fired for using birth control for contraception.

wholetthedorkin:

ladyatheist:

drst:

disbelief11:

abaldwin360:

rod42:

We challenge all of the GOP Presidential Candidates & All Republican / Tea Party members of Congress to PROVE that their sudden politicizing of birth control is NOT a Women’s Rights issue by passing legislation that prevents Men from getting Erectile Dysfunction drugs or penile enhancements unless:
They are married
Can pass a fertility test
Are of an age where they can raise a child
Reblog this if you’d like to see The GOP treat (cis) men the same way they treat (cis)women.

Oh my god that would be awesome. Fucking conservatives are all in a rage about birth control pills, but they can give fuck all about boner pills.
The fact we have such publicly strong acceptance of fucking boner pills, and yet you don’t see the same kind of “horny pills” for women plastered in advertisements everywhere you look says a lot about how our society is set up. 

…and can prove that they’re only going to use the drugs for purposes of procreation. 

This will never happen, of course, because it’s not about sexual policing, it’s about preventing women from “getting away with” non-procreative sex, but I’d love to see some reaction shots when Santorum et al. get challenged on this.

We need to make this happen.

Make them put their money where their is.

Why are we putting all of doing this on the Republicans and men? All of the politicians who pass this crap are responsible (the Virginia bill had a Democrat and an Independent on the sponsor list and received Democratic votes in favor, the Arizona and Virgina bills both had female sponsors and voters). While the (cis)male Republicans may be leading this shitfest, BUT they’re not getting it done alone. So can we stop pretending all of the Independents and Democrats are innocent in this? Because I’ve met Democrats who are in favor of this bullshit — thank you it-doesn’t-affect-me/well-just-don’t-move-there/i-don’t-see-what’s-wrong-with-it/sounds-smart co-workers. I’ve met Republicans who hate it. There’s certainly more in the Republican side supporting it, but they are not the only ones responsible for making it happen. Democrats, Republicans, Independents, Men, Women, Trans*, etc, if you introduced OR voted for restrictions on women, I expect you to pass something like this too. Fair’s fair.

wholetthedorkin:

ladyatheist:

drst:

disbelief11:

abaldwin360:

rod42:

We challenge all of the GOP Presidential Candidates & All Republican / Tea Party members of Congress to PROVE that their sudden politicizing of birth control is NOT a Women’s Rights issue by passing legislation that prevents Men from getting Erectile Dysfunction drugs or penile enhancements unless:

  • They are married
  • Can pass a fertility test
  • Are of an age where they can raise a child

Reblog this if you’d like to see The GOP treat (cis) men the same way they treat (cis)women.

Oh my god that would be awesome. Fucking conservatives are all in a rage about birth control pills, but they can give fuck all about boner pills.

The fact we have such publicly strong acceptance of fucking boner pills, and yet you don’t see the same kind of “horny pills” for women plastered in advertisements everywhere you look says a lot about how our society is set up. 

…and can prove that they’re only going to use the drugs for purposes of procreation

This will never happen, of course, because it’s not about sexual policing, it’s about preventing women from “getting away with” non-procreative sex, but I’d love to see some reaction shots when Santorum et al. get challenged on this.

We need to make this happen.

Make them put their money where their is.

Why are we putting all of doing this on the Republicans and men? All of the politicians who pass this crap are responsible (the Virginia bill had a Democrat and an Independent on the sponsor list and received Democratic votes in favor, the Arizona and Virgina bills both had female sponsors and voters). While the (cis)male Republicans may be leading this shitfest, BUT they’re not getting it done alone. So can we stop pretending all of the Independents and Democrats are innocent in this? Because I’ve met Democrats who are in favor of this bullshit — thank you it-doesn’t-affect-me/well-just-don’t-move-there/i-don’t-see-what’s-wrong-with-it/sounds-smart co-workers. I’ve met Republicans who hate it. There’s certainly more in the Republican side supporting it, but they are not the only ones responsible for making it happen. Democrats, Republicans, Independents, Men, Women, Trans*, etc, if you introduced OR voted for restrictions on women, I expect you to pass something like this too. Fair’s fair.