There are recorded mentions of birth control methods (albeit rather bizarre ones) dating back to AT LEAST Ancient Egypt.
So, no, try another argument.
Birth control has been around since about 15 mins after the first baby was born. Only the ignorant would argue otherwise.
being-lola-star submitted:
Not sure how many Canadian followers you have but I thought you might be able to help get the word out. There’s an urgent recall on Alysena-28 birth control pills which may have too many placebo pills, which could result in unplanned pregnancies.
(via caffeinatedfeminist)
The Best Birth Control In The World Is For Men by Jon Clinkenbeard
If I were going to describe the perfect contraceptive, it would go something like this: no babies, no latex, no daily pill to remember, no hormones to interfere with mood or sex drive, no negative health effects whatsoever, and 100 percent effectiveness. The funny thing is, something like that currently exists.
The procedure called RISUG in India (reversible inhibition of sperm under guidance) takes about 15 minutes with a doctor, is effective after about three days, and lasts for 10 or more years…
Oh, and when you do decide you want those babies, it only takes one other injection of water and baking soda to flush out the gel, and within two to three months, you’ve got all your healthy sperm again.
The trouble is, most people don’t even know this exists. And if men only need one super-cheap shot every 10 years or more, that’s not something that gets big pharmaceutical companies all fired up, because they’ll make zero money on it (even if it might have the side benefit of, you know, destroying HIV).
I’d fly to india for this.
(via liberal-focus)
Well, no one could have seen this one coming. Last year Texas Republicans took $73 million away from family planning services to protect taxpayers from the evils of Planned Parenthood’s non-existent abortion services. And now?
”The latest Health and Human Services Commission projections being circulated among Texas lawmakers indicate that during the 2014-15 biennium, poor women will deliver an estimated 23,760 more babies than they would have, as a result of their reduced access to state-subsidized birth control. The additional cost to taxpayers is expected to be as much as $273 million —”
One Democratic representative said of her Republican colleagues, “in retrospect they did not fully grasp the implications.” Well, sure. Who could have predicted it? After all, it’s not like they had any estimates of the potential impact of the cuts ahead of last year’s vote. Well, except for this:
“Last legislative session, while lawmakers debated the cuts, the nonpartisan Legislative Budget Board estimated that they would lead 284,000 women to lose family planning services, resulting in 20,000 additional unplanned births at a cost to taxpayers of $231 million.”
So Texas saved $73 million but spent $273 million because they saved $73 million? Somehow - and I’m not sure how it happened - I just did some kind of laugh/sneer thing and it actually hurt a little bit. =D
It’s almost like restricting access to abortion DOESN’T work!
(via democratsaresexier)
What isn’t so well known about Ryan’s record, though, is that one piece of legislation he supported is so extreme that it would have turned Romney’s children into criminals.
The Sanctity of Human Life Act, which Ryan co-sponsored, would have enshrined the notion that life begins at fertilization in federal law, thus criminalizing in vitro fertilization—the process of creating an embryo outside of a woman’s womb. In IVF, doctors typically create multiple embryos and then only implant the healthiest ones in the woman. Some of them stick and become babies, and some don’t. The embryos that don’t make it to the womb are either frozen for later use or destroyed. The Sanctity of Human Life Act, if passed, would make all those embryos “people” in the legal sense, so if they aren’t used or don’t become babies after being implanted, they would essentially become murder victims under the law.
[…]
In May, Romney’s son Tagg became father of twin boys thanks to help from IVF and a surrogate mother. Tagg’s son Jonathan was also produced this way. Two of Tagg’s brothers reportedly have struggled with infertility issues and resorted to IVF as well. It’s hard to imagine that Romney will score any points with voters by tapping a running mate whose anti-abortion views are so extreme that Romney’s own kids can’t live with them.
Ryan’s position on IVF might give President Obama an opening for attack: While Romney’s running mate has advocated criminalizing a procedure that has brought untold joy to about 3 million families over the past three decades, Democrats might be able to claim credit for making advanced infertility treatments available to the vast majority of Americans who can’t afford them. Currently, most health insurance plans don’t cover infertility treatment, so IVF and other advanced baby-making technology is mostly available to rich people—like the Romney boys.
Wheaton College, a private Christian school in Illinois, wishes to be exempt from the Obama administration’s newly-enacted birth control insurance mandate, like other religious-run schools and hospitals. But there’s one problem: Wheaton doesn’t qualify for the exemption, despite the fact that they’re adamantly against emergency contraception and birth control and all the unbridled harlotry that proliferates in the presence of the two evil medicines. The reason they don’t qualify? Turns out that before all this Obamacare business, the school was already covering emergency contraception. I believe the technical word for what just happened is “Derp.”
(via silas216)
In a surprising departure from conservative orthodoxy, Tea Party Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) broke with Romney’s legal adviser yesterday, stating that the Constitution does indeed protect a right to birth control.
Wooooow. Rand Paul goes out on a limb. LADIES, WE CAN HAZ DA PILL!
Pharmacists And Doctors In Kansas Can Now Deny Women Access To Birth Control And Chemotherapy
Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback (R) signed a bill yesterday that will allow pharmacists in the state to refuse to fill a prescription they think could be used to induce abortion. But since the “conscience” measure says they cannot be required to provide a drug or devise that they think “may result in the termination of a pregnancy” — but does not define which drug in particular — the law’s opponents say it could allow a pharmacist to interfere with a woman’s health care by refusing to distribute birth control or emergency contraception.
Women who already have difficulty obtaining contraception may face additional hurdles, according to Julie Burkhart, founder of an abortion-rights group in Wichita, Kansas:
Burkhart said the law could create a hardship for women in small towns with a sole pharmacist who may refuse to fill certain prescriptions. In larger cities, women will have to make sure they go to a cooperative pharmacist, she added.
“Women should not have to go armed with a lot of research when looking for a physician or pharmacist in the community,” Burkhart said.
No pharmacist could be fired for refusing to fill such prescriptions, and doctors can refuse to refer patients to pharmacists who would fill a birth control prescription.
Additionally, the Associated Press had reported that the law could “allow a doctor to refuse to provide chemotherapy to a pregnant cancer patient because it might end her pregnancy.”
Brownback’s office justified his signing by saying the bill “gives more legal protection to Kansas health care providers who refuse to participate in abortions” based on their conscience. Kansas already had a law that allowed medical professionals to refuse to assist in abortion procedures.
While Kansas lawmakers failed to pass a sweeping anti-abortion bill that would have required doctors to give false information to their patients, the expanded “conscience” law is just one of several laws recently approved in the state that undermine women’s health and well being.
(via silas216)
At a town hall meeting yesterday with his constituents, Rep. Steve King (R-IA) made an unexpected revelation — he attended the Affordable Care Act oral arguments in the Supreme Court as the personal guest of Chief Justice Roberts. In King’s words, his seat was “not the cheap seats, but the chief’s seat.”
[…]
ven in an era of conservative radicalism, King is an unusually radical conservative. He does not simply believe that that the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional, and he has not simply led a single-minded crusade to repeal or defund it, he’s suggested that any national effort to regulate the insurance industry would violate our Constitution. He also denies that the Constitution protects access to contraception, and has expressed strange views on contraception generally — at one point suggesting that President Obama’s plan to ensure all women have access to birth control will make America a “dying civilization.” He’s claimed that unemployment benefits will transform America into a “nation of slackers,” he called for congressional hearings after President Obama’s estranged uncle was arrested for a DUI, and he’s openly admitted that he believes congressional hearings should be used to “publicly humiliate” President Obama.
Remember that King is up for reelection - running against Christie Vilsack. Iowa, do something about this guy.
