angryblacklady:

fuckyeahfeminists:

rhrealitycheck:

The Department of Justice said Wednesday that it will appeal a federal judge’s order to make the most common morning-after pill available without a prescription for all ages.

sigh…the fight continues.

I can’t with this country. 

flip ALL THE TABLES.

BLAAAAAAAARG.

(via 4thwavefeminist)

jessicavalenti:

upworthy:

After years and years and years of women’s health care simply not being good enough, this victory feels particularly sweet. Not only is birth control coverage mandatory, but survivors of domestic abuse have more support and companies bigger than 50 are required to allow new moms to pump at work.

It is, in a word, awesome.

(via asdasmnbiwe)

“Myth No. 1: The “war on women” consists of tyrannical men arrayed against oppressed but pluckily united women.

In the first place, womankind, bless her fickle heart, is not exactly united on…anything.”

This article is so unbelievably patronizing and condescending and wrong…my fickle, womanly heart just had a rage stroke. And it does not care for your blessings either, Mary Eberstadt. 

bitchesguidetoetiquette:

bemusedlybespectacled:

This is hormonal birth control.

As you can see on the box, you take exactly one pill per day. To make sure it works, you need to take one pill every day at the same time, or it stops working. You take only one pill, and you keep taking them regardless of what you are doing that day.

Hormonal birth control can be used to treat a lot of different diseases, like anemia caused by excessive menstruation. It is a prescription medication that can cost around $15-50 a month. Because it is a prescription medication, it should be covered by insurance, as it treats legitimate health problems.

This is Viagra.

It, too, can treat legitimate health problems like altitude sickness and pulmonary hypertension, but it is usually prescribed for erectile dysfunction. Unlike the Pill, Viagra is taken every time you want to have sex. A lot of health insurance companies cover Viagra, so it costs about as much as your co-pay.

This is a condom.

It is not a prescription medication, and has no health benefits (besides the prevention of STIs and pregnancy). Like Viagra, you must use one before you have sex: indeed, before each sex act. They cost about a dollar per condom.

This is Sandra Fluke.

She testified before a small, Democrat-led hearing after she was cut out of the actual birth control/insurance discussion. Her testimony was about a friend of hers who, because her insurance did not cover birth control, lost an ovary due to an ovarian cyst.

This somehow translates into “I, myself, personally, am having so much sex I can’t afford birth control, and so I want the government to pay for it.”

This is wrong for multiple reasons.

1. It was about a friend, not her. To say her testimony was about her personally is factually incorrect.
2. Sex had nothing to do with the testimony - her friend lost an ovary because of medical condition that was left untreated. A medical condition that was completely treatable, but wasn’t, because her insurance wouldn’t cover it. To say that her testimony was about her being “a slut” or “a prostitute” is factually incorrect.
3. Even if she was having loads of sex, she would still only have one pill a day, not one pill per sex act, so to say “I’m having so much sex I can’t afford birth control” is completely erroneous. The Pill is not Viagra or condoms. To say that she is such “a slut” that she constantly needs more pills is factually incorrect.
4. The current political debate is not “should the government pay for birth control?” The debate is “should insurance companies, that people and their employers pay for, on their own, be required to cover birth control?” To say that Sandra Fluke wants the government to pay for her birth control is factually incorrect.
5. Religious organizations do not want to have birth control covered by their insurance, even for employees not of their faith, even if their employees never actually use their insurance to cover birth control. By this logic, they should also not pay their employees, because they could use that money to pay for birth control out of pocket. To say that this issue is about religious freedom and not about women’s health is disingenuous, as Ms. Fluke’s testimony demonstrates.

Hopefully this makes things a little clearer.

Very helpful. Thanks, OP!

(via jane-ostentatious-deactivated20)

liberalsarecool:

President Barack Obama’s decision to require most employers to cover birth control and insurers to offer it at no cost has created a firestorm of controversy. But the central mandate—that most employers have to cover preventative care for women—has been law for over a decade. This point has been completely lost in the current controversy, as Republican presidential candidates and social conservatives claim that Obama has launched a war on religious liberty and the Catholic Church.

{…]

In December 2000, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that companies that provided prescription drugs to their employees but didn’t provide birth control were in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prevents discrimination on the basis of sex.

That opinion, which the George W. Bush administration did nothing to alter or withdraw when it took office the next month, is still in effect today.

think-progress:

A MAJOR WIN for women’s health!

WOW. This is fantastic news.

(via totorolas)