stfuconservatives:

CC: everyone who says “wahhhhh i don’t want to pay for your birth control”

occupyallstreets:

Arizona Law Will Allow Employers to Fire Women for Using Birth Control
A proposed new law in Arizona would give employers the power to request that women being prescribed birth control pills provide proof that they’re using it for non-sexual reasons. And because Arizona’s an at-will employment state, that means that bosses critical of their female employees’ sex lives could fire them as a result. If we could harness the power of the crappy ideas coming out of the state of Arizona, we could probably power a rocket ship to the moon, where there are no Mexicans or fertile wombs and everyone can be free to be as mean a cranky asshole as they want at all times! Arizona Heaven!
Yesterday, a Senate Judiciary Committee endorsed Republican Debbie Lesko’s HB2625 by a vote of 6-2, which would allow an employer to request proof that a woman using insurance to buy birth control was being prescribed the birth control for reasons other than not wanting to get pregnant.
It’s all about freedom, she said, echoing everyone who thinks there’s nothing ironic about claiming that a country that’s “free” allows people’s bosses to dictate what medical care is available to them through insurance. First amendment. The constitution. Rights of religious people to practice the treasured tenets of their faiths, the tenets that dictate that religious people get to tell everyone who is not of faith how they’re supposed to live, and the freedom to have that faith enforced by law. Freedom®.
Further, Lesko states, with a straight face, that this bill is necessary because

“we live in America; we don’t live in the Soviet Union.”

Ah, yes, the Soviet Union. The sort of place where a woman might think about getting birth control through an insurance plan to which she contributes premiums without having to show her boss her prescription in order to prove that she wasn’t using it to not get pregnant. The Soviet Union. A hellscape where women don’t run the risk of losing their jobs over their sexual practices. What a horrible, awful place where herds of sluts run wild like feral ponies, humping everything in sight. The nightmare of unwilling motherhood evaded is a constant spectre in The Motherland.
Anyway, this bill probably won’t get anywhere (but we shouldn’t underestimate Arizona’s bigotry); it violates all sorts of privacy laws and I can’t imagine that female citizens of Arizona would be in favor of having their rights further legislated away by a chamber of mostly dudes trying to win votes from Team Jerk Version of Jesus. But that doesn’t make it any less depressing. In fact, it’s almost depressing enough to make a lady consider building a time machine so that she can take it back to 1985 and find some job security in the Soviet Union.
Source

Okay, wtf Arizona? You’re becoming what the Deep South used to be..

occupyallstreets:

Arizona Law Will Allow Employers to Fire Women for Using Birth Control

A proposed new law in Arizona would give employers the power to request that women being prescribed birth control pills provide proof that they’re using it for non-sexual reasons. And because Arizona’s an at-will employment state, that means that bosses critical of their female employees’ sex lives could fire them as a result. If we could harness the power of the crappy ideas coming out of the state of Arizona, we could probably power a rocket ship to the moon, where there are no Mexicans or fertile wombs and everyone can be free to be as mean a cranky asshole as they want at all times! Arizona Heaven!

Yesterday, a Senate Judiciary Committee endorsed Republican Debbie Lesko’s HB2625 by a vote of 6-2, which would allow an employer to request proof that a woman using insurance to buy birth control was being prescribed the birth control for reasons other than not wanting to get pregnant.

It’s all about freedom, she said, echoing everyone who thinks there’s nothing ironic about claiming that a country that’s “free” allows people’s bosses to dictate what medical care is available to them through insurance. First amendment. The constitution. Rights of religious people to practice the treasured tenets of their faiths, the tenets that dictate that religious people get to tell everyone who is not of faith how they’re supposed to live, and the freedom to have that faith enforced by law. Freedom®.

Further, Lesko states, with a straight face, that this bill is necessary because

we live in America; we don’t live in the Soviet Union.

Ah, yes, the Soviet Union. The sort of place where a woman might think about getting birth control through an insurance plan to which she contributes premiums without having to show her boss her prescription in order to prove that she wasn’t using it to not get pregnant. The Soviet Union. A hellscape where women don’t run the risk of losing their jobs over their sexual practices. What a horrible, awful place where herds of sluts run wild like feral ponies, humping everything in sight. The nightmare of unwilling motherhood evaded is a constant spectre in The Motherland.

Anyway, this bill probably won’t get anywhere (but we shouldn’t underestimate Arizona’s bigotry); it violates all sorts of privacy laws and I can’t imagine that female citizens of Arizona would be in favor of having their rights further legislated away by a chamber of mostly dudes trying to win votes from Team Jerk Version of Jesus. But that doesn’t make it any less depressing. In fact, it’s almost depressing enough to make a lady consider building a time machine so that she can take it back to 1985 and find some job security in the Soviet Union.

Source

Okay, wtf Arizona? You’re becoming what the Deep South used to be..

(via masonthegrey-deactivated2013121)

tehsunshine:

thisgingersnapsback:

“I’m sorry, but nobody has, of yet, proven to me how making something illegal will increase the rates. I don’t see this simple logic nor have I seen statistical logic to back your statement.”

—littlemisspolitical, when confronted with the argument that making abortions illegal will in fact cause an increase in the procedure, thus proving that the pro-life movement is nothing but anti-woman and anti-sex. The last thing it is truly about is being anti-abortion—otherwise, the facts would speak for themselves, and they would listen.

All rightie, right now I’m about to give you some straight up facts, mmkay? And if you want to ignore them and ignore this post and ignore what I’m going to say to you here, then you’re nothing but a filthy hypocrite. You know, the one who said “It’s a shame people won’t look at the facts when they’re in front of their face.”? Yeah.

So let’s get started.

We’re not going to argue whether or not a fetus is a human, we’re not going to argue whether or not it is alive, because neither of these things matter. A person’s right to their own body is of the utmost importance and absolutely nothing else has the right to another person’s body without their express consent. If the pregnancy is taken to term, then wonderful—this was (optimistically) consensual. If the pregnancy is terminated, then it is unfortunate that the individual in question needed to undergo the procedure of abortion, but the fact that it was still an option which provided that individual with the right to control what their body does and what their body doesn’t do is also wonderful, and you are cruel to consider it anything else.

But facts, facts, facts. You keep crying for facts, so let’s see how you react to them. I noticed that despite the fact that the image of the illegal abortion you reblogged a week or so ago was proven to not be the product of abortion as it is generally regulated and practiced, you gave no proof that you even acknowledged the rebuttal’s existence—so, needless to say, your track record in regards to accepting facts when they are brought to your attention is dismal at best, but hey, let’s give it a try.

Now, I’m going to be drawing my facts from the well-known Guttmacher Institute—but before you attempt to destroy my evidence based on my source, let’s provide a bit of a history lesson. Initially, yes, the Institute was initially introduced within the corporate structure of Planned Parenthood as the Center for Family Planning Program Development. However, the program was independently developed and overseen by the National Advisory Council. Later, the Center was renamed after Dr. Guttmacher, who early-on nurtured the Center, and was renamed the Guttmacher Institute, and operates as an entirely independent nonprofit policy research institute with it’s own board.

While multiple biased anti-choice sources will tell you otherwise, and attempt to claim that the Guttmacher Institute is in the pocket of Planned Parenthood, this is an outright lie, a slanderous attempt to vilify reliable and reputable sources for unbiased information regarding abortions worldwide, simply because the facts speak in favour of keeping abortions legal because otherwise, the cost is much greater.

Which brings us to what you have requested—facts that making “something” illegal increases the likelihood of it to happen. We’ll get to those pesky things you anti-choicers hate so much, you know, the facts, but for a second, let’s take a look at what we’ve been witnessing here in the U.S. on our own, and use our critical-thinking skills to analyze why this has even the potential to be true—that the stricter conditions set on abortions leading up to it’s illegality has a very high chance of producing more abortions.

In recent years we have witnessed a devestating and drastic war on women. Our rights to our body have been the subject of political debate, even though the politics of the matter were settled years ago. Ranging from limitations and regulations on abortions, such as requiring ultrasounds or enforcing extended waiting periods that pushed many women into a later trimester, thus effectively rising the cost of the procedure and even potentially making the procedure illegal for her, depending on the laws regarding late-term abortions.

This was awful enough. And for a while, the anti-choice movement had us convinced that the issue with them was honest and truly a matter of abortions. Which could easily be combated with scientific fact and evidence, but obviously this hasn’t happened. Now we’ve seen fights about our access to the most fundamental requirement in keeping down the rate of unintended pregnancies—birth control!

It is not a leap to suggest or believe that this is the basic motivation behind the anti-choice movement—one that prevents people from enjoying sex “consequence-free.” (Although the concept of a child being a consequence ought to unsettle you at least a little bit, but alas, you are the ones toting around deeply offensive pictures of miscarriages, wishing death or rape upon clinic escorts and abortion providers, and even bombing and murdering clinics and providers, so I suppose by now being unsettled is impossible.) If birth control would (and does) help the rate of unintended pregnancies—the cause of abortions—and thus reduce the rate of abortions, why on earth so adamantly fight against it?

Because, quite simply, anti-choicers don’t want people to have the right to their own body. They don’t want consequence-free lives, they want punishment and “justice” for any “wrong-doings” in their self-righteous eyes.

So, by assuming that an all-out ban on abortions in other countries where the rate of abortions are higher, it’s safe to assume that access to affordable birth control for women is virtually non-existant. Thus, it’s safe to assume that there will be more unintended pregnancies and if you’ve been following along yes!—more abortions!

But let’s look at these pesky facts, now. I’m going to copy-paste (and direct you back to the reading material) the facts which will effectively blow your “making it illegal doesn’t make it increase” argument out of the water.

-Highly restrictive abortion laws are not associated with lower abortion rates. For example, the abortion rate is 29 per 1,000 women of childbearing age in Africa and 32 per 1,000 in Latin America—regions in which abortion is illegal under most circumstances in the majority of countries. The rate is 12 per 1,000 in Western Europe, where abortion is generally permitted on broad grounds.

-Where abortion is permitted on broad legal grounds, it is generally safe, and where it is highly restricted, it is typically unsafe. In developing countries, relatively liberal abortion laws are associated with fewer negative health consequences from unsafe abortion than are highly restrictive laws.

These ought to be enough to quench your thirst for knowledge, as it is effectively proven that the legality of the procedure only affects the rate of its occurance by increasing it. Simply because abortions are not legal does not mean that they do not happen. But, gasp! What does this mean? If the government is telling everyone what to do with their bodies, then gosh, how are these abortions happening?

They are called illegal abortions, and they happen far more often than you would like to worry yourself over. Illegal abortions create numerous complications, and even death.  The estimated annual number of deaths from unsafe abortion declined from 56,000 in 2003 to 47,000 in 2008. Complications from unsafe abortion accounted for an estimated 13% of all maternal deaths worldwide in both years.  In the United States, legal induced abortion results in 0.6 deaths per 100,000 procedures. Worldwide, unsafe abortion accounts for a death rate that is 350 times higher (220 per 100,000), and, in Sub-Saharan Africa, the rate is 800 times higher, at 460 per 100,000. Unsafe abortion is a significant cause of ill-health among women in the developing world. Estimates for 2005 indicate that 8.5 million women annually experience complications from unsafe abortion that require medical attention, and three million do not receive the care they need.

So, instead of debating over the fetus’ rights, which you must admit is arguable, otherwise it wouldn’t be an argument at all, why not look at a horror that you can not argue if you are truly pro-life. Women are dying. People are dying. They are hurting, they are in agony, and they will still seek out these procedures regardless of your opinion, religion, or personal god, because whether you want to admit it or not, this is a procedure that is highly demanded. You don’t have to understand why to understand that keeping them unsafe is a problem.

To keep abortion rates low, however much it might turn your stomach to consider the possibility of the rates even existing (legally, that is) you must see reason and accept that the procedure must be kept legal. There is plenty of logical evidence backing this up, and plenty of hard, concrete evidence proving that if you make the procedure illegal, it will only increase, and more people will die.

But hey, cognitive dissonance has really worked out well with you so far, so while I might think it’s awfully hypocritical of you to encourage a ban that would kill and maim hundreds of thousands and still consider yourself pro-life, I guess there must be some kind of trick to it, right?

So there. There’s your fucking debate.

Come back at me, “I dare you,” sweetheart.

I encourage you to do your own goddamn research from time to time instead of just listening to what the latest catholic or conservative figurehead is spouting this week, mmkay?

I’m just going to leave this here.

(via dippingstickssunshine)