Skip to Navigation | Skip to Content

think4yourself

republicanidiots:

What would really protect her would be adequate funding to put more cops on the street, a health system that didn’t ask her to pay for her own Rape Kit, prisons that aren’t overcrowded with people who committed non-violent crimes,  and the funding of a national DNA research system to find this guy BEFORE he rapes her.  Unfortunately we can’t have those things because the military needs some new toys.

republicanidiots:

What would really protect her would be adequate funding to put more cops on the street, a health system that didn’t ask her to pay for her own Rape Kit, prisons that aren’t overcrowded with people who committed non-violent crimes,  and the funding of a national DNA research system to find this guy BEFORE he rapes her.  Unfortunately we can’t have those things because the military needs some new toys.

(Source: leftybegone)

pantslessprogressive:

Eight female state senators in Georgia walked out of the Senate chambers on Wednesday to protest two bills that hinder access to abortion and contraceptives. All eight female democratic senators left the chambers together after two bills they oppose passed the Republican-led Senate. From Atlanta’s WXIA, the legislation:
Prohibits state employees from using state health benefits to pay for abortions
Does not allow employees of private religious institutions to demand that their insurance policies pay for contraceptives
“We stood together to protest what we feel is absolutely a war on women here in Georgia and we want to sound the alert to Georgians,” said Sen. Nan Orrick.
Republican state senator Joshua McKoon said of the legislation, “What I would say is the war that’s being waged is on a religious minority in this country that has strong beliefs that are protected by the First Amendment.”
The bills now heads to the House, where both are expected to pass.
The senators who walked out: Sen. Gloria Butler, Sen. Gale Davenport, Sen. Nan Orrock, Sen. Freddie Powell Sims, Sen. Donzella James, Sen. Miriam Paris, Sen. Valencia Seay and Sen. Horacena Tate. Looks like I’ll be spending my Friday night emailing these senators to thank them for taking a stance on an incredibly important issue.
pantslessprogressive:

Eight female state senators in Georgia walked out of the Senate chambers on Wednesday to protest two bills that hinder access to abortion and contraceptives. All eight female democratic senators left the chambers together after two bills they oppose passed the Republican-led Senate. From Atlanta’s WXIA, the legislation:
Prohibits state employees from using state health benefits to pay for abortions
Does not allow employees of private religious institutions to demand that their insurance policies pay for contraceptives
“We stood together to protest what we feel is absolutely a war on women here in Georgia and we want to sound the alert to Georgians,” said Sen. Nan Orrick.
Republican state senator Joshua McKoon said of the legislation, “What I would say is the war that’s being waged is on a religious minority in this country that has strong beliefs that are protected by the First Amendment.”
The bills now heads to the House, where both are expected to pass.
The senators who walked out: Sen. Gloria Butler, Sen. Gale Davenport, Sen. Nan Orrock, Sen. Freddie Powell Sims, Sen. Donzella James, Sen. Miriam Paris, Sen. Valencia Seay and Sen. Horacena Tate. Looks like I’ll be spending my Friday night emailing these senators to thank them for taking a stance on an incredibly important issue.

pantslessprogressive:

Eight female state senators in Georgia walked out of the Senate chambers on Wednesday to protest two bills that hinder access to abortion and contraceptives. All eight female democratic senators left the chambers together after two bills they oppose passed the Republican-led Senate. From Atlanta’s WXIA, the legislation:

  • Prohibits state employees from using state health benefits to pay for abortions
  • Does not allow employees of private religious institutions to demand that their insurance policies pay for contraceptives

“We stood together to protest what we feel is absolutely a war on women here in Georgia and we want to sound the alert to Georgians,” said Sen. Nan Orrick.

Republican state senator Joshua McKoon said of the legislation, “What I would say is the war that’s being waged is on a religious minority in this country that has strong beliefs that are protected by the First Amendment.”

The bills now heads to the House, where both are expected to pass.

The senators who walked out: Sen. Gloria ButlerSen. Gale Davenport, Sen. Nan Orrock, Sen. Freddie Powell SimsSen. Donzella James, Sen. Miriam Paris, Sen. Valencia Seay and Sen. Horacena Tate. Looks like I’ll be spending my Friday night emailing these senators to thank them for taking a stance on an incredibly important issue.

(Source: pantslessprogressive)

pantslessprogressive:

On his “conscience” bill - The Blunt Amendment - Senator Roy Blunt (R-MO) said the following in a February press release:

This bill would just simply say that those health care providers don’t have to follow that mandate if it violates their faith principles. This is about the First Amendment. It’s about religious beliefs. It’s not about any one issue.

Except that it is about one issue: a woman’s choice.
It’s about her choice to follow her own principles, be those in faith or godless heathenism. It’s about her choice whether or not to use contraception based on those principles.
The Blunt Amendment tells me women should not be allowed to make that choice. Rather, the employer makes those health care decisions for the entire company based on his or her own moral compass. Keep in mind this amendment is applicable to any kind of health coverage and allows employers to opt out of coverage based on “their religious beliefs and moral conviction.”
From S.182:

[The Affordable Care Act] does not allow purchasers, plan sponsors, and other stakeholders with religious or moral objections to specific items or services to decline providing or obtaining coverage of such items or services, or allow health care providers with such objections to decline to provide them.
By creating new barriers to health insurance and causing the loss of existing insurance arrangements, these inflexible mandates in PPACA jeopardize the ability of individuals to exercise their rights of conscience and their ability to freely participate in the health insurance and health care marketplace.

I’m thoroughly entertained by legislative language like the sentence I bolded above. You’d think the Affordable Care Act forced employers to escort their female employees to the Abortionplex.
pantslessprogressive:

On his “conscience” bill - The Blunt Amendment - Senator Roy Blunt (R-MO) said the following in a February press release:

This bill would just simply say that those health care providers don’t have to follow that mandate if it violates their faith principles. This is about the First Amendment. It’s about religious beliefs. It’s not about any one issue.

Except that it is about one issue: a woman’s choice.
It’s about her choice to follow her own principles, be those in faith or godless heathenism. It’s about her choice whether or not to use contraception based on those principles.
The Blunt Amendment tells me women should not be allowed to make that choice. Rather, the employer makes those health care decisions for the entire company based on his or her own moral compass. Keep in mind this amendment is applicable to any kind of health coverage and allows employers to opt out of coverage based on “their religious beliefs and moral conviction.”
From S.182:

[The Affordable Care Act] does not allow purchasers, plan sponsors, and other stakeholders with religious or moral objections to specific items or services to decline providing or obtaining coverage of such items or services, or allow health care providers with such objections to decline to provide them.
By creating new barriers to health insurance and causing the loss of existing insurance arrangements, these inflexible mandates in PPACA jeopardize the ability of individuals to exercise their rights of conscience and their ability to freely participate in the health insurance and health care marketplace.

I’m thoroughly entertained by legislative language like the sentence I bolded above. You’d think the Affordable Care Act forced employers to escort their female employees to the Abortionplex.

pantslessprogressive:

On his “conscience” bill - The Blunt Amendment - Senator Roy Blunt (R-MO) said the following in a February press release:

This bill would just simply say that those health care providers don’t have to follow that mandate if it violates their faith principles. This is about the First Amendment. It’s about religious beliefs. It’s not about any one issue.

Except that it is about one issue: a woman’s choice.

It’s about her choice to follow her own principles, be those in faith or godless heathenism. It’s about her choice whether or not to use contraception based on those principles.

The Blunt Amendment tells me women should not be allowed to make that choice. Rather, the employer makes those health care decisions for the entire company based on his or her own moral compass. Keep in mind this amendment is applicable to any kind of health coverage and allows employers to opt out of coverage based on “their religious beliefs and moral conviction.”

From S.182:

[The Affordable Care Act] does not allow purchasers, plan sponsors, and other stakeholders with religious or moral objections to specific items or services to decline providing or obtaining coverage of such items or services, or allow health care providers with such objections to decline to provide them.

By creating new barriers to health insurance and causing the loss of existing insurance arrangements, these inflexible mandates in PPACA jeopardize the ability of individuals to exercise their rights of conscience and their ability to freely participate in the health insurance and health care marketplace.

I’m thoroughly entertained by legislative language like the sentence I bolded above. You’d think the Affordable Care Act forced employers to escort their female employees to the Abortionplex.

(Source: pantslessprogressive)

feminismisprettycool:

David Frum: Why the Birth Control Issue Stings

theworldisconfused:

Right now, hundreds of thousands of young Americans are using birth control to delay pregnancies they want, but feel they cannot currently afford.

If this poll is correct, almost one-third of young Americans have delayed starting a family because of the bad economy.

Think about how last night’s debate sounded from the point of view of such people.

They are starting their careers in the worst economy since the Great Depression. Even when recovery comes, they face narrowing life prospects in an economy where more and more of the rewards are taken by fewer and fewer hands. The party on display on the stage in Mesa proposes that most of the burden of fiscal adjustment fall on their generation—while exempting the more fortunate generations now over 55. And as they try to cope responsibly with these harsh circumstances by postponing fertility, they hear one of our two great parties debating whether they are doing something morally objectionable—and nobody raising a sympathetic voice on their behalf or expressing any understanding or even acknowledgement of their situation.

Remember that saying about voters do not care what you know, until they know that you care? When the GOP candidates talk about contraception, they need to remember to signal that they understand and care about the difficulties of the young people—and especially the young women—who use that contraception, for reasons important to them, in an economy that prevents so many of them from making the choices they most want to make.

(via seriouslyamerica)

The Obama administration, seeking to rein in a runaway political furor over birth control and religious liberty, is set to announce a possible compromise on Friday that is meant to calm ire from the right about a new administration rule that would require health insurance plans — including those offered by Roman Catholic hospitals, universities and charities — to offer free birth control to female employees.

Administration officials called the expected announcement an “accommodation” that they said sought to demonstrate respect for religious beliefs. It will be similar to the path taken in several other states — particularly Hawaii — that have similar rules.

But administration officials also acknowledged that it would likely not mollify the Catholic bishops who have waged war against the rule or, for that matter, Congressional Republicans and candidates on the presidential campaign trail who have joined the fight. At most, the compromise could potentially help President Obama shore up support among wavering Democrats, who have also expressed doubt about the rule, along with more liberal religious organizations and charities, who oppose the rule but not as vehemently as the Catholic leadership.

bebinn:

URGENT: SIGN THE PETITION SUPPORTING OBAMA’S DECISION ON CONTRACEPTION WITH NO CO-PAYS

prolongedeyecontact:

From an email from NARAL:

The new policy that will cover women’s birth-control coverage is under attack from all sides.

Anti-choice groups have collected more than 20,000 signatures on a petition calling on the White House to rescind the policy.

The Obama administration is standing strong, but we need to make sure they hear from us.

Sign our petition to support no-cost birth control today!

_______________________________________________________________

The attack on women’s access to no-cost birth control just went up a very big notch.

Anti-choice groups are fast collecting signatures on a petition on the White House website calling on the administration to rescind its new birth-control coverage policy.

The White House has committed to responding to every petition that collects 25,000 signatures, and our opponents are close to reaching this number.

Help us counter their anti-contraception petition. We started our own petition, expressing support for every woman’s right to get her contraception covered.

Please add your name to our petition on the White House “We The People” website to show that pro-choice support far outnumbers opposition.

Here’s how it works. Please note that you will need to create an account on WhiteHouse.gov.

1. Go to our petition: https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions/!/petition/stand-strong-support-new-no-cost-birth-control-policy/HM8jg7Y4

2. Sign in if you already have an account. If you don’t have an account already, click “Create an Account” and fill out your information.

3. Check your email. Look for an email with the subject line “Almost done! Verify your WhiteHouse.gov account.” Click the link in that email to verify your account and sign in. It may takes a few minutes to receive this email.

4. Click “Sign This Petition.”

5. You’ve signed it! You can use the links on the next screen to share the petition with your friends on Facebook, Twitter, or email.

What we’re seeing is a coordinated effort to deny women coverage for basic family-planning services. Last week, the Susan G. Komen Foundation decided to discontinue providing grant money for cancer screenings at Planned Parenthood. Now, anti-contraception forces have launched a multi-million dollar campaign to overturn the new no-cost birth control policy. 

The good news is that – as you know – pro-choice Americans like you pulled together and convinced Komen to reverse course. You made that victory possible. We must continue to work together and defeat this next attempt to take away women’s birth-control coverage.

Thank you so much for adding your name

Nancy Keenan

Nancy Keenan
President, NARAL Pro-Choice America

[Obviously not just women use the forms of contraception covered and not just women are being affected by antichoice groups trying to rescind access to important contraception coverage with no copays.]

(via girlwithalessonplan)

The Men Behind The War On Women

bebinn:

The Conference of Catholic Bishops is not technically a lobbying organization — churches are tax-exempt, and they don’t have to disclose publicly how much money they put toward lobbying. According to the IRS, a 501(c)(3) organization like the Conference can speak out on moral issues as much as it wants, but “may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities.” […]

[However,] the bishops were not only influential in swaying votes during health care reform debate; [Richard] Doerflinger said they actually helped Reps. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) and Joe Pitts (R-Pa.) write the controversial anti-abortion amendment, which the House approved by a vote of 290 to 194.

“Those bishops were literally sitting in Bart Stupak’s office and, from what we could tell, instructing him all about the laws he should be supporting, and the text of the laws, and the strategy of getting them through,” said Terry O’Neill, the president of the National Organization for Women. “It was absolutely appalling.”

The National Organization for Women has called for the bishops conference to lose its tax-exempt status over its lobbying activities[…]

“The bishops are entirely out of sync with the people they purport to represent,” said Donna Crane, NARAL’s policy director. “All the polling and public opinion research is very clear: Catholics are majority pro-choice. They hold that belief, they use the services and they just aren’t in agreement with the hierarchy on these issues.” […]

O’Neill finds it troubling that a group of men that has historically denied women the opportunity to participate in leadership positions is exercising so much power over such a broad range of women’s reproductive health legislation.

“Clearly there’s a problem when men take such an interest in the sexual function of women,” she said. “There’s something deeply off about it.”

As always, it is important to recognize that women are not the only ones who can get pregnant, and that in many ways, those who do not identify as women, yet can get pregnant, are in even more danger from the Conference and their political allies.

(via seriouslyamerica)

partyprofessor:

This is pretty disgusting.

“A medical problem versus a choice to have sex”; because when men have sex (that’s what Viagra is specifically for, assisting men in having sex, not solely a medical problem apart from sex) it’s not a choice, but if women need birth control, they could just choose abstinence. So why can’t men with sexual dysfunction choose abstinence? 

(Source: lunagemme)

pantslessprogressive:

Rep. Steve King (R-IA), on the recent decision to cover birth control with no co-pay: They’ve called it preventative medicine. Preventative medicine. Well if you applied that preventative medicine universally what you end up with is you’ve prevented a generation. Preventing babies from being born is not medicine. That’s not— that’s not constructive to our culture and our civilization. If we let our birth rate get down below replacement rate we’re a dying civilization.

Shut the fuck up King, I’m glad you won’t be representing my hometown after 2012

(Source: thinkprogress.org, via pantslessprogressive)