Sen. Johnson’s Advice To Women Who Can’t Afford Contraception: Google ‘What If I Can’t Afford Birth Control?’
MILWAUKEE, Wisconsin — A Tea Party senator had a curious piece of advice for the millions of women across the country who can’t afford contraception coverage: go online and Google how to get birth control.
ThinkProgress spoke with freshman Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) about the matter this weekend at the Americans For Prosperity’s Defending the American Dream Summit in Milwaukee. Johnson has been vociferous in his attacks on the new regulation that requires insurance companies to cover birth control.
Given his opposition, we asked the Wisconsin senator what advice he would have for women in the country who can’t afford the cost of contraception. (A recent survey found one in three American women voters have struggled with to afford birth control.) Johnson’s advice: go online and type in, “what if I can’t afford birth control?” “If you can’t afford it, you can get birth control in this country,” Johnson explained. When we asked for clarification, he said, “You can get it. Go online, type it in. It’s easy to get.”
KEYES: What do we say to the millions of women who can’t afford access to birth control?
JOHNSON: My wife actually went online here in Wisconsin and typed in, “what if I can’t afford birth control?” Came up, bam. If you can’t afford it, you can get birth control in this country. That’s a straw-dog argument. There’s no conservative who’s trying to deny women health care or contraceptives. We’re just saying this is an issue of religious freedom. […]
KEYES: What do you mean, “if you can’t afford it you can get it?”
JOHNSON: You can get it. Go online, type it in. It’s easy to get.
Watch it:
ThinkProgress went online and Googled “what if I can’t afford birth control?” The very first link explained that the entire process, from the initial exam to a follow-up to the pills themselves, can cost upwards of $210 the first month. The rest of the first-page results included two sites informing women that if they can’t afford contraceptives, “don’t have sex,” four sites attacking Georgetown Law student Sandra Fluke, and one site explaining how birth control is a lot more expensive than many believe.
Straw-dog argument? Is that kind of like when Republicans pretend something is an issue of religious freedom when it’s most certainly not, and they use straw-man arguments about the first amendment as dog whistles to provoke indignation in their extremist base?
*People that need and want contraception, not just cis women.
*These antichoice bills affect everyone who can get pregnant, not just cis women.
This is a video of TX state rep Dawnna Dukes, whom I once featured on this site. She spoke last night at the Planned Parenthood rally in Austin.
I really can’t explain in words how much I love this video. My soul was stirred hearing it live. I just wanted to kiss her on the mouth when it was over. And watching it again today, I feel pumped. I want to make it the first thing I hear when my alarm goes off in the morning to get me going. I want to watch it on a loop. I want to make it my ring tone.
[NB: Today the new rule goes into effect and the state of TX turns down MILLIONS in federal funding, nearly ruining the Medicaid Women’s Health Program here in Texas. Over 130K low-income Texans will be hurt by this decision by state legislators and our governor. And while it will mainly affect cis women, they will not be the only people hurt by this decision.]
(Source: keepyourbsoutofmyuterus)
A high risk pregnancy brings fear to the hearts of most couples. When a doctor tells a woman that her unborn child’s brain is not forming or that an organ has grown outside the fetus, there is a time of somber reflection and gut-wrenching contemplation.
Republican lawmaker Terry England is not like most people. Instead, this scenario makes him think of cows, pigs and chickens.
While debating Rep. Doug McKillip’s House Bill 954 on the floor of the General Assembly, Rep. England wistfully remembered the many stillborn calves and piglets he’s delivered on the farm. This difficult time for parents also reminded Rep. England of a constituent who once opposed a cock-fighting bill.
Rep. England has shown his ignorance on this important issue. He’s also shown why Georgia’s lawmakers should leave important medical decisions to a woman and her doctor. (source)
*Pregnant people, not just cis women.
good:
Our associate editor Nona Willis Aronowitz was on the new Melissa Harris-Perry show on MSNBC this weekend talking identity politics. In the above clip, she reps for all the secularists out there who’ve been irked by the GOP’s “religious freedom” rhetoric. She asks, “What about secular freedom?…What about those of us who don’t want to be governed by religion?”
Later in the show, Nona got nerdy on affirmative action and called out Obama for playing the daddy card.
President of Planned Parenthood, Cecile Richards on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
ETA: Their convo is cis-centric, but these issues affect all people that use contraception or need abortions.
Birth Control Debate: New Hampshire Lawmakers Pass Repeal Of Contraception Coverage
Saying it would reduce health insurance costs, the Tea Party-controlled New Hampshire House of Representatives passed a bill Wednesday afternoon to repeal the state mandate for employers to provide insurance coverage for contraception.
The House vote tacked an amendment to a seemingly minor bill related to the governance of religious societies to allow for employers to opt-out of the state mandate for contraception coverage if the employer has a religious objection to contraception. The amendment — which was sponsored by the House’s GOP leadership — is being called a way to reduce health insurance costs for Granite State businesses.
“It is not about whether insurers choose to offer coverage for these services in their policies. This stands up for our religious institutions that have long-held principles and teachings under assault and for their religious liberties,” Deputy House Speaker Pamela Tucker (R-Greenland) said in a statement. “Imposing anti-religious regulations on churches achieves no reduction of costs or availability of services, it only serves to please those pushing a political agenda.”
“Health insurance costs in New Hampshire are increasing at dramatic rates. New Hampshire businesses are seeing 60 percent premium increases. A considerable portion of those increases can be chalked up to state health insurance mandates implemented during the prior four years’ Democrat legislatures and those need to be repealed.”
Tucker stressed that the amendment was not to debate the merits of contraception, but rather to discuss the mandate in terms of religious organizations. The wording of the amendment extends to all businesses in the state.
The amendment was not entirely surprising as Republican legislators have been discussing bringing up a way to end the 12-year-old law since last month. The New Hampshire House has been discussing the topic in relation to President Barack Obama’s policy to require religious organizations to provide contraception coverage for employees.
During a discussion over a resolution opposing the Obama plan, one GOP lawmaker said that birth control pills cause prostate cancer, while another proposed that married couples practice abstinence unless they are trying to conceive a child.
House Majority Leader D.J. Bettencourt (R-Salem) said in a statement that the topic came up in the context of the federal health care reform law and a need for the state to promote “religious tolerance.”
“This bill has sent a clear message that here in New Hampshire we value our citizens and employers right to religious liberties. New Hampshire has a long and proud history of religious tolerance, and with the passage of this bill we will continue to support and preserve that proud history.”
Democrats immediately denounced the measure, noting that it would allow employers to decide medical care. Legislative Democrats were quick to point out that the mandate originally passed in 2000 under a Republican-controlled Legislature with the signature of then Gov. Jeanne Shaheen (D).
“My Republicans colleagues are using the banner of religious freedom as a way to mask their blatant attacks on women’s health rights,” state Rep. Chris Serlin (D-Portsmouth) said in a statement. “No entity or individual faces a restriction of their religious liberty under current insurance law. This bill would prevent women from making their own decisions about contraception.”
The bill now moves to the state’s GOP-controlled Senate, where it is expected to be considered in April. It is unclear if the Senate will follow the House in passage. Gov. John Lynch (D) is expected to veto the measure. While today’s House vote does not have enough votes to override a Lynch veto — with 59 GOP lawmakers voting against the measure, the House has had history of vote switching to override a Lynch veto.
“I never thought that in 2012 the New Hampshire Legislature would be debating the use of contraceptives. This issue is settled for Granite Staters,” House Minority Leader Terie Norelli (D-Portsmouth) said in a statement.
“This out of touch agenda only goes to show that House Republicans are focused like a laser on social issues while jobs and the economy are left on the back burner. Unfortunately, this has been the story at the State House for the past fourteen months. Bills that would be laughed out of any living room in New Hampshire have strong support among Republicans in the State House.”
_________________________________________________
*people that use contraception or can get pregnant, not just cis women.
Because unintended pregnancies are just so darn cheap! With all the bills NH has been proposing lately I feel pretty certain that the state has officially become VT’s evil twin. I’m thinking wealthy Vermonters should start sponsoring people from the ‘Shire to come live with us…
TW: CISSEXISM and BINARISM from both right-wing and liberal media
So, it appears after Rush’s non-apology was rightfully dismissed by Sandra Fluke and Patricia Heaton came back to twitter with her own non-apology and Limbaugh’s advertisers are still continuing to drop him like flies, conservatives are going to take a different route towards discrediting Fluke. And it’s pretty fucking tasteless. Apparently it’s super controversial that Fluke co-edited an article that gasp! called for equal treatment of transgender employees and suggested that healthcare such as surgeries, mental health care, and hormones should be gasp! covered by their insurance. This obviously proves she’s part of a radical, liberal conspiracy meant to deceive the public into subsidizing all kinds of unsavory, immoral things.
This story apparently broke yesterday afternoon but I’m not hearing about it until today at 4am. I have a feeling that this is going to catch like wildfire and be handled with all the usual sensitivity and consideration Faux News can muster. And despite how on top of the sexism angle of the Sandra Fluke story the liberal media was (though utterly lacking in intersectionality or race issues), even they will fuck it up when it comes to this new trans* angle (and still, of course, fail on issues of race). I think it’s going to be pretty apparent very quickly how trans* healthcare issues are deemed cosmetic or elective, and how hard it is for us to navigate the stereotypes and cissexism that surrounds us when we want to access healthcare. Since this is coming up in the context of a reproductive rights/justice debate perhaps cis feminists/activists will think twice before dismissing the concerns of the trans* community on issues that can be life and death for us. Or, you know, maybe they’ll do what they always do.
___________________________________________________________________
Equality Matters reporting on the story [handled pretty well]:
“Right-Wing Media Now Attacking Fluke For Non-Controversial Review Of LGBT Employment Discrimination”
After spending most of the past week defending Rush Limbaugh’s misogynistic attacks on Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke, right-wing media outlets are now attacking Fluke for a 2011 paper she co-edited for The Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law (the full essay is behind a paywall) that described discrimination in employer coverage of transgender medical care.
The essay, titled, “Employment Discrimination Against LGBTQ Persons,” pointed out, in part, that employment discrimination persists against LGBT individuals, including coverage discrimination against transgender people:
Many LGBTQ individuals face discrimination in the provision of employment benefits. Discrimination typically takes two forms: first, direct discrimination limiting access to benefits specifically needed by LGBTQ persons, and secondly, the unavailability of family-related benefits to LGBTQ families.
[…]
Transgender persons wishing to undergo the gender reassignment process frequently face heterosexist employer health insurance policies that label the surgery as cosmetic or medically unnecessary and therefore uncovered.
The conservative Media Research Center’s Stephen Gutowski “discovered” the essay on March 5 and claimed it demonstrated that Fluke “is being sold by the left as something she’s not. Namely a random co-ed from Georgetown law who found herself mixed up in the latest front of the culture war who was simply looking to make sure needy women had access to birth control.” Gutowski claimed Fluke is “pushing some rather radical ideas. Keep that in mind as the left holds her up in the spotlight”:
You see, all opposition to the determination that sex changes are medically necessary, and therefor [sic] must be covered by private employer provided health insurance, is based on “ignorance and bias against transgender persons”.
[…]
The argument made in this article edited by Sandra Fluke and Karen Hu is quite clear. “Gender reassignment” is a medically necessary set of procedures that must be covered under employee provided health insurance policies. If it is not covered by those policies that is tantamount to discrimination and legal action should be taken against the employer.
So, as you can see, Sandra Fluke is not what she is being sold as. Instead she is a liberal activist pushing some rather radical ideas. Keep that in mind as the left holds her up in the spotlight.
The MRC post was quickly promoted by right-wing media outlets, including the Drudge Report and Fox Nation:
And Fox News contributor Laura Ingraham brought the attack to Fox during this morning’s Fox & Friends:
INGRAHAM: Now we find out there was a law journal article written by this particular woman that seems to indicate that she believes that if you don’t pay for sex change operations, gender reassignment, it’s called – operations — you also could be described as a discriminatory employer. So today the pill. Tomorrow sex reassignment surgery, perhaps. And then down the road, what other things should be covered for free?
Fluke’s essay is a fairly comprehensive study of various types of employment discrimination against LGBT individuals but, ironically, the one charge that Gutowski chose to highlight as an example of the “radical ideas” that Fluke is “pushing” is not controversial at all.
The LGBT and HIV/AIDS legal advocacy group Lambda Legal has pointed out that the importance of removing financial barriers to gender reassignment is supported by mainstream, nonpartisan groups such as the American Medical Association, the American Public Health Association, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and other medical groups. The statement from the American Medical Association reads:
An established body of medical research demonstrates the effectiveness and medical necessity of mental health care, hormone therapy and sex reassignment surgery as forms of therapeutic treatment for many people diagnosed with GID … Therefore, be it RESOLVED, that the AMA supports public and private health insurance coverage for treatment of gender identity disorder.
Moreover, many companies are already covering the cost of gender reassignment surgery. The Associated Press noted in a December 2011 article that a Human Rights Campaign report found that the number of U.S. companies offering coverage more than doubled in the past year:
The Human Rights Campaign said in a report to be published Thursday that 207 of the 636 businesses it surveyed for its annual Corporate Equality Index either are already providing transgender-inclusive employee health benefits or plan to at the start of the new year.
Last year, 85 companies had insurance plans that paid for sex transformation surgeries, and only 49 did in 2009. A decade ago, when the campaign launched the index, none did.
[…]
Among the corporations that expanded their insurance coverage this year are Apple, Chevron, General Mills, Dow Chemical, American Airlines, Kellogg, Sprint, Levi Strauss, Eli Lilly, Best Buy, Nordstrom, the U.S. division of Volkswagen, Whirlpool, Xerox, Raytheon and Office Depot.
The suggestion that Fluke’s description of discrimination in employer coverage of transgender medical care is somehow extreme or outside the mainstream is simply inaccurate.
_______________________________________________________
ThinkProgress reporting on the story [handled not that well, imo]:
“How Contraception And Sexual Reassignment Surgery Benefits Create Equity In Health Care”
Seeking further opportunities to demonize Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke, conservatives are now attacking her as “radical” because she has advocated for transgender people to have sexual reassignment procedures covered by their insurance:
However, as I discovered today, birth control is not all that Ms. Fluke believes private health insurance must cover. She also, apparently, believes that it is discrimination deserving of legal action if “gender reassignment” surgeries are not covered by employer provided health insurance.
What seems to be lost in these conversations about health benefits is the notion of equity. Criticism that men are trying to make decisions about women’s health is warranted, because a man’s standard for quality of life is different than a woman’s. Consider that men can have as much sex as they want without getting pregnant. It’s a reality of biology, but it also represents a specific advantage men have over women in society. Ensuring women have access to birth control — setting aside the legitimate point that they may take it for health reasons other than avoiding pregnancy — levels the playing field for how they can function in society. It’s no coincidence that women can be condemned as “sluts,” but there’s no comparable word that disparages men for having sex if they want to.
Similarly, sexual reassignment surgery is a procedure that can benefit the quality of life for transgender people. All of us who are not trans (the term for us is “cisgender”) have the privilege of occupying bodies that match the gender with which we identify. Fluke was speaking out against insurers and employers who would label the surgery “cosmetic” or “medically unnecessary,” because such perspectives ignore the hardships transgender people often face when circumstances prevent them from transitioning. Just because we personally don’t need certain medical benefits doesn’t mean others don’t.
This is why there is some legitimacy to the claim that conservatives are fighting a “war on women.” Dictating that “what’s good enough for a man should be good enough for a woman” is selfish and naive, and such a philosophy treats women as second-class citizens by design. That many conservatives are now trying to smear Fluke for being an ally to the transgender community just shows how uninterested they are in respecting difference.
The social justice educator Vernon Wall is often quoted as saying, “Equality is when everyone has a pair of shoes. Equity is when everyone has a pair of shoes that fits.” There’s nothing “radical” about ensuring that all people have equitable access to the same quality of living in our society.
Woah. Just watch. Sickkkk sickkkk sickkk….. This is messed up.
Dammit, anti-choicers, do your homework. HYDE AMENDMENT.
Also, that federal funding is for family planning not abortion, and it helps prevent 1.94 million unintended pregnancies and 810,000 abortions every year. Facts are so hard, though.
Oh, and I like all the “k’s” on sick. Very subtle along with the black rabbit.
TW: antichoice VIOLENCE and TERRORISM
Kansas abortion provider needs bulletproof vest, briefings on how to spot a bomb
The above video of Rachel Maddow’s interview with Dr. Mila Means was from February 14th.
The threats continue, per the L.A. Times (a must-read):
A letter arrived from an antiabortion activist who befriended Scott Roeder, the man convicted of killing Tiller, after he went to prison.That letter, now in federal hands, warned Means to check under her yellow Mini Cooper for explosives before turning the key. […]
The pressure on Means was unrelenting. Her business manager quit, patients fled. A feminist group offered her a bulletproof vest. Law enforcement officials briefed her staff on how to spot a bomb.
Her landlord slapped her with a nuisance lawsuit, saying the protests disrupted other tenants. When Means tried to find another office, she said, no one would rent to her. […]
To this day she has not performed a single abortion. … “Radically insane people, if they want to kill you, they will,” she said. It’s the lawmakers who now prove to be her most daunting opponent. She says she doesn’t dare go forward now. So she waits.
She waits, and what’s even worse, her patients wait. But the problem is, they can’t afford to. Unfortunately, women can’t decelerate gestation.
___________________________________
*pregnant people, not just cis women.
And we’re the culture of death? Somehow that rings completely hollow coming out of the mouths of terrorists. If this country was really serious about capturing terrorists they’d stop spying on peaceful Muslims in their neighborhood mosques and focus on white, militant, Christian extremists like the people Operation Rescue support and protect. Vile, is what it is. And these Abolish Human Abortion posters that are all over tumblr—this is fostering the violent rhetoric that gets doctors assassinated. Every time you reblog that shit in agreement YOU are helping get people murdered. YOU are contributing to a culture of fear and intimidation.
Dr. Deborah Oyer provides straight-forward videos on abortion and contraception at her clinic [cis-centric]
Dr. Deborah Oyer, M.D. introduces herself:
Dr. Deborah Oyer, medical director of Aurora Medical Services, explains the basic differences between medical and surgical abortion procedures:
Dr. Deborah Oyer, medical director of Aurora Medical Services, explains the procedure of a medical abortion in detail:
Dr. Deborah Oyer, medical director of Aurora Medical Services, describes the procedure of a surgical abortion in detail:
Dr. Deborah Oyer, medical director of Aurora Medical Services, discusses the advantages and disadvantages of various methods of contraception. In this video: IUDs or Intra-Uterine Devices (ParaGard and Mirena) and Implanon:
Dr. Deborah Oyer, medical director of Aurora Medical Services, discusses the advantages and disadvantages of various methods of contraception. In this video: an introduction to contraception, barrier methods of contraception (condoms, diaphragms and cervical caps) and emergency contraception (Plan B):
Dr. Deborah Oyer, medical director of Aurora Medical Services, discusses the advantages and disadvantages of various methods of contraception. In this video: birth control pills, the vaginal ring (NuvaRing), the patch (Ortho Evra) and the shot (Depo-Provera):
These would be even better if they weren’t cis-centric. This information is really important to know, though. There is so much stigma and shame surrounding the procedures and the dedicated doctors who provide them, that making these videos must have taken a lot of courage. She has more than 100,000 combined views for her seven videos, so obviously people are eager for straight-forward information.
Laughing so we don’t cry. Also, NICK OFFERMAN (stick around all the way to the end just for his giggle).
[NB: More people than just cis women are affected by all this bullshit.]
Oh my god this is the best. It reminded me of this scene from Parks and Rec:
-so I was a little disappointed Nick Offerman didn’t triumphantly proclaim “Butthole!” again.
That’s okay.
Uh, anyway…watch this. S’funny.
(Source: keepyourbsoutofmyuterus)
![propaganda-for-life:
I wish there was a national anthem about child abuse in the Vatican. That would be kind of nice, would it not?
Becca, there is ;) [though not without it’s own problematic elements]](http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m0bwxpAVdR1r7q6kho1_1280.png)
I wish there was a national anthem about child abuse in the Vatican. That would be kind of nice, would it not?
Becca, there is ;) [though not without it’s own problematic elements]
(Source: craftychristianmamma)
Sandra Fluke gets a phone call from our POTUS while waiting to go on Andrea Mitchell’s show.
“He encouraged me and supported me and thanked me for speaking out about the concerns of American women,” she told Mitchell, who received permission from the White House to discuss the exchange between Fluke and Obama. “What was really personal for me was that he said to tell my parents that they should be proud. And that meant a lot because Rush Limbaugh questioned whether or not my family would be proud of me. So I just appreciated that very much.”
OBAMA WINS EVERYTHING
(Source: The Huffington Post, via motheatenmusicalbrocade)
Every day 12 women leave Ireland to access abortion services in the UK. Who are these women and girls? You might be surprised. Women who have abortions come from all walks and all stages of life. They are women you know.
Abortion in Ireland is a new video developed by the Irish Family Planning Association as part of an initiative to facilitate an open, honest dialogue on abortion and to dispel myths that stigmatise women who seek abortion services. The video provides accurate factual information on abortion in Ireland.
The IFPA produced this resource because we want to change the way people talk and think about abortion in Ireland—we think discussions on abortion should be informed by facts. We believe that for too long abortion has been left in the shadows and the women who have had abortions have been stigmatised. This animation is intended as a contribution to changing opinions, informing discussions and breaking the stigma.
Join us in the change and pass on this video to others to ensure the debate about abortion in Ireland is informed by facts, not misinformation.
More:
- Statistics
- Legal Timeline
- Abortion & Human Rights
- Resources
- The Irish Journey
- ABC v Ireland
- Public Opinion
*Pregnant people, not just cis women.
