14 1 / 2014

14 1 / 2014

shedecides:

A Look Back at the Year in Reproductive Rights

Want to explain to your friends what’s been happening to our reproductive rights lately? Share this…

View Post

shedecides:

A Look Back at the Year in Reproductive Rights

Want to explain to your friends what’s been happening to our reproductive rights lately? Share this…

View Post

29 4 / 2013

rhrealitycheck:

In 2011, Rep. Gwen Moore breaks down the reality of having black babies, and the falsity of the “black genocide” lie. 

24 4 / 2013

jessicavalenti:

Street Harassment: A Bystander’s Guide

jessicavalenti:

Street Harassment: A Bystander’s Guide

(Source: eyelaa, via rhrealitycheck)

14 4 / 2013

rhrealitycheck:

And ignore those who try to tell you that you should.

rhrealitycheck:

And ignore those who try to tell you that you should.

(Source: americanfeminist)

12 4 / 2013

rhrealitycheck:

One step forward, two steps back.
Science In, Science Out: Texas Lawmakers Hear Two Very Different Abortion Bills

Yesterday in Texas, two Republican lawmakers presented two very different abortion-related bills, both of which deal with the reliability of mainstream medical and scientific research. One bill would bring Texas in line with the findings of the National Cancer Institute, removing language connecting breast cancer to abortion in the state-issued “Woman’s Right to Know” pre-abortion booklet. The other, the so-called Preborn Pain Act, would ban abortions performed after 20 weeks post-fertilization in the state, putting Texas in opposition to the Texas Hospital Association, the American Medical Association, and the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

rhrealitycheck:

One step forward, two steps back.

Science In, Science Out: Texas Lawmakers Hear Two Very Different Abortion Bills

Yesterday in Texas, two Republican lawmakers presented two very different abortion-related bills, both of which deal with the reliability of mainstream medical and scientific research. One bill would bring Texas in line with the findings of the National Cancer Institute, removing language connecting breast cancer to abortion in the state-issued “Woman’s Right to Know” pre-abortion booklet. The other, the so-called Preborn Pain Act, would ban abortions performed after 20 weeks post-fertilization in the state, putting Texas in opposition to the Texas Hospital Association, the American Medical Association, and the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

(Source: rhrealitycheck.org)

07 4 / 2013

07 4 / 2013

rhrealitycheck:

Texans can now track the impact of state lawmakers’ cuts to family planning funds using a web and mobile app developed by the Texas Policy Evaluation Project (TXPEP), which used geo-spacial analysis and data from the Texas Department of Health Services to illustrate how reproductive health services have changed over the last two years, mapped across political districts, public health regions, and counties.

The TXPEP Family Planning Data Finder aggregates fiscal and demographic information so that users can see, either on a statewide or hyper-local level, how Texas’ 2011 family planning cuts and its dismantling of the Medicaid Women’s Health Program have affected the availability of reproductive health care, the amount of state budget savings, and the number of unplanned pregnancies in the state.

“There are some places where there was no detectable impact and other places that were completely hammered … where the services were almost eliminated,” Joseph Potter, professor of sociology at the University of Texas at Austin, told reporters in a press call. Potter is the principle investigator on the project, which launched as a response to Texas lawmakers’ decision to cut state family planning funds by two-thirds in 2011.

Texas Policy Evaluation Project has come up with an mobile app that can allow Texans to track the impact of cuts to family planning funds. This app is sort of sousveillance technology, that allows Texas citizens to keep track of how the state and it’s policies are impacting their lives. It is meant to keep citizens informed, and there by trying to put some agency back into the hand of those who have been effect by family planning fund cutting.

-A.N.

07 4 / 2013

jessicavalenti:

A lone genius woman figures out how to put a pill in her mouth and swallow. The next day, she won a MacArthur. 

Ok, we reblogged this because a)the picture jessicavalenti posted was hilarious and 2) because this argument that “young women” do not know or can not understand how to take Plan B “correctly” is just ridiculous.

Obama’s Administration’s mission to serve as so called “protectors” of young women’s health and bodies is just another example of how the state, who we know to be mostly male, assert their power over our bodies. The assumption that “some” young women cannot understand Plan B’s label information and therefore can not use the product “appropriately” shows how women are rendered as not intelligent enough to read and comprehend or to know what’s good for their own bodies.

Men have long used their professions: doctors, scientists, and politicians, to prove that they are more knowledgable about what is safe and what is dangerous for women’s health. Just think about how the “good and loving” doctor drove his wife to madness in Charlotte Perkins Gilman’s the Yellow Wallpaper, and you can see how far back this stems. 

It’s true that some woman may not know all the risk and side effects of taking this product, especially if it is used repeatedly and/or often, but is that not the case WITH ANY MEDICINE? Instead of restricting this product why doesn’t the state fund programs to teach young girls and women about all the pros and cons of contraceptives. Why?…because its easier and common sense to use the law to render women subordinate.  

Obama and crew, just be real. Tell us you’re pandering to religious conservatives and that deep down inside you are a bunch of patriarchy loving creeps who think women are too dumb to open a box, undo the packaging, and swallow a pill. 

-V.R.

(Source: jessicavalenti, via vittoria-battaglia)

07 4 / 2013

"This language [of choice] omits women who are poor, who are immigrants and refugees, women who are incarcerated or in the military, and women whose health services are provided by the government. In sum, it omits women who have few meaningful choices in their lives because of racism, xenophobia, homophobia, and poverty."

Loretta Ross (Former director of the NBWHP) on rethinking the language of choice in reproductive rights politics (via femminista)

(via rhrealitycheck)