« Even I Know Miller Genuine Draft Is Pisswater | Main | Hypocrisy in NY - Do As I Say, Not As I Do »

August 11, 2005

Padlock A Guy's Balls, Panic. Padlock A Woman's Uterus, Make It Law

I lost a great opportunity in my post about the guy whose balls were padlocked to make a great point about women's reproduction. MediaGirl was way ahead of me.

You have to laugh, right?

So wait. Let's flip it around. Let's say instead of taking it off, the authorities are putting the lock on to the man's testicles.

Then let's say instead of a man's testicles, the lock is going on the woman's womb.

Oh wait, that is okay, right? Why?

She's right. In some states, women can't get their prescriptions for birth control filled at the pharmacy because the pharmacist has "ethical objections" related to abortion, even though birth control is legal in this country. Pharmacists are vetoing decisions made by a woman, with the help of her doctor. We have a possible new Supreme Court justice who may vote to repeal Roe v. Wade. The Bush administration has worked hard to prevent information about birth control and abortion from being given out freely in this country and oversees. We have an administration that values a vaguely defined "life" of a blastocyte over the livelihood of adult women. MediaGirl's analogy is very apt.

Posted on August 11, 2005 at 08:04 AM | Permalink

Comments

" In some states, women can't get their prescriptions for birth control filled at the pharmacy because the pharmacist has "ethical objections" related to abortion, even though birth control is legal in this country"
Wow, what states are the ones where a women can't get their prescriptions for birth control filled at the pharmacy because the pharmacist has "ethical objections" related to abortion?

Or do you mean just "emergency" contraception-morning after the fact pills?

Posted by: CaptDMO at Aug 11, 2005 9:21:47 PM

"Or do you mean just "emergency" contraception-morning after the fact pills?"

No both.

Actually any sort of contraceptive that a pharmacist feels would violate his conscious now, he can refuse to fill the prescription (in some states).

What has happened is certain states are now allowing pharmacists the same exemption that doctors have had for years, which was the right to NOT be forced to perform an abortion.

It made sense when it applied to doctors.

Applying it now to pharmacists doesn't, as all contraceptives are pre-packed now. All you do is pull a label that a pharm tech types up for the pharmacist and he places it on the package.

So it's basically just red states trying to control women's sexuality; probably figuring if they limit contraceptives fewer women will take a chance on getting pregnant from casual sex.

So you better go back to your MRA buddies now and start preparing them. As their days of casual sex with no commitment could be drawing to a close. I guess you all complained so much about things like 'paternity fraud' that some states decided to act.

So you all JUST shot yourselves in the foot.


Posted by: NYMOM at Aug 11, 2005 10:01:56 PM

CaptDMO, go to my search engine in my sidebar and type in "pharmacist". You'll get a few posts I've written about pharmacists refusing to fill birth control prescriptions. They've refused regular birth control. I'm not sure if they've refused emergency contraception, but I wouldn't be surprised if they had. Other bloggers (Feministing for example) has also covered the same issue.

Posted by: The Countess at Aug 12, 2005 8:44:33 AM

Thanks for the link and making the connection much clearer.

I wonder, though, how much MRA-types would be affected by the effective banning of birth control. So much of it just seems like sour grapes talk to me.

Posted by: media girl at Aug 12, 2005 11:02:10 AM

You're very welcome, Media Girl. You made the connection before I did.

Even though the media has focused on pharmacists refusing to fill out birth control prescriptions, I have heard that some are refusing to sell condoms as well. That just doesn't get as much press, maybe because reproductive rights groups for women have brought so much attention to birth control pills and prescriptions not being filled.

Posted by: The Countess at Aug 12, 2005 12:17:44 PM

media girl , countess ,
Its not contraception that we are trying to ban , its the ease of wich 12 to 18 year olds can get access to birth control in todays society .
liberal thinking is anything goes sex at any age ,that 60 s free love shit thats infected our society for 30 years like a cancer.Not to mention hollywood with its continuous stream of filth and debauchery,killing and sodomy,(all hollywood is is a giant porn factory)
This is whats been pushed onto young teens impressionable minds , Have sex with anyone at anytime and the best part is theres zero consequences becouse we have condoms and abortions . This is the kind of warped progressive thinking we are turning back with
abstinence only programms for teens ,
No sex befor marriage ,Save your body for your future husband or wife .Education about the myriad of negative effects of abortions on ther bodies and minds. That once the boy gets what he wants your left with a broken heart and lost virginity etc etc etc on and on.....
In other words providing condoms/contraceptives to teens is treating the symptoms , but we prefere to treat the cause "liberlism"

As for the pharmacists :
imagine your a pharmacist and in comes a 12 year old girl with a prescrition for the pill or wanting to buy condoms. what sensible person would want to hand the pills over , regardless of what the degenerate liberal courts says ?.
I dont think youd need to be sherlock holmes to realise that giving birth control pills or condoms to minors isn't the smart way to go .
Its the left wing media thats writing the story with headlines like this
PHARMACISTS BARING WOMEN FROM CONTRACEPTIVES
or
PRO-LIFE PHARMACISTS STRIKE AGIAN (lol)

or the countess :"PADLOCKING WOMENS uterous's"
This is what in the media is called spin ^

When in fact the story is about pharmacists not comfortable with handing over birth control to kids .
Thats the true story .

That said , I dont agree at all with grown women not receiving there b.c from pharmacists , pharmacists that do this are dead wrong simple as that . They dont have any right to force there morals on others even if there morals are correct wich they are! . But hey theres always the next pharmacy down the road right .
And i dont buy this emergency midle of the night frantic dash to the pharmacy bullshit either....

NYMOM have u ever tried actually thinking befor typing :

Applying it now to pharmacists doesn't, as all contraceptives are pre-packed now. All you do is pull a label that a pharm tech types up for the pharmacist and he places it on the package.

So it's basically just red states trying to control women's sexuality; probably figuring if they limit contraceptives fewer women will take a chance on getting pregnant from casual sex.
(scratches head )


P.S
I could tell you somethings that goes on in blue states that would make you sick in the stomache and mentally scarred for life nymom
shall i start with NY ?
lets just say you wouldnt want to bring your kids
up in a blue state.........

Posted by: Rod at Aug 13, 2005 8:27:03 PM

Not at all Rod.

I say GO FOR IT.

See how men like it when women no longer have easy access to these things. Remember women having access to effective birth control is a benefit to men as well (although none of you would ever admit it) as it enables MEN to have access to casual sex w/o having to worry about an unplanned pregnancy.

So it benefits you too.

Posted by: NYMOM at Aug 14, 2005 4:50:52 AM

Rod, sweetie? I'd sure as fuck want to bring up my kids anywhere you're not.

Posted by: ginmar at Aug 14, 2005 9:47:00 AM

It is not minors who are being refused access to birth control, and it is not happening only in "red states". You are both factually incorrect.

There was a case recently in Wisconsin (a blue state) where a woman was refused access to her birth control pills by a pharmacist who also refused to transfer her prescription to another pharmacist. The pharmacist who refused her access to her birth control prescription was sanctioned for committing an illegal and immoral/unprofessional act. Of course, the sanctioning didn't help the woman get her pills that day.

For more info on this case:
http://www.jsonline.com/news/state/apr05/318188.asp

Also, note the state legislation the article refers to -- the only thing that kept this from becoming law was the governor's veto.

Posted by: at Aug 14, 2005 9:52:59 AM

oops, forgot to sign in -- the last entry was from me, Lee

Posted by: Lee at Aug 14, 2005 9:56:57 AM

awww ginmar darling ? dont be like that now honey lol

Posted by: at Aug 14, 2005 7:10:46 PM

awww ginmar darling ? dont be like that now honey lol

Posted by: Rod at Aug 14, 2005 7:11:41 PM

Dude, don't make it any easier by proving the stereotype.

Posted by: ginmar at Aug 15, 2005 12:04:26 AM

Just following your lead ( dude )

Posted by: Rod at Aug 15, 2005 7:38:40 PM