Comedian Amy Schumer has a killer parody of a contraceptive prescription ad. In it, Schumer “satirizes just how hard it is for a woman to get her hands on birth control, following the commercial’s instructions to ask dudes from her doctor to her mailman if ‘birth control is right for you.’”
Carissa House-Dunphy (Liberal America) said that Schumer “brings the laughs with her new Republican-approved birth control ad, although HJ Res 43 is no laughing matter in the birth control debate.” According to House-Dunphy, the ad parody “comes in response to recent Republican campaigns to limit a woman’s ability to make her own reproductive healthcare decisions, such as the Hobby Lobby decision in the Supreme Court and a Texas judge’s ruling to overturn the mandatory contraception coverage in employer-provided health insurance, which is part of the ACA.”
Most recently, the House voted on H.J.Res. 43 , which Nancy Pelosi calls “Hobby Lobby on steroids.” The bill would overturn a new law in Washington D.C. which mandates that an employer cannot fire a female employee for decisions she makes about her reproductive health. A Republican-controlled House proposed voting on a “resolution of disapproval,” which is a rarely used parliamentary measure, to repeal the law.
NOTE: I wrote about the H.J.Res. 43 recently in my post titled The Vagina Vigilantes Strike Again!: Republican Members of the House of Representatives Vote to Strike Down D.C. Law That Bans Reproductive Discrimination.
Unfortunately, Schumer’s prescription ad video is not available on YouTube. You’ll have to click here to view it.
Amy Schumer: Ask a Mailman, Boy Scout, and Doctor if Birth Control Is Right for You (Elle)
Hilarious! Amy Schumer Responds To Birth Control Debate With Priceless Video (Liberal America)
What a crock of shit. I have 3 daughters and they get birth control easily. One of them gets it for free. The War on Women imploded in November. But idiots keep trotting it out there.
I’m happy for your daughters. Too bad all women aren’t as fortunate as they.
Pharmacy Refusals 101
REFUSALS TO DISPENSE CONTRACEPTION ARE INCREASING
Reports of pharmacist refusals to fill prescriptions for birth control—or provide EC to individuals who do not require a prescription—have surfaced in at least twenty-four states across the nation, including: AZ, CA, DC, GA, IL, LA, MA, MI, MN, MO, MT, NH, NY, NC, OH, OK, OR, RI, TN, TX, VA, WA, WV, WI.
These refusals to dispense prescription contraceptives or provide EC are based on personal beliefs, not on legitimate medical or professional concerns. The same pharmacists who refuse to dispense contraceptives because of their personal beliefs often refuse to transfer a woman’s prescription to another pharmacist or to refer her to another pharmacy. These refusals can have devastating consequences for women’s health.
Despite the fact that three brands of EC are available without a prescription to certain individuals, refusals based on personal beliefs are still a problem. Non-prescription EC must be kept behind the counter, so individuals seeking it must interact with pharmacists or other pharmacy staff who may have personal beliefs against providing the drug.
Some examples of refusals in the pharmacy:
November 2010: Adam Drake attempted to purchase non-prescription EC at a Walgreens in Houston, Texas and was turned away, despite the fact that the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved that brand of EC for sale to men and women aged seventeen and older.
March 2010: A pro-life pharmacy refusing to stock or dispense contraceptives in Chantilly, Virginia closed due to lack of business. When it opened in October 2008, staff at the pharmacy refused to provide referrals or help individuals find contraception elsewhere.
January 2010: A mother of two in Montclair, California went to her local CVS to purchase EC after she and her fiancé experienced a birth control failure. The pharmacist refused to dispense EC to her, even though it was in stock, and told her to “come back in two and a half days,” at which point it would no longer be effective.
‘Religious Freedom’ Laws Threaten To Roll Back Women’s Access To Basic Health Care
Presidential candidates, the Christian Right, and the entire state of Indiana are still reeling from the fallout over Indiana’s recent attempt to enact a broad “religious freedom” law designed to allow for LGBT discrimination. And despite the national outrage over that law, similar fights are brewing in Arkansas and Louisiana.
Most of the conversation around these state-level policies, which are modeled on the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), centers on the legislation’s discriminatory effect on LGBT citizens. Indeed, the people who drafted Indiana’s law were quite specific about the fact that it was intended to allow businesses to refuse service to LGBT individuals based on their sexual orientation.
But, as Dalia Lithwick recently pointed out in Slate, these “religious freedom” arguments are actually rooted in a much older fight that has implications stretching beyond the LGBT community. Over the past several decades, states have quietly been expanding the scope of their religious liberty laws to allow medical professionals to refuse to provide basic health services they oppose on religious grounds. And those services invariably end up falling under the category of reproductive rights, since that particular aspect of women’s medical care often gets caught in the crossfires of religious debates.
“It’s great that so many groups are speaking out against the ways state RFRAs can harm LGBT people and discriminate against them. What’s equally true is that these laws can also inflict serious harm on women by denying them essential health care, such as contraceptive coverage, emergency contraception, sterilization and abortion procedures, and more,” Sally Steenland, the director of the Faith and Progressive Policy Initiative at the Center for American Progress, told ThinkProgress.
Anecdotal evidence. One of my daughters lives in very conservative Utah and she has no problems getting birth control in Provo, where she lives, or in a pinch @ other drug stores in the state when she travels for work. I can smell propaganda a mile away. I get it. You have a War on Women meme and you are going with it. My bullshit detector is going off loudly. But hey, I’m sure the crowd here will buy it. What do I matter?
Target Takes Aim at Women
Backward Policy Allows Pharmacists to Refuse to Serve Customers
WASHINGTON, DC — Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) today condemned the Target Corporation for standing by a company policy that allows pharmacists to refuse to fill valid, legal prescriptions for birth control, including emergency contraception. Over a period of 18 months, PPFA has urged Target to implement a policy that respects the rights of its customers by ensuring that Target pharmacies fill prescriptions in-store, without discrimination or delay. Yesterday Target decided it was unwilling to implement a customer-friendly policy.
“Target prides itself on providing accessible, high-quality design for all, but it does not believe that mission extends to medicine. Women should never be denied legal medications by pharmacists who decide to impose their own personal bias on others,” said PPFA Interim President Karen Pearl. “Target’s refuse-and-refer policy is unacceptable. Our patients should be able to get prescriptions filled in any store, without discrimination or delay. Kmart, CVS, Costco and others are able to provide this assurance to women — why can’t Target? Until Target improves its policy, it will continue to receive a thumbs down from Planned Parenthood.”
http://www.politicususa.com/proof-war-women-2 A lengthy list of anti-woman legislation sponsored by republicans……
Science, Conception, SCOTUS, Corporate Personhood, and Some Facts about the Four Contraceptives at the Center of the Hobby Lobby Case…with a Mark Fiore Video
I get it. You have anecdotal evidence regarding your daughters’ ability to get their contraceptive prescriptions filled easily–so that’s proof that all women have easy access to birth control.
Methinks someone doesn’t know the meaning of the word “anecdotal”.
Methinks the fascist propagandist expert wouldn’t know propaganda if it jumped up and bit his 4 inch prong. If my 3 daughters can get contraceptives anywhere they live including Utah that is not anecdotal. Thinkprogress propaganda is, well, propaganda. A few right wing pharmacists refuse to dispense and these hyperventilating women and their fascist little dick leader call it a war on women. Keep playing that tune. Only the choir will dance to it and it’s all choir here. I’m not part of the choir so I’ll be gone soon. Fascists control speech. Now, little Hitler, please impress us with your prose and how you must delete me for noble reasons.
Someone is having a hissy fit this evening. No need to get one’s knickers in a twist because others disagree with you.
I don’t wear knickers and usually go commando.
You’re a fascist propagandist? Who knew?
Learning to mange your anger could help prevent you from going commando.
Actually, not going commando might alleviate the chafing that appears to afflict Mac.
So would proper lubrication.
Or abstinence from self gratification
I know precisely what anecdotal means, to wit, a claim that it is not necessarily true or reliable, because based on personal accounts rather than facts or research.
In addition to being an expert on propaganda, I’m also an expert on argumentation. I’m also laughing my ass off.
I have no intention of deleting you, but your reaction to being confronted with anecdotal evidence is quite astounding in its predictability. Reminds me of someone else I know. Someone too stupid to configure a VPN on his own, but willing to ask for help.
What was his name . . . lick? No. That’s not it. It’s something that rhymes with prick though. I remember that much.
What a rube. Commando means no underwear. pete knows that and so does anyone not an elitist.
Hitler is moderating.
It also rhymes with ick.
Sick? Flick? Shtick? Dick? Trick?
I like ick.
Tick is good too, like the insect.
Slick Dick Wick is sick.
ich liebe dich?
(my elitist contribution)
Got to love a foreign language pun.
“What do I matter?”
Thanks for asking!
Do you have a huge target painted on your chest?
Yah, I know, I said that to someone on RIL several years ago. The statute has expired, I get to use it again. It’s so appropriate, again.
Going commando doesn’t matter much, if you’re constipated enough.
Mac, talk pre-adolescent naughty to us. We love it when you talk dirty.
By his comments, I think Mr. Mac is stuck in his nether regions. He might make more sense if he used the brain above his neck rather then the one below his waist.
blouise, Love it when you go elitist.
But if his head is stuck in there (and it damned well is), then both sets of brains(?) are below his waist.
What a conundrum!
I hope Mac uses one when he does that to himself.
Pregnancy, under those circumstances, would be so embarrassing.
say P. C. Schooler ( or schooled) in german.
Bob, I usually make pictures in my head when I read descriptive material. I’m having a bit of fun with your description but only a cartoonist could it justice. The pregnancy bit is beyond me though. He’s wrapped himself into pretzel and just how does pregnancy result? Q is rhetorical.
It won’t result, if he uses his conundrum, over his head.
I’m glad that was a rhetorical question.
Bob, you’re in rare form today. Another unbelievable picture 😀
Actually, this is a chronic condition. There seems to be no remedy.
Pingback: When Catholic Health Care Systems Own Your Doctor: The New Threat to Affordable Birth Control for Women | Flowers For Socrates
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/15/opinion/an-abortion-bans-bogus-arguments.html?_r=0 “For the second time in two years, the House voted Wednesday to pass legislation that would ban almost all abortions 20 weeks after fertilization. The bill, called the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, claims that “an unborn child is capable of experiencing pain at least by 20 weeks after fertilization,” though medical evidence does not support this.
Of course, the bill is not really about scientific findings of any sort. It is simply another attempt by conservative Republicans to undercut women’s constitutionally protected reproductive rights. A 20-week abortion ban would be a restriction before fetal viability that violates the Supreme Court’s ruling in Roe v. Wade.”