THIS IS KIND OF LIKE MY INTERNET JUNK DRAWER.SOMETIMES WITH ELEMENTS OF EMOTIONAL PURGE.
What if gun rights were regulated like abortion rights? Here’s a list of just some of the hoops you’d have to jump through before you could own a gun:
- Only one store in the entire state would sell guns. (See: Mississippi, Arkansas, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming for states with only one abortion provider.)
- You’d have to fill out an enormous personal background check including intrusive personal information that has nothing to do with your ability to own or use a gun. Then you’d have to wait at least 72 hours and come back to the store. (Remember, it’s the only one in the state. You better hope you don’t live on the other side of Wyoming.)
- Upon your return, you’d have to sit through intensive mandatory counseling. Your counselor, regardless of his personal beliefs, would have to tell you that gun ownership is actually a bad idea, and that it would negatively effect your mental health to own a gun. (This, despite there being no scientific evidence to support the claim.)
- Next, you’d sit through a gruesome movie showing the actual aftermath of domestic gun crimes. You’d see people with half a head. You’d see dead children in their beds. You’d see the bloody aftermath of a school shooting. You’d be shown statistic after statistic warning you that you’d be contributing to this morally degenerate sanctioning of murder.
- If you lived in Virginia, you’d have to come back (again) for an invasive and uncomfortable fMRI (which costs around $300 out of your pocket) to ensure your honesty in answering all the background check information and your intentions to use your gun responsibly. (This was as close as I could get to the invasive transvaginal procedure included in the recently passed Virginia bill.)
- Oh… and if you were married, your spouse might have to sign off on your gun ownership.
Welp.
(via missingtheground)
Forty years ago, the Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade, making abortion legal in all 50 states. Sarah Weddington, an attorney from Texas, was the lawyer who argued for legalized abortion before the high court. She was 26 years old at the time.
A reminder that we need young feminists in the movement to take lead! We can do anything.
Thank you, Sarah!
(via curiousgeorgiana)
Romney Invested in Medical-Waste Firm That Disposed of Aborted Fetuses, Government Documents Show
That time we complained how nobody wants to read Mitt Romney stories? You’ll probably want to read this one.
And people want to limit access to contraception because…?
Because it’s never been about abortions and lowering the number of them, it’s only ever been about punishing people for having sex for enjoyment.
Love,
Rabble
(via feelinghellastabby)
A new report says that although national teen pregnancy rates are the lowest they’ve ever been (or at least since they started tracking them in 1940), states that have abstinence-only sex “education” have higher rates than states where schools teach you about condoms and stuff.
Can we just declare abstinence-only education a failure and a sham and be done with it?
We can, and have. This is hardly the first evidence to surface proving that abstinence-only education is a dismal failure. In fact, this issue came up during Rick Perry’s campaign and he was dumbfounded (as usual) when attempting to form a coherent defense of this disastrous policy.
Parents, religion does a shitty job of parenting for you, and withholding information about how to prevent pregnancies is not going to stop your child from having sex, contracting a dangerous disease, or getting pregnant.
Both a very large Danish study in 1997 and a 2007 Harvard study, among others, showed “no overall effect” on breast cancer risk for women with a history of induced abortions as well as miscarriages. In a 2003 meeting involving over 100 global experts, researchers agreed that “Induced abortion is not associated with an increase in breast cancer risk.” Furthermore, this is “well established,” making the conclusion highly credible. Sorry, anti-choicers.
(via iamthecrime)
Terrorism works.
At the very least, anyone who wants to go to a Planned Parenthood has to face an army of belligerent white men. I’m sure someone would say, “Well, that’s just the price you have to pay for low-cost health care!” or “Why don’t you suck it up?” but the thing is, that army of white men keeps on trucking and screaming and yelling keeps doing it because they know that, like a drip drip drip of water on a boulder, they will eventually wear down the will of people to deal with that shit for a goddamned Pap smear. This is to say nothing of the fact that it often doesn’t stop at yelling and sign-waving. Like today’s news from Wisconsin, it extends to acts of terrorism. It’s not hysteria to point out the number of clinic bombings that have occurred in the past two decades, or the fact that just the existence of such threats deters medical professionals from learning how to perform abortions or work at a Planned Parenthood. The simple fact is that the terrorism of the right-wing fringe works. That’s why they keep doing it. We should all have the right of being able to walk to a non-profit health care center without fearing for our bodily integrity and our lives. No one should have to wear a bullet-proof vest to go to work and perform a surgical procedure that is 100% legal. But we don’t have that. That’s a travesty. Even if, for some reason, you are pro-life - no one should be fucking okay with this.
Yeah, if y’all weren’t aware a Planned Parenthood clinic was recently bombed in Wisconsin. No one was hurt, however I am so tired of our politicians and our society not calling these attacks what they are: TERRORISM.
(via lagertha-lodbrok)
From feministing’s article: Santorum misses the days of back alley abortions. Don’t you?
What a terrible person Santorum is.
The graph, though, and what is shows (how deaths from abortions declined rapidly and remain very low post-Roe) are both outstanding.
Again and again I see anti-choicers saying that their tax dollars shouldn’t be going to abortions. (Which they’re not, first of all. But they should. And they pretend they do.) Why do they think they get to pick and choose what they fund? My money is going to a war that killed my own four year old nephew and is devastating innocent civilians. I pay for a lot of things I am down right opposed to, why do you feel you should be able to opt out of saving people’s lives?
