Birth Control: Social Justice for Women

This blog focuses on the issues of social injustice related to birth control for women, an issue previously settled over 100 years ago.
Original caption: New York, NY: Kitty Marion ready to sell Birth Control Review in the streets of New York. Photograph, 1915. (Copyright Bettmann/Corbis / AP Images)http://www.apimages.com/OneUp.aspx?st=k&kw=birth%20control&showact=results&sort=relevance&intv=None&sh=10&kwstyle=or&adte=1353699448&pagez=60&cfasstyle=AND&rids=710ed8a7cf03410598a08f9834706f25&dbm=SContent&page=1&xslt=1&mediatype=Photo I believe this to be by far one of my most interesting images found to date, which I just recently found as I was searching through the AP Images database under the keywords “birth control.”  The image you are seeing now was taken in 1915, which is crazy to me.  Black and white photographs always tend to catch my eye more than anything colored, so I just so happened to click on this image.  As you can see in the original caption, this woman is about to sell a review of birth control (I’m assuming a general topic of it, here) IN THE STREETS. In the streets in 1915.  That is absolutely crazy to me.  I can imagine the strange looks you would get here in this day and age selling a review of ANY type of contraceptive on the streets.  But, in 1915, before the methods of birth control were even becoming more effective, before the 1960s Sexual Revolution where such topics became a little easier to talk about… I just can’t even imagine what this woman was thinking or who/what company put here up to this.  I can’t help but wonder if this is her own work, or if she’s selling someone else’s ideas she may or may not agree with. While the image does not deal too heavily on the aspects of birth control and its legislation itself, I just so happen to love this photograph.  I love the questions it inspires and what is still left to the imagination.  It’s not necessarily a pretty or incredibly interesting photograph (it almost looks just like a painting to me, everything almost looks a little blurry), but inspires some very interesting questions, at least to me, that didn’t even really take that much thought for them to come to mind. I’m just ever so curious.  Are these her ideas?  And what reaction is she getting from those around here?  Is she ridiculed?  Called some rude names, like a slut or the equilivant of that time period?  I’ll never know, but it’s so interesting to me to think about.

Original caption: New York, NY: Kitty Marion ready to sell Birth Control Review in the streets of New York. Photograph, 1915. (Copyright Bettmann/Corbis / AP Images)
http://www.apimages.com/OneUp.aspx?st=k&kw=birth%20control&showact=results&sort=relevance&intv=None&sh=10&kwstyle=or&adte=1353699448&pagez=60&cfasstyle=AND&rids=710ed8a7cf03410598a08f9834706f25&dbm=SContent&page=1&xslt=1&mediatype=Photo

 I believe this to be by far one of my most interesting images found to date, which I just recently found as I was searching through the AP Images database under the keywords “birth control.”  The image you are seeing now was taken in 1915, which is crazy to me.  Black and white photographs always tend to catch my eye more than anything colored, so I just so happened to click on this image.  As you can see in the original caption, this woman is about to sell a review of birth control (I’m assuming a general topic of it, here) IN THE STREETS.

In the streets in 1915.  That is absolutely crazy to me.  I can imagine the strange looks you would get here in this day and age selling a review of ANY type of contraceptive on the streets.  But, in 1915, before the methods of birth control were even becoming more effective, before the 1960s Sexual Revolution where such topics became a little easier to talk about… I just can’t even imagine what this woman was thinking or who/what company put here up to this.  I can’t help but wonder if this is her own work, or if she’s selling someone else’s ideas she may or may not agree with.

While the image does not deal too heavily on the aspects of birth control and its legislation itself, I just so happen to love this photograph.  I love the questions it inspires and what is still left to the imagination.  It’s not necessarily a pretty or incredibly interesting photograph (it almost looks just like a painting to me, everything almost looks a little blurry), but inspires some very interesting questions, at least to me, that didn’t even really take that much thought for them to come to mind.

I’m just ever so curious.  Are these her ideas?  And what reaction is she getting from those around here?  Is she ridiculed?  Called some rude names, like a slut or the equilivant of that time period?  I’ll never know, but it’s so interesting to me to think about.

5 months ago
(http://blog.modernmechanix.com/tag/contraception/ “Modern Mechanix” website) I’m not sure what publication the image of the article came from, but I found this whole thing incredibly interesting.  The case of which the image comes from is the “Griswold vs. Connecticut” case, which ruled this act in a violation to a person’s privacy. This article dates back to February of this year, so Rick Santorum was still in the running for Republican Presidential nominee, so he and his followers agreed with this act and disagree that is violates a person (mainly a WOMAN’S right to privacy.) This law makes sense for when it was originally founded back in the 1800s, but for it not to be repealed and thought about until now is an absolute disgrace and it makes me personally very glad that Santorum is nowhere near the Oval Office.  Birth control is a RIGHT, a woman should be able to control what goes into her own body.  But, this is my usual rant that is probably a little stale by now. The rest of the article goes on to talk about how Planned Parenthood opened an office in the state anyways without too much fuss.  They are beginning to fight this law now, but nobody’s been arrested for it for ages, and obviously pharmacies and doctors are prescribing contraception, or there would’ve been a much greater stink over it in the press. It may make sense for the 1800s, but it sure doesn’t make much sense now.

(http://blog.modernmechanix.com/tag/contraception/ “Modern Mechanix” website)

I’m not sure what publication the image of the article came from, but I found this whole thing incredibly interesting.  The case of which the image comes from is the “Griswold vs. Connecticut” case, which ruled this act in a violation to a person’s privacy.

This article dates back to February of this year, so Rick Santorum was still in the running for Republican Presidential nominee, so he and his followers agreed with this act and disagree that is violates a person (mainly a WOMAN’S right to privacy.)

This law makes sense for when it was originally founded back in the 1800s, but for it not to be repealed and thought about until now is an absolute disgrace and it makes me personally very glad that Santorum is nowhere near the Oval Office.  Birth control is a RIGHT, a woman should be able to control what goes into her own body.  But, this is my usual rant that is probably a little stale by now.

The rest of the article goes on to talk about how Planned Parenthood opened an office in the state anyways without too much fuss.  They are beginning to fight this law now, but nobody’s been arrested for it for ages, and obviously pharmacies and doctors are prescribing contraception, or there would’ve been a much greater stink over it in the press.

It may make sense for the 1800s, but it sure doesn’t make much sense now.

6 months ago
(AP Photo by Peter Morrison, Study can be found at: http://io9.com/5958187/what-happens-to-women-denied-abortions-this-is-the-first-scientific-study-to-find-out) “Public health researchers with the UC San Francisco group Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health (ANSIRH) used data from 956 women who sought abortions at 30 different abortion clinics around the U.S. 182 of them were turned away.” I think this study is absolutely extraordinary.  I was trying to stay away from abortion with this blog, as it is an even touchier subject that women’s birth control rights, but I do believe I brought it up a little with the facts I found in my “28 Days On The Pill” documentary. In this study, it’s shown that 182 women were turned away from abortion clinics.  This is due to the fact these women may have been just days past the gestational period the clinics allowed for abortions.  I may not be a doctor, but how can these clinics tell?  I do not believe it is possible to know the exact date of conception neither the exact date for a fetus/baby/what have you to be born, so this seems crazy to me that they would count by the day. I had never seen a study like this before, and it was incredibly interesting to me.  Women’s rights go beyond birth control in my personal opinion, and include their entire reproductive health, including abortion.  I feel like one of those women protesting out front of Capitol Hill… “My Rights, My Body.”   This five year long study is not yet complete, as they are monitoring these women who have had abortions emotional health status.  As of right now, the study is saying that abortions have no connection to depression and no connection to later mental health problems in women who have had abortions, either.  They are also keeping tract of these women who were turned away and had their baby, monitoring them and their mental health as well. I think it’s super interesting and I plan on following up on it in the years to come.  I do not personally know any women who have had an abortion, so I do not know and am often curious about the after-effects, as they are hotly debated in the media and in the church today, like birth control legislation. This doesn’t have anything to do with the pill, the IUD, or legislation in Congress, but I thought it was a very interesting, important thing to bring up.  This is what may happen when birth control is not used or if women have no access to get to it.  Something may happen, and then they may be turned away at the clinic in a dire situation.  It’s not right, but hopefully new information will be found through this study that will lead to advancements in thought about women’s reproductive rights.

(AP Photo by Peter Morrison, Study can be found at: http://io9.com/5958187/what-happens-to-women-denied-abortions-this-is-the-first-scientific-study-to-find-out)


“Public health researchers with the UC San Francisco group Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health (ANSIRH) used data from 956 women who sought abortions at 30 different abortion clinics around the U.S. 182 of them were turned away.”

I think this study is absolutely extraordinary.  I was trying to stay away from abortion with this blog, as it is an even touchier subject that women’s birth control rights, but I do believe I brought it up a little with the facts I found in my “28 Days On The Pill” documentary.

In this study, it’s shown that 182 women were turned away from abortion clinics.  This is due to the fact these women may have been just days past the gestational period the clinics allowed for abortions.  I may not be a doctor, but how can these clinics tell?  I do not believe it is possible to know the exact date of conception neither the exact date for a fetus/baby/what have you to be born, so this seems crazy to me that they would count by the day.

I had never seen a study like this before, and it was incredibly interesting to me.  Women’s rights go beyond birth control in my personal opinion, and include their entire reproductive health, including abortion.  I feel like one of those women protesting out front of Capitol Hill… “My Rights, My Body.”  

This five year long study is not yet complete, as they are monitoring these women who have had abortions emotional health status.  As of right now, the study is saying that abortions have no connection to depression and no connection to later mental health problems in women who have had abortions, either.  They are also keeping tract of these women who were turned away and had their baby, monitoring them and their mental health as well.

I think it’s super interesting and I plan on following up on it in the years to come.  I do not personally know any women who have had an abortion, so I do not know and am often curious about the after-effects, as they are hotly debated in the media and in the church today, like birth control legislation.

This doesn’t have anything to do with the pill, the IUD, or legislation in Congress, but I thought it was a very interesting, important thing to bring up.  This is what may happen when birth control is not used or if women have no access to get to it.  Something may happen, and then they may be turned away at the clinic in a dire situation.  It’s not right, but hopefully new information will be found through this study that will lead to advancements in thought about women’s reproductive rights.

6 months ago
(Claude in the arms of his mother - Pablo Picasso, 1948) I chose this painting of Picasso to write about, because to me it represents a form of birth control in those days: breastfeeding.  In most countries (though mostly third world countries, even to this day where they cannot afford birth control or afford to have children so young so close together, too many mouths to feed) women would practice this.  It may have been a discrete thing, as many men may not know what they were up to. The science of it goes that the while a woman nurses her baby, it inhibits ovulation.  Some women may chose to nurse their children until they are 3 or 4 years old, if they are poor or cannot afford to have more children at that time. I admire Picasso’s painting, I believe it is beautiful and shows the relationship between mother and child well.  It shows the love of a mother and what I interpret to be a newborn.  It is done very tastefully, as many paintings were back in that time period.  No matter how pretty the painting be, however, my mind automatically goes to what I know and find very interesting, especially when thinking about birth control and legislation in this blog, that breast feeding was often times used a birth control method. I’m not sure Picasso knew this, nor do I know his intentions by painting a nursing mother, or his depiction of one, but I do find it to be a beautiful painting.  As a thinking woman myself, I cannot help but wonder if the woman depicted in the painting would continue to nurse her child until an older age.  This is why I wonder about the woman’s back story, as many others may wonder, but probably not for this exact reason!

(Claude in the arms of his mother - Pablo Picasso, 1948)

I chose this painting of Picasso to write about, because to me it represents a form of birth control in those days: breastfeeding.  In most countries (though mostly third world countries, even to this day where they cannot afford birth control or afford to have children so young so close together, too many mouths to feed) women would practice this.  It may have been a discrete thing, as many men may not know what they were up to.

The science of it goes that the while a woman nurses her baby, it inhibits ovulation.  Some women may chose to nurse their children until they are 3 or 4 years old, if they are poor or cannot afford to have more children at that time.

I admire Picasso’s painting, I believe it is beautiful and shows the relationship between mother and child well.  It shows the love of a mother and what I interpret to be a newborn.  It is done very tastefully, as many paintings were back in that time period.  No matter how pretty the painting be, however, my mind automatically goes to what I know and find very interesting, especially when thinking about birth control and legislation in this blog, that breast feeding was often times used a birth control method.

I’m not sure Picasso knew this, nor do I know his intentions by painting a nursing mother, or his depiction of one, but I do find it to be a beautiful painting.  As a thinking woman myself, I cannot help but wonder if the woman depicted in the painting would continue to nurse her child until an older age.  This is why I wonder about the woman’s back story, as many others may wonder, but probably not for this exact reason!

6 months ago
Website that showed these statistics: http://www.zonalatina.com/Zldata267.htm  Where these statistics came from: (We will cite some survey data from the MARS OTC/DTC Pharmaceutical Study.  The relevant portion of the data comes from 15,472 females between the ages of 18 and 49 who filled out mail questionnaires in 2001 and 2002.  Among these survey respondents, 19.1% indicated that they were practicing some form of birth/fertility control, such as taking contraceptive pills and using other products such as diaphragms, cervical caps, intra-uterine devices, morning after pill, Norplant and so on.  This projects to around 12.5 million persons.  This will be an understatement of the incidence of birth control practice in total, since the number does not include vasectomy, sterilization, coitus interruptus, condom use, etc. ) I found this chart extremely interesting through the recent debates about birth control use here in America.  This chart is a little dated which is indeed what I was going for here, this comes before all the recent debates and is a little older, which only indicates how many people to this day are now using birth control methods ten years later.  The whole way back in 2001-2002 there were over 12.5 million using birth control methods, other than condoms.  I can only imagine how many females and males as well are using contraceptive methods.  There aren’t very many RECENT charts around to this day, as this would take years to compile all the data. As you can see in the chart, and what I will assume still goes on today, that more single, white people are using birth control practices.  Due to Obamacare and its legislation, we may see the numbers of minorities and younger people start to use birth control methods.  Interestingly enough, the amount of married couples practicing birth control methods is very high as well.  Birth control options allow more diversity with family planning.  This chart does not even count for vasectomies and the practice of “tube tying” or hysterectomies.  In that case, the number would be much, much higher in the married category. Even though this chart is a little dated, I think it is especially interesting to think about how high the numbers would be now a days, and how they would change due to new practices of birth control and also new legislation through Obamacare and otherwise.  I don’t mean to put out dated information, but to me, this is interesting to think about in terms of today, which is really what I was going for.

Website that showed these statistics: http://www.zonalatina.com/Zldata267.htm 

Where these statistics came from: (We will cite some survey data from the MARS OTC/DTC Pharmaceutical Study.  The relevant portion of the data comes from 15,472 females between the ages of 18 and 49 who filled out mail questionnaires in 2001 and 2002.  Among these survey respondents, 19.1% indicated that they were practicing some form of birth/fertility control, such as taking contraceptive pills and using other products such as diaphragms, cervical caps, intra-uterine devices, morning after pill, Norplant and so on.  This projects to around 12.5 million persons.  This will be an understatement of the incidence of birth control practice in total, since the number does not include vasectomy, sterilization, coitus interruptus, condom use, etc. )

I found this chart extremely interesting through the recent debates about birth control use here in America.  This chart is a little dated which is indeed what I was going for here, this comes before all the recent debates and is a little older, which only indicates how many people to this day are now using birth control methods ten years later.  The whole way back in 2001-2002 there were over 12.5 million using birth control methods, other than condoms.  I can only imagine how many females and males as well are using contraceptive methods.  There aren’t very many RECENT charts around to this day, as this would take years to compile all the data.

As you can see in the chart, and what I will assume still goes on today, that more single, white people are using birth control practices.  Due to Obamacare and its legislation, we may see the numbers of minorities and younger people start to use birth control methods.  Interestingly enough, the amount of married couples practicing birth control methods is very high as well.  Birth control options allow more diversity with family planning.  This chart does not even count for vasectomies and the practice of “tube tying” or hysterectomies.  In that case, the number would be much, much higher in the married category.

Even though this chart is a little dated, I think it is especially interesting to think about how high the numbers would be now a days, and how they would change due to new practices of birth control and also new legislation through Obamacare and otherwise.  I don’t mean to put out dated information, but to me, this is interesting to think about in terms of today, which is really what I was going for.

6 months ago
(People stand together during the Scranton Stand up for Religious Freedom Rally against the Obama administration mandate that employers provide workers birth control coverage, in Scranton, Pa. on Friday, June 8, 2012. (AP Photo/Scranton Times & Tribune, Jake Danna Stevens) WILKES BARRE TIMES-LEADER OUT; MANDATORY CREDIT) The quote which spoke to me in Susan Sontag’s book was the quote “Photographing is essentially an act of non-intervention.” (Sontag, 11)  The quote is then followed by an explanation of the photographers in the Vietnam War choosing between a “photograph and life” which doesn’t seem correct to me, as they could snap a photo and then rush to help the person, like we discussed in class.  Someone may be so committed to always chose their career first. Besides the fact I disagree with the context of what Sontag has this quote put forth, it reminded me of the photographs of the protests for birth control legislation, on both sides of the spectrum.  This counts for pro-birth control/pro-life/ect. and also the women and men who oppose everything, such as Obamacare’s legislation on birth control distribution, which is what the women are protesting in the above photograph.  If photographing is “non-intervention,” I believe photographers should not bother to photograph protests.  If they do not want to get involve, they should not photograph either side.  They should stick to taking pictures of birds and flowers and such, not documentary photograph and documentary large movements that protests put forth.  If they photograph one side, it may show bias or their own views.   Either way, photographing a protest shows intervention to me.  It is shedding light on an issue, as documentary photography is supposed to do.  It really seems to me, that in this quote, Sontag is denouncing all documentary photography.  To me, documentary photography is very interventional, as it is shedding light on a specific subject to be viewed by the world.

(People stand together during the Scranton Stand up for Religious Freedom Rally against the Obama administration mandate that employers provide workers birth control coverage, in Scranton, Pa. on Friday, June 8, 2012. (AP Photo/Scranton Times & Tribune, Jake Danna Stevens) WILKES BARRE TIMES-LEADER OUT; MANDATORY CREDIT)

The quote which spoke to me in Susan Sontag’s book was the quote “Photographing is essentially an act of non-intervention.” (Sontag, 11)  The quote is then followed by an explanation of the photographers in the Vietnam War choosing between a “photograph and life” which doesn’t seem correct to me, as they could snap a photo and then rush to help the person, like we discussed in class.  Someone may be so committed to always chose their career first.

Besides the fact I disagree with the context of what Sontag has this quote put forth, it reminded me of the photographs of the protests for birth control legislation, on both sides of the spectrum.  This counts for pro-birth control/pro-life/ect. and also the women and men who oppose everything, such as Obamacare’s legislation on birth control distribution, which is what the women are protesting in the above photograph.  If photographing is “non-intervention,” I believe photographers should not bother to photograph protests.  If they do not want to get involve, they should not photograph either side.  They should stick to taking pictures of birds and flowers and such, not documentary photograph and documentary large movements that protests put forth.  If they photograph one side, it may show bias or their own views.  

Either way, photographing a protest shows intervention to me.  It is shedding light on an issue, as documentary photography is supposed to do.  It really seems to me, that in this quote, Sontag is denouncing all documentary photography.  To me, documentary photography is very interventional, as it is shedding light on a specific subject to be viewed by the world.

6 months ago
(The maker of this meme is obviously unknown, memes go viral so quickly it would be insane to try and find the source.  Where I found this meme was on another tumblr, link right here http://tselfoninternets.blogspot.com/2012/03/women-who-use-birth-control.html) Okay…I had to fit a meme in here somewhere.  They’re quirky and funny and literally EVERYWHERE.  This meme didn’t come from the actual memebase site which gets updated daily by bored college students, I’m assuming, but from another Tumblr. I really like these memes, I have one about “living in Pittsburgh” and one for “journalism students” which I think are hilarious.  This one isn’t THAT funny (at least I don’t think so) until you reach the last panel, “What the Catholic bishops think I’m like” accompanied by a picture of Playboy’s own Hugh Hefner accompanied by a bunch of ladies. This isn’t a stab at the Catholic religion AT ALL…but I can see the connection between one of its principals of social thought, the most debated in this day and age, the “right to life from conception to natural end.”  I don’t believe for a second that the bishops actually think that all women on birth control are as promiscuous as some of these girls that may hang around Hugh Hefner are… but the meme is still funny.  You see all these photos of nice, respectable women who are depicted as taking the birth control pill and then… you reach Hugh Hefner and his girlfriends.  I’m sure SOME radically conservation (is that the word I’m looking for?) Catholics, or people of ANY religion or political outlook (we’re all different here, there may be some democrat against birth control use and Obamacare’s legislations for it, who knows) think that girls on birth control are slutty and could end up as playmates, but it most cases it’s really not true. In any case, the meme is just cute and funny to me, take it as you will!

(The maker of this meme is obviously unknown, memes go viral so quickly it would be insane to try and find the source.  Where I found this meme was on another tumblr, link right here http://tselfoninternets.blogspot.com/2012/03/women-who-use-birth-control.html)

Okay…I had to fit a meme in here somewhere.  They’re quirky and funny and literally EVERYWHERE.  This meme didn’t come from the actual memebase site which gets updated daily by bored college students, I’m assuming, but from another Tumblr.

I really like these memes, I have one about “living in Pittsburgh” and one for “journalism students” which I think are hilarious.  This one isn’t THAT funny (at least I don’t think so) until you reach the last panel, “What the Catholic bishops think I’m like” accompanied by a picture of Playboy’s own Hugh Hefner accompanied by a bunch of ladies.

This isn’t a stab at the Catholic religion AT ALL…but I can see the connection between one of its principals of social thought, the most debated in this day and age, the “right to life from conception to natural end.”  I don’t believe for a second that the bishops actually think that all women on birth control are as promiscuous as some of these girls that may hang around Hugh Hefner are… but the meme is still funny.  You see all these photos of nice, respectable women who are depicted as taking the birth control pill and then… you reach Hugh Hefner and his girlfriends.  I’m sure SOME radically conservation (is that the word I’m looking for?) Catholics, or people of ANY religion or political outlook (we’re all different here, there may be some democrat against birth control use and Obamacare’s legislations for it, who knows) think that girls on birth control are slutty and could end up as playmates, but it most cases it’s really not true.

In any case, the meme is just cute and funny to me, take it as you will!

6 months ago

“28 Days On The Pill” - A Frustrating Watch

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNdOFE6oxdA (Link back to documentary through Youtube)

The documentary explains how birth control works, which is right.  The basis of the documentary is that the birth control pill/the IUD make the uteral lining thinner, preventing the egg from sticking, or a woman would shed the egg with the lining upon menstruation.  They are saying this is an abortive factor of the birth control pill and that women shouldn’t use it.  Which is interesting, as through all my birth control research, I have NEVER stumbled upon this.  Is making the uteral lining thinner REALLY an abortive factor?  That’s how the pills help to prevent pregnancy.  It has to be all up to religious opinion of this factor.  

The documentary itself is very sloppily put together, which is strange because it seems to be the most popular out there on the internet.  They have a website where you can order DVD and they encourage you to make copies of it there and distribute them to your friends.  The music is often louder than the man/director’s voice, which is incredibly distracting.  Some shots of quotes and pictures of people look like PowerPoint slides, which seems pretty unprofessional to me.  It’s just poorly put together, even in the interview aspects, which really bothers me, as I’m a journalism major.  They only have two interviews with actual doctors, though they have opposing views, which is good.

I think the documentary is just using scare tactics to frighten women of religion into submission.  One of the specialists actually condemns the birth control pill, because it gives women more power in the relationship. 

My views aside, this documentary DOES possess some good information about birth control, but it does a VERY poor job about explaining alternatives that may be used in the Roman Catholic religion.  It is worth a watch, I suppose, if you are interested in how the Church views birth control, but the differing stances with the interviews are arranged in such a strange way, making it very confusing to watch and to follow along with.  You really aren’t sure what position the documentary is taking until about 15 minutes in. 

It’s a frustrating watch (especially as a woman) but it does possess some good information about how the birth control pill in general and the stance of some people of the Church.  It’s not very long, only about 45 minutes.  If you have some spare time, are on the stance of PRO birth control pill and want to know the opposition (like I am) it’s an interesting watch.  They have their website full of their sources, which are also listed in the credits, so I do not doubt the documentary credibility, as they have interviews with important people as well.  It’s an interesting watch, but expect to be frustrated with how it is set up. 

6 months ago
(Photo credit= thestockhousehold.blogspot.com)(Link to the article = http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/jackalope/2012/10/squirrel_birth_control_sunflower_seeds_clemson.php ) Now if this isn’t the strangest article you’ll read all day, I’m not entirely sure what would be.  I found it searching through the internet today, around many other weird things I normally find throughout my usually day trolling the web. This article has to do with birth control in squirrels.  No, I’m not kidding.  According to the article, squirrels have been being captured and spayed for years now… which is literally so strange in itself.  Why is it necessary?  Where I come from in the country, we have squirrels all over and nobody really cares.  I rarely see any here in the city.  So this in itself is strange to me. But, the article gets weirder.  Now, scientists (it doesn’t specify where) are lacing sunflower seeds with sex hormones and giving them to squirrels.  What the heck. This is the first experiment with birth control run on squirrels. It makes me wonder if birth control pills such as Yaz or Seasonique or something have been previously tested on animals.  But, I assume animal testing is a completely different social issue that may come up with someone else.  This article just kind of blew me away.  What’s the morality in providing birth control to SQUIRRELS when there are millions of poor women, uninsured women in the world? Science will never cease to baffle me.  I’m glad I’m a journalist.

(Photo credit= thestockhousehold.blogspot.com)
(Link to the article = http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/jackalope/2012/10/squirrel_birth_control_sunflower_seeds_clemson.php )

Now if this isn’t the strangest article you’ll read all day, I’m not entirely sure what would be.  I found it searching through the internet today, around many other weird things I normally find throughout my usually day trolling the web.

This article has to do with birth control in squirrels.  No, I’m not kidding.  According to the article, squirrels have been being captured and spayed for years now… which is literally so strange in itself.  Why is it necessary?  Where I come from in the country, we have squirrels all over and nobody really cares.  I rarely see any here in the city.  So this in itself is strange to me.

But, the article gets weirder.  Now, scientists (it doesn’t specify where) are lacing sunflower seeds with sex hormones and giving them to squirrels.  What the heck.

This is the first experiment with birth control run on squirrels.

It makes me wonder if birth control pills such as Yaz or Seasonique or something have been previously tested on animals.  But, I assume animal testing is a completely different social issue that may come up with someone else.  This article just kind of blew me away.  What’s the morality in providing birth control to SQUIRRELS when there are millions of poor women, uninsured women in the world?

Science will never cease to baffle me.  I’m glad I’m a journalist.

6 months ago

Good.is ... Leads Me To Arizona Law

( Here is the link to the good.is site, which will then lead you to the article dealing with Arizona’s birth control legislation.  http://www.good.is/posts/15378-arizona-law-could-allow-employers-to-fire-workers-for-using )

I could absolutely not help to post this…as it made me mad as hell.  It’s an article that dates back to March of 2012, but it came up on the first page of articles when I searched good.is, which leads me to believe that it is a very popular article and that many people have viewed it.

This bill which legislates were debating over passing back in March, does not only give employers the right to deny employees insurance coverage for birth control (something that is currently being fought over nationally, through Obamacare and everything, which is a completely different topic for a different blog), but also reserves the right for more religious employers to completely fire women using birth control from their companies and firms.

Which is beyond wrong, not matter what your beliefs.

This bill would have completely violated a woman’s right to privacy.  How many jobs actually have you list what types of medication you are on?  It’s not like you have to when you do when you come here to school or anything.  These are grown women who may be using contraceptive, and would have had their rights to privacy completely invaded, had this bill passed back in March.

There are so many things I could say about the men governing these various states with laws as such, but I’ll hold my tongue.

The fight over religious differences when it comes to birth control coverage in health insurance is one thing.  Invading someone’s privacy to see what type of medication they may be taking for their own personal or health reasons is another. It’s beyond wrong.

6 months ago

← Older 1 ⁄ 3

- Inkhorn theme powered by Tumblr -