[My main Tumblr can be found over at myasphyxiatedmind]
If you want your ask replied to privately, just put '****' before you start typing.
My name is: Michelle, but most people call me Dark online.
My gender-pronouns are: They/them/their.
I am: 26 years old, a feminist, liberal, an atheist, an omnivore, and an ISFJ.
The Feminist: Intersectional, body positive, pro-choice, and sex positive.
My privileged identities include: Female assigned at birth (trans* privilege), white, able-bodied, allistic (?), dyadic, monogamous.
My non-privileged/oppressed identities include: Gender-fluid, fat, gray-a, neuroatypical, and gay.
I have: Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, Generalized Anxiety Disorder, and Major Depressive Disorder.
I like: Pets & animals, animal welfare, pet care & pet care education, ~*SCIENCE!*~, anatomy & physiology, roleplaying, anime/manga, computer & video games, rock & metal music.
Catching Elephant is a theme by Andy Taylor
Troubled
Every woman who believes decisions about our bodies and our health care should be our own is troubled Mitt Romney supports overturning Roe versus Wade.
Romney backed a law that outlaws all abortion — even in cases of rape and incest.
And that’s not all.
Mitt Romney: “I’ll cut off funding to Planned Parenthood.”
For women, Planned Parenthood means life-saving cancer screenings and family-planning services. But, for Mitt Romney…
Mitt Romney: “Planned Parenthood. We’re going to get rid of that.”
5 Consequences Of The GOP’s Bill To Repeal Obamacare
On Monday, the GOP will convene an “emergency” meeting in the Rules Committee so they could hold a vote on The “Repeal of Obamacare Act” as early as Wednesday July, 11. The seven page messaging bill compiles the best Republican talking points against the law since it passed in 2010, but offers only the smallest hint of how the party plans to extend coverage to the millions who would lose it. “The path to patient-centered care and lower costs for all Americans must begin with a full repeal of the law,” the bill says on page six.
This free market mantra may resonate with the GOP base, but it does nothing to improve the economy or solve the health care crisis. Below are 5 consequences of the GOP’s repeal legislation:
1) Millions without coverage. A Congressional Budget Office analysis of the GOP’s repeal measure from 2011 found that “32 million fewer nonelderly people would have health insurance in 2019, leaving a total of about 54 million nonelderly people uninsured. The share of legal nonelderly residents with insurance coverage in 2019 would be about 83 percent, compared with a projected share of 94 percent under current law (and 83 percent currently).”
2) Health insurance costs increase. The same analysis concluded that “many people would end up paying more for health insurance— because under current law, the majority of enrollees purchasing coverage in that market would receive subsidies via the insurance exchanges, and [repeal] would eliminate those subsidies.” What’s more, “Premiums for employment-based coverage obtained through large employers would be slightly higher.”
3) Americans with pre-existing conditions will lose access to coverage.Republicans have said that they would not replace the Affordable Care Act’s federal rules prohibiting insurers from discriminating against people with pre-existing conditions. Instead, they would encourage states to form expensive high-risk pools to cover the sick or, alternatively, leave them to find their own coverage in the individual market — where many will likely go uninsured.
4) Medicare in disarray. Approximately 100 million Medicare claims are processed each month using a formula that was altered by the Affordable Care Act. Should the law be repealed, new rates could not be calculated under the old, pre-ACA formula until after a rulemaking process that can take months before is completed. The result would be that Medicare would not be able to pay doctors for what could be many months.
5) Deficits increase by billions. The CBO predicts that “as a result of changes in direct spending and revenues is likely to be an increase in the vicinity of $230 billion.” Repeal would also “increase federal deficits in the decade after 2019 by an amount that is in a broad range around one-half percent of GDP.”
This is just another GOP stunt to appease their base.
Mitt Romney said the White House wasn’t sleeping well last night. You know who else wasn’t sleeping well? The mother with a child who has leukemia. The recent college grad who’s unemployed and thinking about making a doctor’s appointment. The grandfather who isn’t sure if he’ll be able to afford the prescription medication he needs. The middle-class family who isn’t sure if they’ll be able to keep their home if their medical bills broach the lifetime cap “Obamacare” eliminated. What would Romney and his bravado do for each of them? Nothing.
Rachel Maddow (via many-worlds)
Beautiful
(via peopledontalwayssuck)
I think I’m going to reblog this every day. The anxiety people I know feel about unforseen health problems is crippling, and the alternatives to the problematically dubbed “Obamacare” besides repealing it? Nothing whatsoever. What does it say about a political party that sees a situation profoundly effecting huge swaths of the population and offering nothing as a response?
(via invisiblelad)
Re-blog if you don’t want this guy anywhere near the Oval Office.
And don’t be fooled: He WILL say that he’s “changed his stance” on these things if confronted, if he thinks it will get him more votes—and more money. He is a PUPPET, a blatant mouthpiece for whatever GOP masters are pulling his strings at the moment. He is the epitome of the soulless corporate politician.
[Trigger Warning: Ableist slur] Birth Control 101 For Idiots
This is hormonal birth control.
As you can see on the box, you take exactly one pill per day. To make sure it works, you need to take one pill every day at the same time, or it stops working. You take only one pill, and you keep taking them regardless of what you are doing that day.
Hormonal birth control can be used to treat a lot of different diseases, like anemia caused by excessive menstruation. It is a prescription medication that can cost around $15-50 a month. Because it is a prescription medication, it should be covered by insurance, as it treats legitimate health problems.
This is Viagra.
It, too, can treat legitimate health problems like altitude sickness and pulmonary hypertension, but it is usually prescribed for erectile dysfunction. Unlike the Pill, Viagra is taken every time you want to have sex. A lot of health insurance companies cover Viagra, so it costs about as much as your co-pay.
This is a condom.
It is not a prescription medication, and has no health benefits (besides the prevention of STIs and pregnancy). Like Viagra, you must use one before you have sex: indeed, before each sex act. They cost about a dollar per condom.
This is Sandra Fluke.
She testified before a small, Democrat-led hearing after she was cut out of the actual birth control/insurance discussion. Her testimony was about a friend of hers who, because her insurance did not cover birth control, lost an ovary due to an ovarian cyst.
This somehow translates into “I, myself, personally, am having so much sex I can’t afford birth control, and so I want the government to pay for it.”
This is wrong for multiple reasons.
- It was about a friend, not her. To say her testimony was about her personally is factually incorrect.
- Sex had nothing to do with the testimony - her friend lost an ovary because of medical condition that was left untreated. A medical condition that was completely treatable, but wasn’t, because her insurance wouldn’t cover it. To say that her testimony was about her being “a slut” or “a prostitute” is factually incorrect.
- Even if she was having loads of sex, she would still only have one pill a day, not one pill per sex act, so to say “I’m having so much sex I can’t afford birth control” is completely erroneous. The Pill is not Viagra or condoms. To say that she is such “a slut” that she constantly needs more pills is factually incorrect.
- The current political debate is not “should the government pay for birth control?” The debate is “should insurance companies, that people and their employers pay for, on their own, be required to cover birth control?” To say that Sandra Fluke wants the government to pay for her birth control is factually incorrect.
- Religious organizations do not want to have birth control covered by their insurance, even for employees not of their faith, even if their employees never actually use their insurance to cover birth control. By this logic, they should also not pay their employees, because they could use that money to pay for birth control out of pocket. To say that this issue is about religious freedom and not about women’s health is disingenuous, as Ms. Fluke’s testimony demonstrates.
Hopefully this makes things a little clearer.
Really, conservatives just hate women. They resent the fact that we work, go to school, vote, everything. Their entire stance on birth control, abortions and social programs is a thinly veiled attempt to take us back to a time when we had less rights. Take away our birth control and we get pregnant. Take away our abortions and we have to keep the baby (in their minds, anyway). Take away certain social programs to help support ourselves (mainly food stamps, WIC and housing assistance) and they think that will force us to get married to a man who can support us. Take away other social programs like daycare subsidies and then we have no choice but to stay at home and take care of the kids because the cost of daycare eats into any additional income. Men who have always relied on their male privilege to get them through life cannot handle seeing a women succeed, or even exist, without them. They figure if you keep kicking them back down, they’ll eventually give up and settle for some loser who doesn’t deserve them but has been given all the opportunities in the world to succeed because he possesses a penis.
hunnichild (via brienne—of—tarth)
inb4 someone changes this all to “uterus-bearers”
(via unknowablewoman)
As if it would be wrong for someone to edit the incredible amount of cissexist language out of this.
(Source: mexicanprincessbrienne)
