![geekscoutcookies:
jamtastik:
thegoddamazon:
pluralisms:
miketrapp:
Seems accurate.
[literally puts dick in ryan’s ear]
LMFAOOOOOO YOOOOOO
fucknuts…mcgillicutty…BRAH!!
Imgone.](http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mbsamjxeqj1qaxrppo1_400.jpg)
Seems accurate.
[literally puts dick in ryan’s ear]
LMFAOOOOOO YOOOOOO
fucknuts…mcgillicutty…BRAH!!
Imgone.
(via praupr)
28. Professional Hot Mess/Social Worker/Tumblr Grandma. My mind is a messy place, but I'd like to share it with you.
-
Pharmacists And Doctors In Kansas Can Now Deny Women Access To Birth Control And Chemotherapy
Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback (R) signed a bill yesterday that will allow pharmacists in the state to refuse to fill a prescription they think could be used to induce abortion. But since the “conscience” measure says they cannot be required to provide a drug or devise that they think “may result in the termination of a pregnancy” — but does not define which drug in particular — the law’s opponents say it could allow a pharmacist to interfere with a woman’s health care by refusing to distribute birth control or emergency contraception.
Women who already have difficulty obtaining contraception may face additional hurdles, according to Julie Burkhart, founder of an abortion-rights group in Wichita, Kansas:
Burkhart said the law could create a hardship for women in small towns with a sole pharmacist who may refuse to fill certain prescriptions. In larger cities, women will have to make sure they go to a cooperative pharmacist, she added.
“Women should not have to go armed with a lot of research when looking for a physician or pharmacist in the community,” Burkhart said.
No pharmacist could be fired for refusing to fill such prescriptions, and doctors can refuse to refer patients to pharmacists who would fill a birth control prescription.
Additionally, the Associated Press had reported that the law could “allow a doctor to refuse to provide chemotherapy to a pregnant cancer patient because it might end her pregnancy.”
Brownback’s office justified his signing by saying the bill “gives more legal protection to Kansas health care providers who refuse to participate in abortions” based on their conscience. Kansas already had a law that allowed medical professionals to refuse to assist in abortion procedures.
While Kansas lawmakers failed to pass a sweeping anti-abortion bill that would have required doctors to give false information to their patients, the expanded “conscience” law is just one of several laws recently approved in the state that undermine women’s health and well being.
Another day. Another roll back on reproductive rights.
Love,
Rabble
No words. I really don’t know what to say to this shit anymore.
(via underratedwoman)
via occupyallstreets➜ -
Why a Woman's Razor Costs More Than a Man's, and Other Fun Facts
We’re so thankful to Marie Claire for reporting on how women tend to pay more than men for most things. The practice is called gender pricing, and it’s everywhere.
Gender pricing takes place in the sale of health insurance, dry cleaning, haircuts, home mortgages, cars, and many, many more products and services. Toiletries such as shampoos, soaps, razors, and deodorants are marketed differently to men and women, although they are NEARLY IDENTICAL, with the main difference being aesthetics and scent. And you can probably guess who pays more.
These razors look the same, right? That’s because they are.
It was found that in California women spent about $1,351 more than men on services and goods every year. Applied to the rest of the country, that means that women pay $151 billion more than men yearly.
There is NO federal law banning gender pricing. It has been challenged by some cities and states and California was the first state to ban it in 1996. But many of the statutes challenging this discrimination are often vague and easy to get around.
The New York Times confirms that gender pricing holds true for health insurance. They report that women pay more than men across states and across plans. For example, a 30-year-old woman covered by Blue Cross Blue Shield in Chicago pays 31% more each month than a man of the same age and with the same coverage. In Arkansas, one health plan charges women 81 percent more than men, while a similar plan in the same state charges women 10% more. Maternity care has nothing to do with it, since this is not usually part of the standard package. So why are these jacked-up prices necessary?
Health-insurance companies have justified their higher rates for women by saying that women ages 19 to 55 use more health-care services, go to doctors more, get regular check ups, use prescription drugs, and have chronic illnesses. But Robert Zirkelbach, the spokesman for America’s Health Insurance Plan, wisely asks “Wouldn’t a healthy woman who sees her doctor regularly be cheaper to cover in the long run than a smoker who avoids the doctor for years?” There’s hope of fixing this issue, thanks to our president. A new health care law signed by Obama in 2010 will prohibit gender pricing, beginning in 2014. However, the bill may be struck down in a Supreme Court Case later this month.
What can we do about gender pricing? Some suggestions: let our politicians know that it bugs us, raise awareness by posting on Facebook, write letters to companies who engage in this practice, and boycott the offenders. How do you think we can combat this shopping double-standard?
via damnitdisney➜
