s/o You can get birth control online

[ktgrok]

FYI, there are multiple legit websites now where you can consult with a doctor and be prescribed birth control, which is delivered by mail. I have used Nurx, personally. 

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/birth-control-online

[Mrs Tiggywinkle]

Just an FYI, as this is how I’ve gotten my birth control for years till this year—if you’re over 40 they’re incredibly picky on what they’ll prescribe.  They wanted to me to go off yaz, which I’ve been on for years and years, as soon as my 40th birthday hit.

Other than that both Lemonaid and NurX have been great.  K health is good too. 

[Grace Hopper]

I imagine this traceable info. Just sayin’.

Edited May 3, 2022 by Grace Hopper

[katilac]

12 hours ago, Grace Hopper said:

I imagine this traceable info. Just sayin’.

They are talking about legal sites that prescribe legal birth control. 

[Grace Hopper]

56 minutes ago, katilac said:

They are talking about legal sites that prescribe legal birth control. 

I understand. But if some laws pass or come about as predicted (going after contraception), online Rx purchases may be traceable. I do understand it’s legal now but already we see some states proposing to prosecute their citizens for actions those citizens take out of state. 

[katilac]

4 minutes ago, Grace Hopper said:

I understand. But if some laws pass or come about as predicted (going after contraception), online Rx purchases may be traceable. I do understand it’s legal now but already we see some states proposing to prosecute their citizens for actions those citizens take out of state. 

I thought that might be where your thoughts were, but I wasn't sure. 

[ktgrok]

39 minutes ago, Grace Hopper said:

I understand. But if some laws pass or come about as predicted (going after contraception), online Rx purchases may be traceable. I do understand it’s legal now but already we see some states proposing to prosecute their citizens for actions those citizens take out of state. 

Right..but then what other alternative is there? Not getting birth control at all? Either in person or online, that's all I'm seeing as options. 

[Grace Hopper]

48 minutes ago, ktgrok said:

Right..but then what other alternative is there? Not getting birth control at all? Either in person or online, that's all I'm seeing as options. 

Well, a lot of people think that’s the end game of this sort of legislation. 

[KidsHappen]

deleted

Edited May 7, 2022 by KidsHappen
deleted

[ktgrok]

6 hours ago, Grace Hopper said:

Well, a lot of people think that’s the end game of this sort of legislation. 

OH. I didn't mean as a "way to get around it when they make BC illegal". I meant for now. 

[katilac]

9 hours ago, ktgrok said:

OH. I didn't mean as a "way to get around it when they make BC illegal". I meant for now. 

She says earnestly 😄

[ktgrok]

8 minutes ago, katilac said:

She says earnestly 😄

I'm pretty sure when it is illegal I won't be able to buy it on amazon. 

[kiwik]

Do you have to have blood pressure checks etc? Buying condoms online is one thing, but being prescribed the pill by a doctor who is a stranger and can't examine you seems unsafe.

[Happy2BaMom]

Come on ladies, you'll still be able to get birth control in the Republic of Gilead. You're husband will just need to sign on off it every doctor visit (no BC w/ no husband, tho) AND if Gilead has reached the targeted levels of births for that year, you may receive up to a one-year pass of acceptable, state-allowed birth control methods.

Cuz, you know, there's no mention of birth control in the Constitution.

Edited May 9, 2022 by Happy2BaMom

[Faith-manor]

12 minutes ago, Happy2BaMom said:

Come on ladies, you'll still be able to get birth control in the Republic of Gilead. You're husband will just need to sign on off it every doctor visit (no BC w/ no husband, tho) AND if Gilead has reached the targeted levels of births for that year, you may receive up to a one-year pass of acceptable, state-allowed birth control methods.

Cuz, you know, there's no mention of birth control in the Constitution.

Yes, I think the "domestic supply of infants" line from the opinion kind of says it all.

[Grace Hopper]

And I know it’s not here, but this was an exclamation mark to the events of the last week…

https://www.npr.org/2022/05/08/1097458605/taliban-declares-women-and-girls-must-cover-up-from-head-to-toe-in-public
 

😢

[Pam in CT]

re saying the quiet part out loud

36 minutes ago, Faith-manor said:

Yes, I think the "domestic supply of infants" line from the opinion kind of says it all.

Right.

Every version of Great Replacement Theory-fueled fascism since the dawn of recorded history has been preoccupied with ensuring an ample supply of the Right Kind of babies.

The leaked draft opinion is dated Feb 10; I'm sure that particular footnote has subsequently been cleaned up by the other majority justices; and the final version when it is formally issued will be a bit more politic.

Quote

46. Nearly 1 million women were seeking to adopt children in 2002 (ie they were in demand for a child), whereas the domestic supply of infants relinquished at birth or within the first month of life and available to be adopted had become virtually non-existent.   (p. 34 of opinion)

But there it is.

 

(The "white" is silent.)

[Katy]

4 hours ago, kiwik said:

Do you have to have blood pressure checks etc? Buying condoms online is one thing, but being prescribed the pill by a doctor who is a stranger and can't examine you seems unsafe.

It isn't unsafe at all.  There is no reason to tie birth control to things that should happen at routine physicals and pap smears.  And they don't let you order anything but the mini pill if you're over 40, which doesn't increase risk for blood clots, heart disease, or strokes, and actually decreases risks for many things.

[ktgrok]

On 5/9/2022 at 6:04 AM, kiwik said:

Do you have to have blood pressure checks etc? Buying condoms online is one thing, but being prescribed the pill by a doctor who is a stranger and can't examine you seems unsafe.

They ask when your last exam was with a doctor, what your blood pressure was at that exam, if you have a history of high blood pressure, clotting, etc. 

And given that pregnancy is way more likely to cause a stroke than birth control pills...better than not having access. 

[Ann.without.an.e]

I’m so confused with this thread. Help me understand - Why would anyone stop women from having access to birth control? I just don’t see that happening 😜. Y’all know that the Handmaid’s Tale is fiction, right? Or is there just a predicted shortage that I’m not aware of?
ETA: my question is genuine. I’m not being snarky. 

Edited May 10, 2022 by Ann.without.an.e

[lewelma]

3 minutes ago, Ann.without.an.e said:

I’m so confused with this thread. Help me understand - Why would anyone stop women from having access to birth control? I just don’t see that happening 😜. Y’all know that the Handmaid’s Tale is fiction, right? 

Some birth controls do not stop fertilization, they only stop implantation. So depending on how life is defined, an abortion could be caused by a birth control pill if a fertilized egg is not allowed to implant. There has been a comment by some politician that they are considering this issue. 

OK: condom, female condom, sponge, basically barrier methods

Not OK: IUD, minipill, the pill (I think, but may depend on the brand)

 

Edited May 10, 2022 by lewelma

[Ann.without.an.e]

1 minute ago, lewelma said:

Some birth controls do not stop fertilization, they only stop implantation. So depending on how life is defined, an abortion could be caused by a birth control pill if a fertilized egg is not allowed to implant. There has been a comment by some politician that they are considering this issue. 

Thanks for helping me understand. I haven’t really been reading up on things lately. Too much going on.
 

Just curious, which politician? I cannot imagine they could get anyone else on board with this though? 

[lewelma]

The IUD is used today in place of a hysterectomy for many reasons. So not allowing it because it stops implantation, would definitely hurt women's health, including my own if I were in the USA. 

[Terabith]

6 minutes ago, Ann.without.an.e said:

I’m so confused with this thread. Help me understand - Why would anyone stop women from having access to birth control? I just don’t see that happening 😜. Y’all know that the Handmaid’s Tale is fiction, right? Or is there just a predicted shortage that I’m not aware of?
ETA: my question is genuine. I’m not being snarky. 

Roe v Wade is the foundation for a LOT of other decisions, including the ones that allow hormonal birth control, interracial marriage, sodomy, and gay marriage.  A number of politicians have been explicit that they plan to go after contraception next.  

[lewelma]

Just now, Ann.without.an.e said:

Thanks for helping me understand. I haven’t really been reading up on things lately. Too much going on.
 

Just curious, which politician? I cannot imagine they could get anyone else on board with this though? 

I'm not in the USA. I just saw it some where. But I'm sure others can tell you who. Also, I added the list of birth control methods that are OK and not OK by this view in my post above after you saw it. 

[Ann.without.an.e]

1 minute ago, Terabith said:

Roe v Wade is the foundation for a LOT of other decisions, including the ones that allow hormonal birth control, interracial marriage, sodomy, and gay marriage.  A number of politicians have been explicit that they plan to go after contraception next.  

Can you link me to legit sources that show which politicians? I’d love to know. Thanks 

[ktgrok]

6 minutes ago, Ann.without.an.e said:

I’m so confused with this thread. Help me understand - Why would anyone stop women from having access to birth control? I just don’t see that happening 😜. Y’all know that the Handmaid’s Tale is fiction, right? Or is there just a predicted shortage that I’m not aware of?
ETA: my question is genuine. I’m not being snarky. 

Because some states are defining pregnancy/ife as starting at fertilization, not implantation. And some believe that hormonal birth control and IUD's can maybe prevent implantation. Which would then make them abortificants. Now, the science says that their primary mechanism is to prevent fertilization/conception...BUT if there is even a WIGGLE of doubt that they might even rarely prevent implantation, that would be enough to make them up for grabs. There is a poster on this board that is not certain if they should be legal for that reason, and she is not the only person. Also, given the total lack of scientific understanding shown by politicians on this topic (such as a legislator asking why ectopic pregnancies were given an exception in the abortion ban), it is not crazy to think they man ban hormonal birth control and IUDs. 

[lewelma]

2 minutes ago, Ann.without.an.e said:

I cannot imagine they could get anyone else on board with this though? 

I taught university students a couple of decades ago and we went through the 20+ types of birth control and how they work. There was one woman who was absolutely horrified with how the pill she was taking worked (stopping implantation of a fertilized egg). She was catholic, and felt it was against her religious beliefs and planned to stop taking it after she learned about it in my class. 

[ktgrok]

2 minutes ago, Ann.without.an.e said:

Can you link me to legit sources that show which politicians? I’d love to know. Thanks 

Here is one, GOP senate candidate from Arizona https://www.businessinsider.com/arizona-gop-senate-candidate-blake-masters-campaigning-against-birth-control-2022-5

[ktgrok]

Mississippi governor when asked if IUDs would be banned said he wasn't focused on it "at this time" https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/may/09/mississippi-governor-contraception-abortion-rights

Edited May 10, 2022 by ktgrok

[Terabith]

Another is the governor of Mississippi.  https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/may/09/mississippi-governor-contraception-abortion-rights. 

I'm not entirely sure what level of specificity causes a thread to become political though, so I'm not super comfortable with names.  

[ktgrok]

Article on anti birth control movement. https://www.vogue.com/article/anti-birth-control-movement

[Ann.without.an.e]

3 minutes ago, lewelma said:

I taught university students a couple of decades ago and we went through the 20+ types of birth control and how they work. There was one woman who was absolutely horrified with how the pill she was taking worked (stopping implantation of a fertilized egg). She was catholic, and felt it was against her religious beliefs and planned to stop taking it after she learned about it in my class. 

 

Just now, ktgrok said:

Here is one, GOP senate candidate from Arizona https://www.businessinsider.com/arizona-gop-senate-candidate-blake-masters-campaigning-against-birth-control-2022-5

One oddball senator or one woman 20 years ago or one lady on this whole board, that isn’t the norm? That definitely wouldn’t get backing by even a percentage of enough people? While I don’t think any concerns that compromise freedoms are silly, I also feel like it isn’t much of a fear? This is just me thinking out loud. 

[Green Bean]

nm.

 

Edited May 10, 2022 by Green Bean

[Terabith]

Just now, Ann.without.an.e said:

 

One oddball senator or one woman 20 years ago or one lady on this whole board, that isn’t the norm? That definitely wouldn’t get backing by even a percentage of enough people? While I don’t think any concerns that compromise freedoms are silly, I also feel like it isn’t much of a fear? This is just me thinking out loud. 

It is VERY much a legitimate fear.  The foundation for the RIGHT to contraception is Roe v Wade, which will definitely be overturned.  Contraception would become a states rights issue.  The quiet part out loud is lack of supply of white babies for adoption.  I am QUITE certain that contraception and gay marriage will simultaneously become the next big fight.  I would bet large sums of money on it.  

[ktgrok]

4 minutes ago, Ann.without.an.e said:

 

One oddball senator or one woman 20 years ago or one lady on this whole board, that isn’t the norm? That definitely wouldn’t get backing by even a percentage of enough people? While I don’t think any concerns that compromise freedoms are silly, I also feel like it isn’t much of a fear? This is just me thinking out loud. 

The majority of americans think abortion should be legal...but that didn't stop states from outlawing it, even in cases of rape. 

[Dmmetler]

15 minutes ago, Ann.without.an.e said:

Thanks for helping me understand. I haven’t really been reading up on things lately. Too much going on.
 

Just curious, which politician? I cannot imagine they could get anyone else on board with this though? 

One of my senators has stated that she would like to see birth control restricted to married couples. 

[Ann.without.an.e]

8 minutes ago, Terabith said:

It is VERY much a legitimate fear.  The foundation for the RIGHT to contraception is Roe v Wade, which will definitely be overturned.  Contraception would become a states rights issue.  The quiet part out loud is lack of supply of white babies for adoption.  I am QUITE certain that contraception and gay marriage will simultaneously become the next big fight.  I would bet large sums of money on it.  

This is so interesting. I had no idea. When I heard they may move these decisions to the state level then in my mind “anything that can be moved to a state decision should” because I’m all for states having more freedom and say. I figured they would figure out the details on the state level and if the majority is for it then this would be worked out by the people via who they put into office. I didn’t know that it included contraception. I know that I need to be more informed with all of this. I need to read up on it and understand.  

Edited May 10, 2022 by Ann.without.an.e

[ktgrok]

Also, important to realize that some of these laws specifically mention fertilization as the benchmark. These are laws already passed, waiting on the outcome of RvW. 

"But while the law is designed to challenge Roe v. Wade and outlaw abortion, doctors say that the wording is also likely to outlaw common methods of birth control, including the birth control pill." https://www.livescience.com/16917-mississippi-personhood-birth-control.html

[Ann.without.an.e]

4 minutes ago, Dmmetler said:

One of my senators has stated that she would like to see birth control restricted to married couples. 

That makes no sense lol

[ktgrok]

1 minute ago, Ann.without.an.e said:

That makes no sense lol

Most of this makes no sense. 

[Terabith]

6 minutes ago, Ann.without.an.e said:

This is so interesting. I had no idea. When I heard they may move these decisions to the state level then in my mind “anything that can be moved to a state decision should” because I’m all for states having more freedom and say. I figured they would figure out the details on the state level and if the majority is for it then this would be worked out by the people via who they put into office. I didn’t know that it included contraception. I know that I need to be more informed with all of this. I need to read up on it and understand.  

You do realize that democracy as in the sense of majority rule is long gone, right?  Gerrymandering and what not?  

And in a lot of states, like say Louisiana, there are old laws on the books that say personhood begins at conception.  So, no birth control.  No IUDs. No in vitro fertilization.  Because you also have to remember that people in power know nothing about how birth control actually works, and that they legitimately think that women don't get pregnant if they don't enjoy sex.  

But no.  It will not come down to a vote, where mainstream folks say they want to keep contraception.  It will not.  Alito referenced a 17th century jurist who viewed women as property.  I don't think chattel slavery in 17th century style will happen for women, but birth control?  Will not happen, or at the very least won't happen without a husband signing off on it.  

[Matryoshka]

13 minutes ago, Ann.without.an.e said:

That makes no sense lol

You apparently missed @Pam in CT's post upthread where she linked the leaked Supreme Court draft (not decades old, not fringe) including highlighting the relevant line, revealing that we needs more white infants, so we needs the teen white babymamas to give birth so the rich white folk can adopt them.  Handmaid's Tale is fiction, but apparently it may not be for long.  (and in case you're wondering, there is absolutely no current shortage of non-white infants to adopt, that's also been addressed upthread.  Hence 'the white is silent').

Since you missed it thus far and I don't know how to link to it, I'll just paste it here for you again: 

re saying the quiet part out loud

  On 5/9/2022 at 9:04 AM, Faith-manor said:

Yes, I think the "domestic supply of infants" line from the opinion kind of says it all.

Right.

Every version of Great Replacement Theory-fueled fascism since the dawn of recorded history has been preoccupied with ensuring an ample supply of the Right Kind of babies.

The leaked draft opinion is dated Feb 10; I'm sure that particular footnote has subsequently been cleaned up by the other majority justices; and the final version when it is formally issued will be a bit more politic.

  Quote

46. Nearly 1 million women were seeking to adopt children in 2002 (ie they were in demand for a child), whereas the domestic supply of infants relinquished at birth or within the first month of life and available to be adopted had become virtually non-existent.   (p. 34 of opinion)

But there it is.

 

(The "white" is silent.)

Edited May 10, 2022 by Matryoshka

[Pam in CT]

The SCOTUS opinion doesn't "outlaw abortion;" that's not the way it works.  SCOTUS doesn't legislate; only Congress can.

What the Alito opinion does is overturn a precedent case, Roe v Wade, in which the then-Justices found an implicit right to privacy against government interference in medical decisionmaking. Subsequent decisions have built on that precedent/ right to privacy against government interference in other decisions, including choice of contraception and choice of marriage partners. Once the right to privacy is overturned, other SCOTUS decisions which turn on that right are equally overturn-able, unless Congress acts legislatively to safeguard them.

Here's a handy roundup, with embedded video links to their respective statements, of legislators who've signalled (so far) their "open-ness" to restricting various forms of contraception. It's definitely not one or two; whether we want it to or not, this issue will overshadow The Economy during the midterms. Last week current minority leader Sen McConnell indicated that now is "not the time" to focus on contraceptive methods, leaving the clear implication that were he to regain the Speaker seat under a GOP majority Senate, that would be the time.

 

[Ann.without.an.e]

4 minutes ago, Terabith said:

You do realize that democracy as in the sense of majority rule is long gone, right?  Gerrymandering and what not?  

And in a lot of states, like say Louisiana, there are old laws on the books that say personhood begins at conception.  So, no birth control.  No IUDs. No in vitro fertilization.  Because you also have to remember that people in power know nothing about how birth control actually works, and that they legitimately think that women don't get pregnant if they don't enjoy sex.  

But no.  It will not come down to a vote, where mainstream folks say they want to keep contraception.  It will not.  Alito referenced a 17th century jurist who viewed women as property.  I don't think chattel slavery in 17th century style will happen for women, but birth control?  Will not happen, or at the very least won't happen without a husband signing off on it.  

I assumed those laws would have to be rewritten and updated. I guess I just assume too quickly that people have sense lol

Just genuinely curious why you think men would have to sign off on it? From their own logic, if they deem it wrong then how does a man’s signature make it right? 

[Sneezyone]

6 minutes ago, Ann.without.an.e said:

I assumed those laws would have to be rewritten and updated. I guess I just assume too quickly that people have sense lol

Just genuinely curious why you think men would have to sign off on it? From their own logic, if they deem it wrong then how does a man’s signature make it right? 

It doesn’t make it right, it makes it AUTHORIZED. Men/boys will control birth/pregnancy and no one else.

[lewelma]

16 minutes ago, Terabith said:

 So, no birth control.  

All barrier forms of birth control are acceptable.  They stop fertilization. So they will argue that they are not banning birth control. 

[Ann.without.an.e]

1 minute ago, Sneezyone said:

It doesn’t make it right, it makes it AUTHORIZED. Men/boys will control birth/pregnancy and no one else.

Is there anything someone can link me to that shows that leaders are having the thought that men would need to sign? How is this a thing? Even from their own logic, if it’s wrong it’s wrong, a man’s signature doesn’t make it right. 

[lewelma]

2 minutes ago, Ann.without.an.e said:

Is there anything someone can link me to that shows that leaders are having the thought that men would need to sign? How is this a thing? Even from their own logic, if it’s wrong it’s wrong, a man’s signature doesn’t make it right. 

There are different politicians in different states suggesting different things. Some say fertilization is the start of life, if so then no hormonal BC. But others are using this as a traditional values platform, and trying to push for sex only in marriage so that is the only place for BC. I have seen no politician saying men having to sign off on BC. 

[Sneezyone]

7 minutes ago, Ann.without.an.e said:

Is there anything someone can link me to that shows that leaders are having the thought that men would need to sign? How is this a thing? Even from their own logic, if it’s wrong it’s wrong, a man’s signature doesn’t make it right. 

Not something I can make you see/envision if you choose not to. Griswold (Google it and read the news about the elected officials and candidates who question it) guaranteed married women the right to contraceptives w/o spousal consent using ‘privacy’ as the framework. No privacy, no birth control, no reproductive autonomy whatsoever unless you choose never to marry or have any sexual intercourse, OR YOUR SPOUSE CONSENTS, ever. Griswold overturned a requirement for spouses to consent to contraceptives.

Edited May 10, 2022 by Sneezyone