this post was submitted on 06 Apr 2024
420 points (97.7% liked)

politics

19159 readers
4526 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

The more reproductive health care becomes unavailable, the less sex men will get.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago

I would bet $20 this is bullshit. Even a ban on sex wouldn't stop it in any meaningful amout

[–] [email protected] 4 points 7 months ago (1 children)

That sounds like a recruitment tactic for the party of impotent rage.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago

that sounds like you're trying to describe Democrats? Because Republicans would be the party of impotence and rage, I think. 🤔

[–] [email protected] 22 points 7 months ago (4 children)

I didn't see this mentioned in the article, but I skimmed parts of it. Do they realize that preventing pregnancy isn't the only reason people use birth control? Are they planning on making medical exceptions? Let me be clear, it's still hugely fucked up either way; I'm just curious.

I took BC for several years for my endometriosis, and I knew several friends who were prescribed it as teens to treat similar conditions. And sometimes they didn't have a specific diagnosis, but they just had especially painful or frequent/heavy periods. Apart from that, aren't there certain medical treatments that require you to take birth control for x number of weeks bc they could harm a potential fetus? I can't remember a specific example.

And, yeah, preventing pregnancy is pretty damn important too. Fuck those guys.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 7 months ago

An extremely painful/heavy/frequent period is exactly what they want to happen. The cruelty is the point.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 7 months ago (1 children)

In the video, in the link, he mentioned that birth control pills were used for all sorts of other things besides preventing pregnancy, like helping with acne amongst others. I wish I could quote you what he said, but I refuse to listen to it again, it's infuriating.

Anyways, point is, he knows and he believes all it's uses are wrong.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 7 months ago

Wonderful. /s

But thanks. And it only makes it more ironic what he's complaining about, because personally, getting my hormones under control made me way more emotionally stable.

My condition was absolutely debilitating -- I ended up doing 7th grade online at home, and it was miserable. If this idiot wants to take away medication that can keep a kid out of pain, I'd like to be first in line to personally rip his head off.

I'll add, the alternatives for 15 y/o me would have been stronger pain medication, or surgery. (...I mean, I switched to testosterone hrt after turning 18, and I guess you could consider that an option since it does stop periods. But somehow I doubt more trans people is what he wants lmao.)

[–] [email protected] 27 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Do they realize that preventing pregnancy isn't the only reason people use birth control?

They don't care

Are they planning on making medical exceptions?

No.

Source: see abortion bans. Women with unviable pregnancies that will kill them can't get abortions. Control is the entire point.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Source: see abortion bans. Women with unviable pregnancies that will kill them can't get abortions. Control is the entire point.

I just laugh now when people say "there will be reasonable exceptions". We already went on this rodeo with abortion. There will be no exceptions. Reality is slapping voters in the face and they just don't care.

Women. When Conservatives are screaming that they hate you, believe them.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 7 months ago

There will be no exceptions in Gilead.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 7 months ago (1 children)

aren’t there certain medical treatments that require you to take birth control for x number of weeks bc they could harm a potential fetus? I can’t remember a specific example.

Accutane. It's based on vitamin A and will do all sorts of nasty stuff to fetuses.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Also to your skin. I was dried out for like 5+ years

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

That's for serious cystic acne though isn't it?

The alternative would be incredibly oily skin, then, right?

I had acne as a kid but not that bad. Tetracycline or Erythromycin were enough for them. Still, I'd see that like "dressing in layers". Just like you can always add more layers but there's a point where you can't take them off...it's probably easier to re-moisturize dry skin than to de-lipidize oily skin.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago

Idk, it wasnt super crazy, but I had tried a broad spectrum antibiotic that didn’t do much, so a dermatologist recommended acutane. It worked

[–] [email protected] 15 points 7 months ago (1 children)

So are these Republicans going to go after vasectomies? Haven't heard a peep about them, even though they are rising.

What could be the difference? What could it possibly be?

[–] [email protected] 12 points 7 months ago

No, because how can you control women with vasectomies? It’s not about birth control, or “screwing up female brains” or whatever else is being shit out of their mouths. It is, and always has been, about the control of women. The cruelty is a feature, not a bug

[–] [email protected] 18 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

The Pill can in fact alter the smell based preferences of women, which temporarily alters mating preference. This is due to the pill simulating the hormones of pregnancy, as part of its mechanism of action.

However, I don't believe this is what Republicans are referring to, as in The Salon article Charlie Kirk is talking about it causing "brain damage".

No they're just being possessive and controlling assholes, as usual. They're anti-freedom.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Anecdotally pills can also alter behaviour and personality somewhat. Especially the megadose hormones like Depo-provera, that stuff messed up a girl I was dating long ago. Turned her into an emotional wreck. I would actually support not a ban, but warnings and restrictions on that particular product.

I've always felt that choices like the Mirena IUD should be promoted over systemic hormones, my ex-wife was very happy with them over the years and we agreed we'll be offering our daughter the option as soon as she gets her first period. For some reason they seem to push the Pill instead.

I know some people have issues with IUDs but if they work for you they really work. Her hormones changed and she went asexual after kids, but she still maintains an IUD just for the greatly diminished cramping and bleeding.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Just FYI, before you offer it to your kid, please do significant research. They’re constantly getting better, so by then it may be fine, but non hormonal IUDs have been linked with hella scarring in the past.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

We did a ton of research when my wife first got one, I studied biochem so figured I could assess the situation fairly well.

Non-hormonal are awful and I wouldn't recommend them to anyone. Mirena on the other hand does release hormones, but in small enough quantity that the effects are basically topical - localized to the uterus and serum concentrations are barely affected compared to pills or shots.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I brain farted and thought mirena was the copper one. Thank god, I thought you were super attached to giving an eleven year old a non hormonal iud. I had a state university clinician tell me that I was a conspiracy theorist for thinking there could be scarring and straight up pressure me to let her insert it, so I assume someone out there is recommending them to people.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago

Yikes, I can't imagine who would recommend copper unless someone had a bad reaction to the hormonal type. The mode of action is totally different, with hormonal suppressing the whole cycle and copper being more like a continuous abortion.

My wife didn't have a period for years aside from some occasional spotting with Mirena, I figure if we can save my daughter a decade of cramping and bleeding by offering her one young, the birth control is almost a happy side effect.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

There are non-hormonal IUDs to but apparently they aren't as effective, at least according to my SIL and my new niece (I know that's a sample of one but I'm pretty sure I know at least other unexpecteds as a result of copper IUD)

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago

The hormones in Mirena are in a low enough dosage that they only affect the uterine lining rather than have a systematic effect. It's the clear choice as non-hormonal (i.e. copper) have the opposite side effect profile. Heavy periods, cramping, other undesirable effects

[–] [email protected] 33 points 7 months ago (1 children)

We all knew this was coming after the success of abortion bans. Shameless.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 7 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago
[–] [email protected] 24 points 7 months ago (2 children)

You lost me at "females" Kirk. Talking like they're science specimens.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Isn’t this the natural progression of they’re gonna get hounded about sex and gender being different?

I can imagine the sentiment might be “ok, we’ll start referring to sex specifically.” And why shouldn’t they if that’s what they mean?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Well in that case using just "female" is ambiguous. Are they banning female horses from breeding also? All female animals?

When speaking publicly I imagine someone would think about possible misinterpretations. Wouldn't using "Woman" fare better?

[–] [email protected] 18 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Ok why do conservatives hate having sex wtf sex that doesn't end with a baby if one is off life's best things

[–] [email protected] 9 points 7 months ago (2 children)

People don't desire sex with them. They may be able to coerce (religion) or get sex through power (money/influence), but they aren't generally sexually appealing.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 7 months ago

Modern women are financially independent (in fact, they're more educated than men nowadays) and are now far less likely to be tied down and dependent on a man by accidental pregnancies (widespread contraceptives + access to abortions)

Getting a stable 9 to 5 won't result in a wife landing in your lap any more, women will choose to be single over dating a boring shit head, so all the boring shit heads are reeling at the fact that they now have to offer more to the relationship than just financials, and they're consistently voting for policy that attempts to "put women back in their place" (ie dependent on them for money)

[–] [email protected] 4 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

This is pure cope.

If you don’t already know about it, search up tradwife culture. Some weirdo women like that sort of thing.

We can hate conservatives for the kind of world we know they want to bring about but we have to acknowledge the fact that some women are equally as stupid so as to want the same.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 7 months ago

Jokes on them I've been angry for a long time without birth control.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 7 months ago

Don't you blame magrats for this shit, the republicans were doing just fine on their own and have been since regan

[–] [email protected] 5 points 7 months ago

Yep, that sounds like Charlie Kirk seeking coverage.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Ba birth control. Dare ya. Wait till these guys find out that women won't have sex with them any longer.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Won't have consensual sex with them any longer.

Which isn't the kind they like anyway.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I read an article (and I think I posted it somewhere on Lemmy) a couple days ago about how mega-churches brainwash women into submitting to anything their husband requests. It goes hand in hand with this stuff

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago

Cults do be rapey. Kind of a classic.

[–] [email protected] 27 points 7 months ago (1 children)

That’s definitely also conditioning them to oppose female suffrage

[–] [email protected] 9 points 7 months ago

To be fair, Emma Goldman called that shit.

load more comments
view more: next ›