I rode my bike into the CVS

Prologue: 

A few weeks ago, I switched OBGyns and went to my new dude. He wrote me a prescription for birth control because I take hormonal birth control in pill form because I'm a woman who doesn't want any more children and who doesn't want an IUD and this is how society solves that problem.

Anyway.

A couple days later, I get a call from my pharmacy. A life-saving call.

"Hi, we noticed your doctor prescribed Ortho tri cyclen lo for you. Is that correct?"

... ... ...

"Oh my GOD, NO. Change it, CHANGE IT. That is how I got twins the last time. They switched me to lo."

They laugh. Everyone loves the twin joke that is actually not a joke at all but truth-to-life facts what happened for real.

We hang up.

I live my life. I had two weeks left before EMERGENCY FILL YOUR PRESCRIPTION time, which is when I like to fill it. I'm deadline oriented, guys, okay?


Present Day:

Okay, so today it was definitely EMERGENCY FILL YOUR PRESCRIPTION time. I called the pharmacy to make sure they still have my order.

They've never heard of the prescription. No record of it. No idea what I was talking about at all. Even though they called me about it literally two weeks ago.

I called the doctor's office. I got a great woman on the other end of the line who was incensed for me even though I wasn't even mad yet.

"We FILLED that through ESCRIPT on APRIL 26th at TWELVE FIFTY NINE PEE EM" she half shouted at me. "YOU TELL THEM THAT."

I called the pharmacy back. I told them. I really did!

They still had never heard of this. Couldn't find it in their system. I told them about the previous mistake, low to regular, and they checked their mistake order files. Nothing.

I call the doctor's back. I get the same woman. She has the people who resend orders resend the order.

By this time, I'd wasted nearly an hour going back and forth and explaining my situation to each new person and the twin not-a-joke joke was getting really old to me.

I decided to kill two birds with one stone and cycle to the pharmacy which is three miles away. I threw my credit card in my pocket and put my phone in the holder with Runkeeper on cycle mode.

I had forgotten one thing. The bike belongs to my husband and it's one of those new-fangled electric bikes. I didn't have a bike lock, and I'd have just left it if it was mine, but it was not mine. And if it got stolen, I would not only not have a way home other than walking (and the girls would be getting out of school soon), but I'd have to explain to my husband that I rode his bike to the pharmacy and left it outside while I argued with the pharmacist tech for an hour and let it get stolen. No thanks.

So, what was I going to do?

I decided to try to go through the drive thru pharmacy window. But I wasn't sure about it. Can a bicycle go through the drive thru? I didn't think it could. But then again, why not? I was on wheels. Wasn't that the requirement? I didn't know, but I got in line behind a very old woman who took about 20 minutes to fill her scrip and sign.

Finally, I walk my bike up.

"I'm sorry ma'am but for your own safety, you have to be in a vehicle to use this lane."

Now, I have dealt with this tech before, and he's nice and I like him, and I wasn't mad that I couldn't use the drive thru because, honestly, I was pretty sure I couldn't use the drive thru. I was pretty irritated that he'd let me chill behind that lady for 20 minutes without giving me a heads up. I mean, for my own safety is fine, except what about my safety for the 20 minutes I was sitting between that pristine 1975 Lincoln and the Dodge Ram just behind me. Plus, I was back to my problem of not being able to leave the bike.

"I'll have to ride the bike in!"

The dude didn't make as if to stop me, so I rode my bike in. I probably should have walked it in, but, like I said, I was pretty irritated.

You would hope it would be all badass, like you cruise in gracefully, stop right at the right desk and order your refill, but, alas, I live in real life, and I maybe almost fell, and definitely somehow upended the pile of hand baskets for people who get a billion things in the pharmacy and then pay for them with coupons and change. After that, I threw down the kickstand and asked the same guy who had just seen me at the window for my birth control now that we were both inside.

And

The pharmacy still had no record of this prescription. I talked to the pharmacist tech. It was noon, so the pharmacist was on lunch break. Which meant no answers were coming.

But then

I remembered I had my phone, a phone that actually makes calls when it's not being used as a fitness tracker. I called the doctor's again, had the woman repeat the scrip to me, then I put her on my phone with the pharmacist tech who was really doing a phenomenal job putting up with my shit. He really is a perfectly sweet guy. Hell, maybe he even was concerned with my safety, I don't know.

He listened to them, and I heard him repeat, Low in the bc name. I mouthed NOOOOOOOO at the cool tech, and he thumbs-upped me. He knew what was going on.

He hung up the phone and said, "hey, I remember this now. You're the woman who had twins on Low, and we called them to have them change the prescription, but they never did."

So, he straightened it all out and they're going to text me when it's ready, hopefully before Sunday, and, bonus, there were apparently some unfilled mail-order birth control pills and the tech said he could get those for me too.

"I don't think I can get them before Sunday though," he said.

"I don't mind that, I just need the one before Sunday. I want the rest just as soon as we can get it, since Trump is our president, and who knows how long we'll have access to this stuff."

He laughed.

And now I have a new joke that is actually not a joke at all but truth-to-life facts what happened for real.


FIN.

How I became a crone -- Contributor post

After two unexpected IUD pregnancies, my partner and I came to the conclusion that we'd need to take more drastic measures to ensure that our exceptional fertility wouldn't catch us by surprise again. Abstinence would have ended in divorce, so we looked at the other options and I discovered something called Essure.

Essure is a hysteroscopy procedure that involves placing nickel coils in the fallopian tubes. Over three months, the foreign objects invite scarring, which occludes the fallopian tubes, thereby preventing ovulation (and any possibility of future pregnancy). It's a non-surgical, minimally invasive procedure, and my healthcare provider uses general anesthesia for it. I closed my eyes as the IV drip took effect in the operating room, and a moment later I opened my eyes to find myself in a recovery room.

When I first considered the Essure procedure, though, I was torn. Letting go of one's fertility is a big deal. What if I changed my mind? What if fate intended a third or fourth child for me? Was I shutting a door on a bright future?

I was indeed shutting a door on one possible future, and denying it was pointless. I decided to honor my transition from mother to crone by ritualizing it.

I wrote a letter saying farewell to what had been. I took the letter outside where I had an aloe vera plant waiting to be planted. I read the letter aloud, dug a hole in the moist earth, and set the letter ablaze in the earthen bowl I had created. When the ash from the letter had cooled, I placed the aloe vera plant over the top and secured it with the earth I had displaced. This plant of healing and perpetual growth would be transformed by--and transform--the ashes of my identity as a fertile mother, giving birth to my identity as a wise elder.

...
Kate is the married mom of two precocious tots. When she's not chasing them or dancing around them or singing at the top of her lungs with them, she likes to drink coffee, make yummy food with her hubby, edit other people's writing, pray, and write edgy pieces on religious topics. You can check out her blog, Thealogical Lady, at lifeloveliturgy.com. (And, for the record, that "a" in "Thealogical" is no accident.)

What Does Corporations Are People Mean?

In light of the recent SCOTUS ruling on Hobby Lobby and other corporate giants being allowed to deny women birth control within their health coverage plans because it goes against their religious beliefs, I thought a primer on the laws surrounding corporations as people was in order.

Slate does a good job covering some of the bases of this particular case, but let's sum up:

- Eric Posner, writing for Slate, reminds us that the word "people" in terms of corporations is a sort of legalese short cut--never a good idea, in my opinion, to mince inexact words when describing the law.

- This 'artificial person' (going back to the 1700s definition) has certain rights: property ownership and contractual rights, to be specific. As such an entity, it is responsible in the courts as itself, which protects the shareholders. In other words, the buck stops (or is supposed to stop) at the corporation because the Supreme Court went ahead and made it its own thing. This, in turn, protects the owners as well, because when Hobby Lobby (or any corporation) fails financially, the actual people behind the artificial person do not suffer the immense losses involved in billion-dollar industries.

- Until recently, according to the New York Times, the "Supreme Court, in business cases, has held that “incorporation’s basic purpose is to create a legally distinct entity, with legal rights, obligations, powers, and privileges different from those of the natural individuals who created it, who own it, or whom it employs.”"

- Until, of course, the Citizen's United case, where, as Slate says, the justices based their ruling not on corporations as individuals with rights but on the real individuals behind the corporations and their rights as a collective group.

The ruling this week was simply an extension of this incredibly garbled, incredibly unethical ruling.

What we are looking at now is Hobby Lobby owners asserting that their religious beliefs as individual people behind a corporation, should be a basis for how that corporation is ruled upon in a court of law. They are, in essence, making themselves responsible for the actions of Hobby Lobby, intertwining Hobby Lobby as an artificial person with them as real people. They are saying they want to become Hobby Lobby, so that they can use the business to push their agenda.

And, in doing this, they also want to maintain the separation of themselves from their business when it comes to protecting their own assets monetarily. And the Court said yes.

Nutshell: In ruling that Hobby Lobby can restrict women's health care, the Court has muddled two entities--the real person owner and the fake person corporation--giving the owner/corporation mutant all the protections of both--free speech, freedom of religion, freedom to engage in contracts, freedom to sue (as either entity), freedom to own property.

In doing so, the Court has neglected to relook at those protections on a grand scale, so that the owners of Hobby Lobby could turn around in bankruptcy and say "just kidding, we aren't Hobby Lobby, we're the people behind it. Don't punish us." And the Court would be like, "yup, you're good."

This week, we have seen the elevation of big businesses and their owners. We have seen the crippling demise of the worker, in real time.

Keep in mind, the average Hobby Lobby employee makes less than $9 an hour.

Who really needs protecting here?

And who is the bad guy?

Honestly, in this case, I blame our Supreme Court. Someone needs to delve into this corporation person thing and straighten it the hell out.


For more on how this impacts women and society, check this post out by Life, Love, Liturgy.

Sarah Galo writes about her personal struggle and how birth control is necessary for women in Relevant Magazine.

Bree Davis writes about the problem with the double standard on health coverage in Denver's Westword Blog.

A gripping personal tale here at Anatomy of a Mother.

Sarah Seltzer writes about how this ruling sets women into a second-class status for Forward.

Claire O'Connor, meanwhile, is stirring up dissent amongst commenters over what the decision actually means in the long haul, over at Forbes Magazine.

Raising Kvell has a piece about the effects of this decision on women.

Leslie Schwartz writes about the effects of this decision on the children, over at Build the School.


 

Rights Clashing with Rights is Wrong

Arizona's Senate Judiciary Committee has voted six to two to endorse a bill that would allow employers in that state to deny women birth control if it is used to prevent pregnancy. This opens the door further so that should employees use birth control to prevent pregnancy, they could lose their jobs.

Before going any further, can we just look at what I just said: They don't want women using birth control to prevent pregnancy. Guys. It's called BIRTH CONTROL. Just saying.

Anyway, supporters of the bill say it is not about birth control but about freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

Sorry, nowhere do I see stripping a woman of the ability to plan her family as akin to speech. I'm not making the connection.

As far as freedom of religion goes, Father John Muir says, "It's about the right to live out your beliefs and principles without interference from the state."

Where is the state interfering with your beliefs and principles? They are placing the onus of the whole birth control problem on the insurance, and last time I checked, insurance companies weren't all that religious or morally devout. So, you don't even have to worry about it.

You have the right to practice your religious beliefs. You do not have the right to impose them upon other people. You furthermore do not have the right to tell women what they can do with their bodies. You also don't have the right to discriminate against them for their personal health choices and family planning methods.

The Bill of Rights versus human rights. Interesting.

"I believe we live in America. We don't live in the Soviet Union," says the bill's founder, Debbie Lesko, R-Glendale. "So government should not be telling the organizations or mom-and-pop employers to do something against their moral beliefs."

First of all, hello, wacky, out-of-place reference. Not relevant. Secondly, the government is not asking anyone to do anything other than provide health care to their employees. What their employees do with the health care provided does not infringe upon the employer's rights because it has nothing to do with the employer. Your female employees are not going to be giving the birth control to your wives, I promise. Even with insurance, that stuff is expensive.

Most importantly, if we can't tell organizations to do something against their beliefs, why ever would it be okay for those organizations to force their employees to do something against their beliefs? Not using birth control is against my beliefs, and you are now hindering my freedom of religion. There. Does that satisfy you? If beliefs are so much strong than individuals and their bodies, let us just reword.

If employers are allowed to force employees to show proof that their use of the pill is for some other reason than birth control by showing their prescriptions, getting notes from their doctors, what have you...that violates medical privacy.

You don't want the state to meddle with you. We get that. It sucks to have someone telling you that you can't live your life the way you deem acceptable, especially if your decisions pertain only to you and yours and puts out no other people. Oh wait. No. That's us. We don't want you to meddle with us.

Taking away other people's rights does not equal protecting your own. You have become what you are fighting against. And I, for one, am really sick of the fight. Tell your freedom to leave mine alone.

Here is an article to read that you would hope is exaggerated. But it's not. Women and Their Whore Pills.
___
If you like this blog, please vote for it here at Babble's Top 100 Blogs list. 

Bringing a Knife to a Gun Fight

Rush Limbaugh calls a law student a prostitute because she testified at a hearing in favor of requiring insurances to cover family planning.

"What does it say about the college co-ed Sandra Fluke, who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex? What does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute."

Republican Representative Tim Murphy falls all over himself when Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius explains that the administration's current contraception ruling upholds religious freedom by exempting houses of worship, religious nonprofits and religious hospitals. The onus will fall on the insurances, instead.

After cutting her off and shouting like a fool, he comes back with this.

"You're setting up a rule that not even Jesus and his Apostles could adhere to."

Actually, I'm pretty sure they could. These two men look like idiots, and they bring down their cause.

The arguments being put forth by the Republicans and the Church are abhorrent and ugly. I was undecided on this issue until I heard those fighting for the rollback of the legislation--the words that were supposed to turn me toward the Church turned me away instead. That's not the kind of ally you want, Church. You want to bring people to your side of the argument. The Democrats and women's rights groups don't even have to speak in this debate, as far as I'm concerned. You've made their point for them.

"So Miss Fluke, and the rest of you Feminazis," says Limbaugh, "here's the deal. If we are going to pay for your contraceptives, and thus pay for you to have sex. We want something for it. We want you to post the videos online so we can all watch."



Allowing someone contraception at an affordable price is not "paying them to have sex," Mr. Limbaugh. And referring to a woman who wishes to have control over her own body as a "slut," gains you no points anywhere. Many women working for the Church are married (I was), and are having sex with their husbands (guilty). You want them to post sex videos online because they used birth control? Hyperbole or not, that's disgusting. And isn't there something in the Bible about not coveting one's neighbor's wife or something? But that's irrelevant, isn't it? You'd just be watching so that you could call them whores. It wouldn't turn you on at all. Either way, you're gross.

Sandra Fluke stood up for herself, saying this type of misogynistic language is "evidently still acceptable (and) that's just very problematic."

It is. Why should women have a say about their bodies when men like Rush have their religion they have to protect. After all, we're all just sluts and prostitutes. Surely Jesus wouldn't treat women like people who had any rights. Oh wait.

Meanwhile, Rep. Tim Murphy is embarrassing and infuriating. This exchange speaks for itself, really.

Health & Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius: "There also is no abortifacient drug that is part of the FDA approved contraception. What the rule for preventive care…"

Rep. Tim Murphy: "Ma’am that is not true…Is the morning after pill or something like that an abortifacient drug? Yes or no."

Kathleen Sebelius: "It is a contraceptive drug."

Rep. Tim Murphy: "Yes or no?"

Kathleen Sebelius:" It's not an abortifacient drug… It does not interfere with a pregnancy. If the morning pill were taken, and a female were pregnant, the pregnancy is not interrupted. That’s the definition."

Rep. Tim Murphy: "Ma’am that is your interpretation, and I appreciate that’s your interpretation."

Okay, so you didn't like that the answer to your yes or no question was no. I get that. It must be frustrating not to know what words mean. But that doesn't make the definition of an abortifacient drug Sebelius's interpretation. It's a definition. And it's backed by doctors, which Sebelius points out.

Kathleen Sebelius: "That’s what the scientists and doctors…"

Rep. Tim Murphy: "We’re not talking about scientists. Ma’m we’re not talking about scientists here, we’re talking about religious belief. Ma’am, I’m asking you about a religious belief. In a religious belief, that is a violation of a religious belief."

Actually, you were just talking about scientists. Their work is important when you differentiate between interpretation-based opinion and fact, which is what Sebelius was trying to do. On the other hand, what you changed the subject to, Murphy, religious belief...well, what is that other than interpretation? So, in one breath you break down Sebelius's argument, saying it's interpretation, then in the next, you trash her argument because she's talking facts and you're talking interpretation. You have to choose one method and stick to it, sir. Or at least wait thirty seconds before the twist. Give the listeners a chance to forget what you've just said.

Not one to let a good trick go, you do the exact same thing just two minutes later.

Rep. Tim Murphy: "Who's going to pay for it? Who pays for it? There's no such thing as a free service. The reduction of the number pregnancies compensates for the cost of contraception."

Kathleen Sebelius: "Providing contraception as a critical preventive health for women and for their children reduces costs."

Rep. Tim Murphy: "Not having babies born is a critical benefit."

Kathleen Sebelius: "Family planning is a critical benefit"

Rep. Tim Murphy: "You said avoiding pregnancy."


Okay, you asked her how this measure would viably pay for itself and she told you. Not having babies is not a bad thing. Not everyone wants or needs 10 kids. So, yes, to some women, not having babies is a critical benefit. Family planning is a critical benefit.

And avoiding pregnancy is family planning. You are planning for your family. Again with these pesky definitions, with words meaning things. Of course, you would already know that if you were listening to our Health and Humanitarian Services Secretary.



Religion, Republicans, with these guys on your side, you're pretty much bringing a knife to a gun fight. And stabbing yourself with it.


___
If you like this blog, please vote for it here at Babble's Top 100 Blogs list. 

Want to Go to Paris? Don't Have a Kid.

Commericials are so ridiculous in general that the one I saw last night hardly even bears mention, but it stuck with me, not only for it's blatant exclusionary tactics (which, in a commercial, where your audience is women, and a large percentage of that audience, would, by nature of things, have children, can't be a particularly clever thing to do), but also for its sheer length.

So, after my babies were tucked away in their beds, most definitely not sleeping, laughter and shouts erupting from the room every few minutes, and every few minutes more, a plaintive plea: "Mommy?  Moooooommmmmmy!" I settled down to watch a bit of television (After Lately, actually.  You should watch it.)

After five minutes of the show, the commercial break pops up, and I go to resettle the kids. I plop myself back down on the sofa to see images of happy young women -- every once in a while, a happy young couple -- flitting back and forth on the screen, wearing fashionable things, and being presented with "life choices."

A stork comes by with a purple satchel.  The beautiful woman laughs at him and shakes her head. She moves on to a picture of the Eiffel Tower and instead picks out the note "Trip to Paris."  Another woman, this one in stylish glasses and skinny jeans, looks at house after house after house, the implication being that she can afford it because she doesn't have a child.  Which is why we should all buy this particular brand of birth control.

The commercial goes on and on; it's never-ending.  It says, look at this scenario that's better without kids. Look at that one; you can't do that one with kids.  See all of these smiling faces? It's because they don't have kids.  Know why they don't have kids? Because they buy and use our birth control.

Oh. Okay.

Except that having a kid doesn't mean you'll never get to Paris.  If you try to do it with toddlers, you're a braver woman than I, but last time I checked (I hope!) that phase lasts for just a few years.  Having a kid doesn't prevent you from buying a home you would like.  In fact, it may push you in that direction, who knows?

But, I get their point. I understand what they were going for, and it's not a notion that's completely without merit. Without kids, there is a lot that you can do, it's true.

What really gets me is the length of time they spent on this one concept.  The commercial ran at least a minute. That's a really long time in TV. And I got the point after 15 seconds. 30 seconds was pushing it.  It was only after the full minute that my annoyance and my resolution to never switch to their product set in.

Birth control is used by so many people for so many different reasons.  Why not include the woman with totally intense cramps (in a picture, of course...going with the commercial, she'd be smiling and lovely, over-the-moon about her choice of BC), or the woman has a family already and is satisfied with where she is in life? By using just ten seconds to show those two situations, that brand of birth control widens their audience probably three-fold. As it stands, they alienate at least half and maybe more of the birth-control users out there.  Foolish marketing, in my opinion.

Of course, I'm probably over-reacting and here's why.  Right after that commercial, a spot came on for Enfamil Formula, showing a harried mother in an oversized shirt feeding her baby a bottle.

Oh, television, what's with the one-two punch?  "If you didn't use that birth control we were just talking about, and you look like this woman instead of those other women, here's a product for you."

Well, E, thank you for not leaving mothers behind in your advertising.


___
Please vote for Tales of an Unlikely Mother on Babble.com. We're number 15, just scroll down and click on the thumbs up.