Once again, the Telegraph has managed to misinform the shit out of its readers. It's almost like the Fox News of the UK.We've seen plenty of pieces come out over the last month about The Pill's 50th anniversary, but none of them were as quite as confused and baseless as this one. (But then again, the Telegraph has a history of publishing inaccurate bullshit regarding feminist issues.)

While the author throws some positive aspects of the form of contraception into the piece at an attempt to convey objectivity, the headline and criticisms are anything but, saying the Pill led to sexual coercion, according to one of their main interviewees, author Libby Purves:

"Before the Pill, you could always use the excuse, however disingenuous, of 'I might get pregnant'. It was like pulling a sickie, saying: 'I can't come in, I've got a sore throat', and it helped women be sure if this relationship really was the right thing for them. Afterwards, it made it much harder for young women to prolong their courtships and to say 'no'."

"After the Pill, I remember being pressured for sex. The phrase you always heard was 'Surely you are fixed up?'. If you weren't, even if you didn't have a boyfriend, you were held in contempt. It was like not having a toothbrush - everybody came prepared. I remember a friend being made to feel very dog-in-the-manger by a man, who was a platonic friend, but felt he was entitled to sex and told her 'Don't be so foolish, why not?' when she said no."

The piece also follows the recent Observer claim of how "selfish" abortion and birth control are by saying women took "the phrase 'family planning' a touch too literally" and got so worked up over their liberation from early motherhood that their ovaries shriveled up by the time childbearing was desired:

"Jackie magazine warned us endlessly about taking precautions," says one ruefully. "Housewife was a dirty word. It never occurred to me I might one day want to be pregnant."

In short, this piece is using the Pill's anniversary as a means to scare women out of taking it and demonize women's sexual agency in the most subtle-but-not kind of way. Email the Telegraph here and tell them so.

Rep. Charles Van Zant wants to criminalize abortion

Oh, Florida.

Sponsored by Rep. Charles Van Zant (R-Palatka), HB 1097 would criminalize abortion, and make for no exceptions for rape or incest. And then there's this:

Except in cases where a woman's life is considered in danger, doctors who perform abortions would face first degree felonies punishable by up to life in prison and civil fines.

Now obviously I don't think anyone should be put in prison over abortion, but I do find it interesting that this bill focuses on abortion providers - not the women obtaining abortions.

It reminds me of this video that asked anti-choice protesters how much prison time a woman should get for procuring an abortion. The protesters pretty much couldn't answer not only because some had never even thought about it (!), but also because the general anti-choice sentiment is that women are victims of abortion. That we're too stupid or naive to realize that when we're getting an abortion, we're getting an abortion. (Hence all of the ultrasound laws that exist to "remind" us.)

In any case, if you'd like to let Rep. Van Zant know what you think of his bill, you can email him here.

File this under paternalism-gone-amok: An Ohio bill would force women to get men's permission before obtaining an abortion. Sound familiar? That's because Rep. John Adams from Ohio tried this same thing a couple of years ago.

Rep. John Adams, a Republican from Sidney, wants to change that and the legislation he introduced today, House Bill 252, would require the biological father's consent before an abortion can be done.

The bill would apply to any abortion and would require written consent before it can be done.

Like a note from your parents for school, except you're an adult now (minus the rights and bodily autonomy). But here comes the kicker - and this part of the bill was around last time as well:

Adams told the newspaper that, in cases when the mother does not know the identity of the father, the abortion would be prohibited.

You know, because if you're a slutty whorebag, you should be punished with a pregnancy you don't want. No, seriously. Adams said, "[T]here is merit to chastity, and to young men and women waiting until marriage."

And what about rape or incest? There are exceptions, but if this bill is the exact same one from 2007 - women would have to present a police report "proving" they had been raped before being able to procure an abortion.

So yeah, this bill is basically an all around fuck you to women.

Here is Rep. Adam's contact information if you'd like to let him know what you think about his proposed legislation. I know I'll certainly be writing.

To support pro-choice efforts in Ohio, check out NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio.

Damn straight! On Wednesday, an appeals court ruled that despite two Washington pharmacists' lawsuit saying that their religious beliefs should allow them to refuse to stock and provide emergency contraception to their customers, personal convictions doesn't trump a patient's right to timely medication.

This decision is huge as it could affect policy across the Western U.S. regarding the "right to conscience" nonsense that has been gaining momentum over the past few years, particularly with the help of Bush implementing the anti-choice HHS regulations before he left office (which we're still waiting for Obama to rescind like he intended). But this ruling creates a precedent for future cases around the issue.

While the pharmacists won a temporary injunction by the U.S. District Court in Seattle under their claim that they should be protected under the First Amendment right to free exercise of religion, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals wasn't having it. They lifted the injunction, saying that a person's religious beliefs "does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a valid and neutral law of general applicability":

"Any refusal to dispense -- regardless of whether it is motivated by religion, morals, conscience, ethics, discriminatory prejudices, or personal distaste for a patient -- violates the rules."

Booya.

Two of the most important women’s-rights-related bill-signings in the past few years. The Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003:

And the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009: