Let's applaud EllaOne's new delivery service, but the price bracket feels exploitative of women in their time of need
This isn’t the nanny state gone mad - this is a sensible, evidence-based measure that impact on birth defects
I'm asking you to understand that just as it isn't my right to tell you your beliefs are wrong, it is not your right to attempt to emotionally manipulate, intimidate or scare women on a day that is already difficult enough.
At bpas, we believe that every politician is entitled to hold their own opinion on abortion. However, we will always stand firm against MPs allowing their own personal convictions to stand in the way of women's ability to act on their own. And we must be clear: the views Rees-Mogg expressed this morning are not "traditional" or "eccentric" - they are extreme. And neither the British public nor our parliament will support them.
As a charity which cares for tens of thousands of women facing an unwanted pregnancy every year, we know difficulties obtaining emergency contraception mean many women are unable to make use of this second chance to avoid an unwanted pregnancy. And we wanted to stand up and do something against what we saw as the ultimate sexist surcharge.
Any campaign for women's reproductive rights means pragmatically little if it is not intersectional in its approach - if it excludes a whole segment of the population it purports to assist. It is imperative that we continuously include the unique experiences and needs of disabled women within our advocacy.
Why Is Boots More Concerned About Anti-Contraception Sexists Than Women Who Need The Morning After Pill?
"We would not want to be accused of incentivizing inappropriate use, and provoking complaints, by significantly reducing the price of this product." So wrote Boots chief pharmacist Marc Donovan in a letter to bpas. To what dangerous, immoral drug could he possibly be referring? Emergency contraception, of course!
Increasingly, pregnant women themselves are being held accountable for a host of outcomes, not just in their own offspring, but in the children their children go on to have, through their apparently inadequate bodies.
Abortion is not simply an abstract issue, or a parlour game. Politicians have the right to follow a religious faith, and indeed to believe that abortion is sinful (the two are certainly not synonymous). But when they allow those beliefs to determine their vote on the matter, that tells us something about the extent to which they trust women to make their own decisions about their own lives. Politicians refusing to stand up and be counted on reproductive choice means that women cannot live their lives in accordance with their own conscience. The question becomes: whose conscience matters most?
The insult and injury caused by this already unfair tax on women, being used to benefit an organisation that actively undermines women's rights is shockingly offensive. No woman should have to suffer the indignity of going without sanitary protection and no woman should have to suffer the indignity of others making decisions about her reproductive organs. No woman should be treated as a vessel.