anonymous asked:

I'm on the pill and I have been taking antibiotics off and on for the past two months but 3 months ago I had unprotected sex and I was wondering if I could be pregnant. I've had two periods since then and I'm supposed to start soon but I'm worried I won't. One of my periods I started spotting brown discharge for a week and a half before my period, I usually have brown discharge before my period but not that early. I've been extremely stressed lately and worrying abt my period is adding to it

So, before I answer your question, can I just make a quick PSA to all of our followers?: PLEASE, IF YOUR DOCTOR PRESCRIBES YOU ANTIBIOTICS (OR ANY OTHER MEDICATION) AND YOU ARE ON BIRTH CONTROL; TELL THEM! They will be able to tell you whether or not the antibiotic they are prescribing will interfere with your birth control! (So just for future reference, keep this in mind!)

Now onto your answer; is it possible that you may be pregnant? Yes.
Depending on the antibiotic you took, it may have interfered with your birth control, but keep in mind, most antibiotics will not interfere with your birth control, so you MAY be okay. The antibiotic you have to look out for is Rifampin (or Rifabutin.) Also, in case anyone else is wondering, here are more medications that may mess with your birth control!

If a medication you are taking interferes with your birth control, don’t hesitate to use a backup method (i.e. condoms!) Also, if you believe you may be pregnant, the best thing you can do is test for a pregnancy! Here is a good guideline on when the best time to test is!  - Paige

To those who are commenting that the above graphic does not address cases of rape, you are right, it does not. It was never intended to ignore the severity of rape but to present an idea that chastity is an option for those engaging in willing sexual intercourse.

To those commenting on this post and saying that the birth control pill is also a solution for cramps, acne, and other issues, there are alternatives out there that do not involve screwing up your body’s natural hormones. If you look into NaPro technology, or ask your doctor, more and more women are finding healthier and natural choices. 1Flesh.org for example, has great information.

Oral contraceptives, which are potentially abortifacient, provide only symptomatic treatment when prescribed for women’s health problems, and they do not affect the underlying causes. The birth control pill is used to “treat” menstrual cramps, recurrent ovarian cysts, abnormal bleeding, premenstrual syndrome, acne, irregular cycles, and endometriosis.”  The Pope Paul VI Institute is just one of those centres that is offering NEW solutions. Find out more about NaProTechnology.

To those commenting that it’s their body, to be used as they choose, you’re right. It IS your body and it’s your choice but if you want to understand a bit of why I would never recommend contraception or sex outside of marriage, then I invite you to read this post or read some of my previous posts tagged contraception.

Or you could visit The Radiance Foundation's website to read more!

anonymous asked:

How do you feel about Hobby Lobby denying their employees the right to buy birth control? Their reasoning is opposing it on religious grounds even though birth control is used for more than just preventing pregnancy.

Hey, there’s a lot of misinformation going around. Here’s a few facts that often get missed. 

1) Hobby Lobby is ok with paying for 16 out of the 20 required types of birth control under Obamacare. 

2) They have a religious objection to 4 of them, specifically the morning-after pills. The types that stop a baby from surviving after conception. Abortion inducing drugs. The birth control they are talking about isn’t used for anything except preventing pregnancy after conception.

3) They aren’t denying their employees the right to buy birth control. They can buy those 4 drugs themselves if they wish. They pay their employees well, and they have stated again and again that they aren’t trying to control anyone’s decisions. In fact, this whole discussion is about the right to make decisions, and whether or not you can force someone to pay for something they have a religious objection to. 

Here’s a nice video of a spokeslady that blinks a lot. She does a nice job of explaining it. 

Five male justices ruled that thousands of female employees should rightfully be subjected to the whims of their employers. That women can be denied a benefit that they already pay for and is guaranteed by federal law. That contraception is not essential healthcare. That corporations can pray. That the corporate veil can be manipulated to suit the needs of the corporation. That bosses can cynically choose à la carte what laws they want to comply with and which laws they do not. Each specific finding opens a door to a new form of discrimination and unprecedented corporate power. If you think this ruling won’t affect you, you haven’t been paying attention.

The 8 Best Lines From Ginsburg’s Dissent on the Hobby Lobby Contraception Decision: 

1) “The exemption sought by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga would…deny legions of women who do not hold their employers’ beliefs access to contraceptive coverage”

2) “Religious organizations exist to foster the interests of persons subscribing to the same religious faith. Not so of for-profit corporations. Workers who sustain the operations of those corporations commonly are not drawn from one religious community.”

3) “Any decision to use contraceptives made by a woman covered under Hobby Lobby’s or Conestoga’s plan will not be propelled by the Government, it will be the woman’s autonomous choice, informed by the physician she consults.”

4) “It bears note in this regard that the cost of an IUD is nearly equivalent to a month’s full-time pay for workers earning the minimum wage.”

5) “Would the exemption…extend to employers with religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah’s Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus); and vaccinations[?]…Not much help there for the lower courts bound by today’s decision.”

6) “Approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be ‘perceived as favoring one religion over another,’ the very ‘risk the [Constitution’s] Establishment Clause was designed to preclude.”

7) “My five male colleagues, in a decision of startling breadth, would allow corporations to opt out of almost any law that they find “incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs.”

8) “The court, I fear, has ventured into a minefield.”