contraception

Anything preventing implantation of an egg is essentially killing of a baby - hence IUD is not acceptable contraception method.

The issue is that acknowledgement of birth control as a valid form of contraception also acknowledges that a significant number of teens have sex.

Far right would be a return to religious law, banning of contraception, a return to a theocracy, etc.

People who don't like abortion (for whatever reason) should be all in favor of better contraception methods.

If you help with contraception, it's an implicit endorsement of sexual intercourse (at least, that's what many would argue).

Since contraception is still available in the first world, birth rates don't spike as they might in poorer places.

Getting employers out of the health insurance game also conveniently dispenses with controversies like the HHS contraception mandate/Hobby Lobby etc.

Nobody ever mentions the problems with environmental pollution and human cancer with chemical contraception.

A vocal chunk of the US still believes that access to contraception will lead to a mass outbreak of fucking amongst the youth.

Providing women access to contraception and pregnancy termination services is what I personally identify as one of the best charitable causes.

I wonder what these sorts of barrier-free contraception methods are doing to STI rates.

As a Catholic, I accept everything the Church teaches regarding human sexuality, artificial contraception, the priesthood, etc.

When you ask female "women's health providers" what contraception they use for themselves a modern IUD is top of the list.

ANY hormonal contraception "messes" with periods in ways that aren't predictable.

Each method of contraception in its own chart, and "perfect use" and "typical use" are both plotted.

It's intuitive that decreasing the "price" of one form of contraception would decrease demand for weak substitutes, so it is one possible and very negative effect of the policy.