I don't see the big deal in defunding PP. With ACA shouldn't everyone now be able to afford reproductive healthcare?

I went to PP when I was unexpectedly pregnant and didn't have insurance. They weren't helpful at all, they just gave me a urine pregnancy test and said "yup, you're pregnant". I'd support them if they offered prenatal services to underprivileged women, but they don't. They couldn't even recommend a place with affordable prenatal care.

I do think insurance should be required to cover BC. I have a feeling they would stop covering it for financial reasons, not because they are morally opposed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It won't start with that. But definitely look for reproductive rights to be taken away. Get an IUD now while you still can.

Nobody wants to take away your IUD, drama queen. Even pro-choice voters such as myself are deeply troubled by decapitating babies which would be viable outside the womb (aka late term abortions).

What PP is referring to is the fact that IUDs are now fully covered under the ACA. If ACA is withdrawn or benefits redrawn (which I believe Trump could do without Congress via administrative process) so that they no longer provide birth control for free, patients will have to pay for IUDs.

Since an IUD is expensive upfront ($5-900) even though it is more cost-effective long term, many women will not be able to afford getting one.

That's too bad, because increases in the rate of IUD usage in young woman have drastically reduced the teen pregnancy rate, thus also reducing abortions.

But, since pro-lifers consider the fertilized but not yet implanted egg "life", they consider use of an IUD the same as an abortion because it prevents implantation of the egg.

Under Trump, expect to see access to abortion, free contraceptive care, and Plan B medications much less accessible, even not available in some states.

Nationally-recognized authority Ilya Shapiro is speaking on CNN, right now.

He's correctly predicted that the S.Ct. will be highly unlikely to overturn Roe or the precedents on marriage equality.

Calm down folks.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It won't start with that. But definitely look for reproductive rights to be taken away. Get an IUD now while you still can.

Lol..he's going to ban BC you dummy?

Democrats can't make a distinction between banning birth control and the refusal to have taxpayers buy it for them.

Anonymous wrote:Is there anything women should go out and stock up on now, because it will be banned under Trump?

Can't stock up on abortions, sorry.

Is there anything women should go out and stock up on now, because it will be banned under Trump?

Anonymous wrote:Trump does not care about women's rights, so it's an easy give to his supporters to make sure he appoints a SCT justice who would vote to ban abortion.

I think he's not going to be able to build a wall and make Mexico pay for it. And he's not magically going to get a bunch of jobs to materialize in PA. What he can do to throw his supporters a bone is appoint a conservative SCJ and decimate reproductive rights, and Affirmative Action cases that come their way, obviously ACA.

Pence is a well known for his anti abortion stance, see Snopes article (not funerals but disposal of miscarried and aborted fetuses):

http://www.snopes.com/pence-law-forcing-fetus-funerals/

Even if Roe v wade falls, it will still be up to states to decide the legality of abortion. You can all move to states that you agree with or you can elect state representatives to decide the issue. Will it become more difficult in some states? possibly but not as much as you think.

Anonymous wrote:It won't start with that. But definitely look for reproductive rights to be taken away. Get an IUD now while you still can.

Lol..he's going to ban BC you dummy?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I, a woman, may not be able to get married to a woman if I ever find The One.

We may not be allowed to adopt (Pence has said he is completely against gay couples adopting). Insurance may not cover any kind of IVF.

Women still won't make as much money as men.

Awesome! Hope all that comes true.

Look no offense but IVF costs $30,000 a 'try'. And some couples take 3 or more tries and still don't give up. There's no way in hell I think public insurance should cover that.

I hope Trump doesn't repeal your ability to marry though - sincerely.

Completely agree.

Again, that would take a SC case that the court decided to hear AND that would have a wide effect on gay marriage AND that the judges ruled against gay marriage. It just seems very unlikely to me.

Anonymous wrote:All I can say is... thank god there's not going to be a paid family leave / maternity leave law enacted. I'm so sick of paying for other people and could use the tax break.

- a liberal dem / fiscal con

Don't count on any tax breaks when Trump increases defense spending.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I, a woman, may not be able to get married to a woman if I ever find The One.

We may not be allowed to adopt (Pence has said he is completely against gay couples adopting). Insurance may not cover any kind of IVF.

Women still won't make as much money as men.

Awesome! Hope all that comes true.

Look no offense but IVF costs $30,000 a 'try'. And some couples take 3 or more tries and still don't give up. There's no way in hell I think public insurance should cover that.

I hope Trump doesn't repeal your ability to marry though - sincerely.

Completely agree.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I, a woman, may not be able to get married to a woman if I ever find The One.

We may not be allowed to adopt (Pence has said he is completely against gay couples adopting). Insurance may not cover any kind of IVF.

Women still won't make as much money as men.

Awesome! Hope all that comes true.

Look no offense but IVF costs $30,000 a 'try'. And some couples take 3 or more tries and still don't give up. There's no way in hell I think public insurance should cover that.

I hope Trump doesn't repeal your ability to marry though - sincerely.

The devil is in the details. The law needs refinement. I was a young adult when Roe was passed but NO ONE thought people would abort babies that could survive as opposed to fetuses.

https://healthimpactnews.com/2015/babies-who-survived-abortions-and-are-now-adults-time-for-our-voice-to-be-heard/

Anonymous wrote:I keep hearing this repeated but I don't get the rationale. Do people think congress will pass a law taking away women's right to vote? Please explain.

The party of fear (the one starting with "D") is trying to scare you.