Should IUDs and other contraceptive methods be free in states where abortion is banned?

[Former President tack50]

No, because none of those are a need. If you don't want to become pregnant, it should not be the government's responsibility to help you pay for that, especially when free and low cost options already exist currently. 

The government should, however, do more to help families that will be created out of abortion bans, and encourage more people to have children in the future.

What about rape? Those women don't want to be pregnant. WTF.

How is offering a woman who is already pregnant from rape an IUD or birth control pills going to help her?

Uh, the "morning after pill" certainly exists. It is far from infallible and iirc it does have some very bad sideffects so it's not a suitable replacement for the "regular" pill; but making it free would certainly help a woman who suffered from rape I suppose.

[Former President tack50]

All medical interventions and devices should be free at the point of use, so yes.

While I agree with this, I will note that even in countries with extensive single payer nationalized healthcare, you have to pay for contraceptives (source: live in one)

Ironically, abortion is free here though.

[HisGrace]

This is something Biden could actually do and would be a good corrective (hate that word but it actually applies here) in states where abortion will be illegal. Much better idea than trying to legalize it by statute and some of the other things being bandied about.

Although it does weirdly incentivize banning abortion if you look at it a certain way by essentially giving those states extra health funding. Although as I said, it's a corrective for policies already existing in those states.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

All medical interventions and devices should be free at the point of use, so yes.

While I agree with this, I will note that even in countries with extensive single payer nationalized healthcare, you have to pay for contraceptives (source: live in one)

Ironically, abortion is free here though.

How many abortions happen in Spain relative to the US, would you suppose? Free abortion but not contraceptives would if anything be an incentive for abortion.

[Former President tack50]

All medical interventions and devices should be free at the point of use, so yes.

While I agree with this, I will note that even in countries with extensive single payer nationalized healthcare, you have to pay for contraceptives (source: live in one)

Ironically, abortion is free here though.

How many abortions happen in Spain relative to the US, would you suppose? Free abortion but not contraceptives would if anything be an incentive for abortion.

I agree that that is if anything a small incentive for abortion though the fact that Spanish women aren't exactly running for abortion as their main contraceptive method probably shows that the amount of people using abortion exclusively for (mainly) contraceptive purposes is fairly small

In any case, the comparison would be, with 2020 data that the US have 14.4 abortions per 1000 women in the 18-44 age range; while Spain has 11.5.

So fairly comparable I suppose, though at the peak of abortion in the US in the 80s and 90s the per capita figure was probably much higher (while for Spain the current data is fairly close to the peak, abortions have been stagnant or even in a very slight decline since the late 2000s)

[Schiff for Senate]

Yes, and they should also be free in states where abortion is legal.

There are enough necessary things to spend tax dollars on. The environment, education, expanding Medicare/Medicaid. And if we really have run out of good things to spend extra money on (which I assure you we haven't) you can give everybody a tax break. But it's certainly not a good idea to spend taxpayer money on this - people who want it can pay for it themselves. Contraception is not a human right and it doesn't need to be funded by the government. I wouldn't necessarily oppose contraception funded by the government in states with abortion bans, but in states without them, you can pay for it yourself.

[Ferguson97]

Yes, and they should also be free in states where abortion is legal.

There are enough necessary things to spend tax dollars on. The environment, education, expanding Medicare/Medicaid. And if we really have run out of good things to spend extra money on (which I assure you we haven't) you can give everybody a tax break. But it's certainly not a good idea to spend taxpayer money on this - people who want it can pay for it themselves. Contraception is not a human right and it doesn't need to be funded by the government. I wouldn't necessarily oppose contraception funded by the government in states with abortion bans, but in states without them, you can pay for it yourself.

I completely and 100% disagree.

[Senator Incitatus]

Yes; this seems like a straightforwardly direct way to maintain present eugenic policy without the cruelty of abortion or worse. I would obviously discourage contraception in my household, though, for the same reason.

[Ferguson97]

Yes; this seems like a straightforwardly direct way to maintain present eugenic policy without the cruelty of abortion or worse. I would obviously discourage contraception in my household, though, for the same reason.

"IUDs are eugenics" lmao you sound deranged.

[Mister Mets]

They should probably be free in all states. It seems better than having an abortion.

[Badger]

Yes; this seems like a straightforwardly direct way to maintain present eugenic policy without the cruelty of abortion or worse. I would obviously discourage contraception in my household, though, for the same reason.

"IUDs are eugenics" lmao you sound deranged.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

Yes, and they should also be free in states where abortion is legal.

There are enough necessary things to spend tax dollars on. The environment, education, expanding Medicare/Medicaid. And if we really have run out of good things to spend extra money on (which I assure you we haven't) you can give everybody a tax break. But it's certainly not a good idea to spend taxpayer money on this - people who want it can pay for it themselves. Contraception is not a human right and it doesn't need to be funded by the government. I wouldn't necessarily oppose contraception funded by the government in states with abortion bans, but in states without them, you can pay for it yourself.

I completely and 100% disagree.

Guy who refuses to have PIV sex with a hookup because he is “practising eugenics.”

[100% pro-life no matter what]

No, because I believe that life begins at fertilization, not implantation.  Many popular forms of hormonal contraception can prevent implantation by thinning the lining of the uterus (even if that is not their primary mechanism).  Because of that, my view is that popular forms of "contraception" at least have the potential of being unintentional abortifacients.  So, not only should many methods not be free, but also many forms of contraception should be illegal.

[America Needs R'hllor]

No, because I believe that life begins at fertilization, not implantation.  Many popular forms of hormonal contraception can prevent implantation by thinning the lining of the uterus (even if that is not their primary mechanism).  Because of that, my view is that popular forms of "contraception" at least have the potential of being unintentional abortifacients.  So, not only should many methods not be free, but also many forms of contraception should be illegal.

What about condoms? They don't do anything but stop the sperm, and they're important in preventing STDs, not just for gay people but straight people as well. Should they be free in states that ban abortions?

[Pedocon Theory is not a theory]

No, because I believe that life begins at fertilization, not implantation.  Many popular forms of hormonal contraception can prevent implantation by thinning the lining of the uterus (even if that is not their primary mechanism).  Because of that, my view is that popular forms of "contraception" at least have the potential of being unintentional abortifacients.  So, not only should many methods not be free, but also many forms of contraception should be illegal.

What about condoms? They don't do anything but stop the sperm, and they're important in preventing STDs, not just for gay people but straight people as well. Should they be free in states that ban abortions?

This chud thinks non-procreative sex is destroying the fabric of society, he doesn't care about logic or facts or consistency. In his mind the only allowable sex is one man and one woman pumping away with a monotone expression. And no pleasure allowed! Pleasure is SINFUL and encourages LOOSENESS

[Orwell]

Plan B expensive bro, I still owe a friend like $25 for one, but let's be honest I ain't ever paying her for that. Ong

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

No, because I believe that life begins at fertilization, not implantation.  Many popular forms of hormonal contraception can prevent implantation by thinning the lining of the uterus (even if that is not their primary mechanism).  Because of that, my view is that popular forms of "contraception" at least have the potential of being unintentional abortifacients.  So, not only should many methods not be free, but also many forms of contraception should be illegal.

I really don't think "has the potential of being an unintentional abortifacient" is something that should inform our thinking as to whether or not something should be illegal, otherwise we're in the position of legally prohibiting the consumption of alcohol, tobacco, potentially sushi, etc. etc. etc. during pregnancy (rather than merely frowning upon it as many or most people currently do). I don't think it's reasonable to consider that proportional to the risk of miscarriage, which, sadly, is at least somewhat present in all pregnancies anyway.

[MarkD]

Absolutely not.
Somebody always has to pay for anything that has costs, and with this issue you're talking about taxpayers subsidizing a product for everyone who may need to get the product, even though the product is hardly too expensive for even the poorest of people to buy on their own.
What would be the point in creating this subsidy? Are you trying to put words into the mouths of anti-abortion legislators? Is this the implicit message you want anti-abortion legislators to send to all the residents of the state?
We who are anti-abortion are constantly being accused of ulterior motives, such as that we want "to control women's bodies," that we're "sexual fascists" who have no respect for reproductive autonomy, and so on. In order to prove that none of that is true, we hereby subsidize contraceptives for anyone and everyone who needs them. This should put an end, once and for all, to any question about whether we have respect for reproductive autonomy.
Is that what you want anti-abortion legislators to say?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Absolutely not.
Somebody always has to pay for anything that has costs, and with this issue you're talking about taxpayers subsidizing a product for everyone who may need to get the product, even though the product is hardly too expensive for even the poorest of people to buy on their own.
What would be the point in creating this subsidy? Are you trying to put words into the mouths of anti-abortion legislators? Is this the implicit message you want anti-abortion legislators to send to all the residents of the state?
We who are anti-abortion are constantly being accused of ulterior motives, such as that we want "to control women's bodies," that we're "sexual fascists" who have no respect for reproductive autonomy, and so on. In order to prove that none of that is true, we hereby subsidize contraceptives for anyone and everyone who needs them. This should put an end, once and for all, to any question about whether we have respect for reproductive autonomy.
Is that what you want anti-abortion legislators to say?

IUDs cost up to $1300 without insurance.