ÌìÃÀÊÓƵ

The latest round of political arguments centered around women’s health took place recently atÌýthe U.S. Supreme Court. The issue at hand was the mandatory under the Affordable Care Act, and religious objections to providing this coverage for employer-sponsored health insurance.

I find it ironic that there are so many objections to providing women access to contraception, when at the same time, more and more restrictions are blocking access to abortions in many states.

Just lastÌýmonth, the Supreme Court regarding the restrictions on abortion in Texas.

Which is better? Prevent pregnancy in the first place, or wait until there is an unwanted pregnancy and then have an abortion?Ìý

Now, to be clear, I am pro-life but also pro-choice. Yes, I can be both. I value the possibility of human life at conception, but I am also in favor of women and men choosing what to do with their bodies.

Let’s face it, in general, women can’t get pregnant alone, and men also have an equal responsibility here. So when a couple chooses to have sex, they also have the right to choose to prevent pregnancy as well. That seems like a much easier option than to deal with an unwanted pregnancy — and in several states, the difficulty of finding an abortion provider.

First, birth control. Yes, there are some religions that do not promote the use of birth control of any kind, including pills. With the current controversy regarding insurance coverage, this just proves that birth control pills should be sold without a prescription, over the counter in pharmacies.

The political jockeying is not going to end until women and the medical establishment stop allowing politics to dictate medical care.

Yes, there is a cost for birth control pills, and if the federal government wants to be subsidize it, there are several ways to do it:

Lower the cost with increased generic availability, provide vouchers for those who cannot afford the pills, or even provide free secondary insurance coverage for those who want to get the pills, and don’t have an insurance plan that will cover these, prescription or not. This gives women the choice, and also increased access, to being proactive regarding their reproductive health.

Morning-after pills are also over-the-counter options currently available without a prescription, and any type of subsidy, or supplemental insurance plan should cover these as well. Condoms should be covered too, just to be fair about it.

For those women who are pregnant and want to terminate the pregnancy, too many states in the nation are restricting access to abortions by creating onerous laws that are forcing abortion clinics to close.

In , the law regarding the requirement of abortions to be done in an ambulatory surgical center, and the doctor needing admitting privileges at a local hospital, is being challenged in the Supreme Court.

After the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, the court is down to eight justices, and that could lead to a tie vote, leaving the current laws in place that limit the availability of abortion services.

In Indiana, that restricts any doctor from performing an abortion for a woman based on gender, race, color, national origin, ancestry, or disability — including Down syndrome.

This law,Ìý, basically forces women to carry nonviable pregnancies to term even if a fetus has a lethal abnormality and will not survive after birth. What’s the point of genetic testing if there are no options for dealing with the results?

Not only does the bill in Indiana restrict access to abortions for any of these reasons, it imposes medical board sanctions and civil liability for wrongful death for the doctors who perform abortions on women in the state for any of those situations. Granted, gender selection should be barred, but should children be born into a life of suffering because of a disability that causes more pain after birth?Ìý

These are not the only two states for women in the United States.

The assault on women’s health care in the United States is only going to get worse. Look at the controversy regarding the funding of Planned Parenthood in 2015.

Even though no federal funding was provided for abortion services, the threat of defunding the organization looms large as the election season commences. wants to defund Planned Parenthood. has said he supports the organization but not for the abortion services that they provide. called Planned Parenthood part of the establishment.

The political jockeying is not going to end until women and the medical establishment stop allowing politics to dictate medical care.

Not since have women had such an uphill battle for access to adequate reproductive services.

That case also arose inÌýTexas. I can only hope the Supreme Court of today reinforces the decision itÌýmade more than four decades ago.