Re Sunday story "Political changes lead women to seek new birth control options:" Nicole Mason, quoted in this article, apparently confuses “not having access to birth control” with the possible requirement of having to pay for birth control. She says it’s “upsetting” to think that women are switching to more invasive (and far more costly) methods of control such as IUDs simply because currently their insurance (or the government) will pay for such procedures.
Later, within the same article, it states the average cost of the pill is about $20 for a three-month supply. That is apparently the out-of-pocket cost with insurance; my own research indicates a cost of as little as $5 per month depending on the strength and brand used.
The fact that a woman can obtain the pill for as little as $60 per year even without insurance is hardly cause for alarm or to fear lack of access. In this case, it seems “access” means having someone else (in the long run, all of us) pay for the pills.