While I've heard that said - that insurers will pay for viagra but not birth control - I don't know that it's factually true, or to what extent it's true.

I would have liked to have seen some links and text clips supporting the claim, since it's critical to your argument.

I liked the sentence, "If a woman can't afford birth control, she certainly can't afford a baby" - I thought this was a pretty powerful argument.

The moralists and republicans wil of course say - if a woman can't afford birth control, "abstinence" is still free. Funny how the burden of abstinence and the dirty looks of the moralists always seem to be directed at women, not men.

Well, I'm uncertain about this argument. When you refer to birth control, what EXACTLY are you refering to? The pill, the ring, the shot, the patches, or that little uterine device inserted by a doctor that is supposed to protect a woman from pregnancy for up to 5 yrs or something?

That uterine device is for a woman in a "stable, committed" relationship - so would a single woman not be covered - is this even a factor? [I don't know, but I'm just responding to the commercials I've seen].

Now with the pill and the ring, those are BOTH covered by insurance. The only out-of-pocket expense is the co-pay.

Are you possibly referencing some women's plans that don't include prescription coverage? Because that would be a whole other conversation entirely, no?