Plan B Now OTC For All Ages

[All4MyDaughter]

Ok, maybe i'm not using the legal wording. But I just googled Texas law.

http://law.onecle.com/texas/penal/21.11.00.html

"A person commits an offense if, with a child younger than 17 years and not the person's
spouse, whether the child is of the same or opposite sex"

Not that I agree that 17 cut off. It seems a little outdated, but the point is there is an age cut off for legal sex. And if it was illegal for under-aged children to have sex, then doesn't that automatically lays the legal responsibility on the parents?

You don't understand what you are reading. Per the chart I linked to, minors can ALREADY consent to reproductive health care services in Texas. Why do you think this is?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[eagles22]

You don't understand what you are reading. Per the chart I linked to, minors can ALREADY consent to reproductive health care services in Texas. Why do you think this is?

He read the law wrong and is using it (wrongly) to justify what he previously said.

 

[xiphoid2010]

You don't understand what you are reading. Per the chart I linked to, minors can ALREADY consent to reproductive health care services in Texas. Why do you think this is?

Read your link again. Texas, only some groups of minors can consent to contraception, and the article listed those as with health issues, married, pregnant. I didn't see common kids in there.

Also I am referencing the Texas law where it said it was illegal for under 17 to have sex.

I can see how these can fit together. There seems to be lots of room for parental rights between the two in there.

 

[eagles22]

Read your link again. Texas, only some groups of minors can consent to contraception, and true article listed those with health issues, married, pregnant as example. I didn't see plain common kids listed in there.

Also I am referencing the Texas law where it said it was illegal for under 17 to have sex.

I can see how these can fit together. There seems to be lots of room for parental rights between the two in there.

Did you even read the second part of the law which qualifies the instances in which it isn't illegal to have sex under 17 in Texas? It's literally right under the part you quoted. It is not illegal for two 16 yr olds to have sex in Texas.

 

[All4MyDaughter]

Read your link again. Texas, only some groups of minors can consent to contraception, and the article listed those as with health issues, married, pregnant. I didn't see common kids in there.

Also I am referencing the Texas law where it said it was illegal for under 17 to have sex.

I can see how these can fit together. There seems to be lots of room for parental rights between the two in there.

You are still confused. These two things do not interact, legally. You don't even understand the law on age of consent. It is not illegal for people under 17 to have sex. It is illegal for an adult to have sex with a person under 17. That's what the law means.

All minors in Texas can consent to STI treatment. How does that fit with your illegal/age of consent argument?

Also, Texas law is IRRELEVANT to the Plan B age limit issue. Do you not understand that either?

 

[All4MyDaughter]

Did you even read the second part of the law which qualifies the instances in which it isn't illegal to have sex under 17 in Texas? It's literally right under the part you quoted. It is not illegal for two 16 yr olds to have sex in Texas.

THANK YOU. I am getting frustrated with this conversation. At least someone can read and interpret the law.

 

[eagles22]

THANK YOU. I am getting frustrated with this conversation. At least someone can read and interpret the law.

Same. He seems to be ignoring that which weakens his arguments.

And, I'm still waiting for you to answer this question Xiphoid: Do you really think teenagers are going to come to mom and dad and ask for plan b rather than just waiting and hoping there is no pregnancy?

 

[xiphoid2010]

Did you even read the second part of the law which qualifies the instances in which it isn't illegal to have sex under 17 in Texas? It's literally right under the part you quoted. It is not illegal for two 16 yr olds to have sex in Texas.

Interesting. It says it is a defense if the two are less than 3 years apart. Again, I'm no lawyer, but that doesn't sound like it automatically equate to legal. Sounds more like will be considered a big mitigating factor.

 

[All4MyDaughter]

Same. He seems to be ignoring that which weakens his arguments.

And, I'm still waiting for you to answer this question Xiphoid: Do you really think teenagers are going to come to mom and dad and ask for plan b rather than just waiting and hoping there is no pregnancy?

I know they won't. Especially if we are talking about kids with strict parents who like to "teach lessons." They will, in almost every instance, hide what they have done and hope for no pregnancy (or, with the feeling of infallibility that accompanies youth) be certain that they won't get pregnant. If they do end up pregnant, most will conceal it until they are forced to reveal it, either by showing, or the arrival of health issues, etc.

 

[All4MyDaughter]

Interesting. It says it is a defense if the two are less than 3 years apart. Again, I'm no lawyer, but that doesn't sound like it automatically equate to legal. Sounds more like will be considered a big mitigating factor.

"I am no lawyer" is about the only correct thing you have said in a while in this thread.

 

[eagles22]

Interesting. It says it is a defense if the two are less than 3 years apart. Again, I'm no lawyer, but that doesn't sound like it automatically equate to legal. Sounds more like will be considered a big mitigating factor.

A) You are no lawyer so stop trying to twist this law. It's written in plain English. It literally says it's an affirmative offense. Which is when "the defendant affirms that the condition is occurring or has occurred but offers a defense that bars, or prevents, the plaintiff's claim." It's how laws are written. You set a broad picture then carve out the exceptions.

Clearly, it is not illegal for 16 year olds to be doing it, otherwise there would be a ton of kids in jail. Literally, every high school movie would be about kids setting off to rape their peers. This is clearly not the case.

B) answer my question.

 

[xiphoid2010]

You are still confused. These two things do not interact, legally. You don't even understand the law on age of consent. It is not illegal for people under 17 to have sex. It is illegal for an adult to have sex with a person under 17. That's what the law means.

All minors in Texas can consent to STI treatment. How does that fit with your illegal/age of consent argument?

Also, Texas law is IRRELEVANT to the Plan B age limit issue. Do you not understand that either?

Read the law again. It does not say adult vs minor. It specifically states "A person commits an
offense if", not adult, but a person, without age limit.

STD is not oral contraceptive, which plan B is. So why is Texas law irrelevant to plan B age issue?

You try to argue your point of view, but I'm arguing that taking away all age limit is unreasonable. I argue for a reasonable middle ground, why you must insist on taking it to the extreme? But don't get frustrated, you don't like things that don't go against your views, neither do I, but why get upset on the internet?

 

[eagles22]

I know they won't. Especially if we are talking about kids with strict parents who like to "teach lessons." They will, in almost every instance, hide what they have done and hope for no pregnancy (or, with the feeling of infallibility that accompanies youth) be certain that they won't get pregnant. If they do end up pregnant, most will conceal it until they are forced to reveal it, either by showing, or the arrival of health issues, etc.

I love the debate technique in which you shift the argument away from the original topic. You want to talk about me raising the taxes? Well, I want to tell you about the terrorists plotting another 9/11...

I doubt he'll ever answer the question I've posed several times because the answer would invalidate his entire argument.

 

[eagles22]

Read the law again. It does not say adult vs minor. It specifically states "A person commits an
offense if", not adult, but a person, without age limit.

STD is not oral contraceptive, which plan B is. So why is Texas law irrelevant to plan B age issue?

You try to argue your point of view, but I'm arguing that taking away all age limit is unreasonable. I argue for a reasonable middle ground, why you must insist on taking it to the extreme? But don't get frustrated, you don't like things that don't go against your views, neither do I, but why get upset on the internet?

Drop the law argument. It's honestly just a diversion away from the actual issue. Also, drop it because you're wrong. It also lists a series of exceptions to the rule which you do not want to acknowledge. I can go back and misquote a bunch of your statements to fit my argument, but it doesn't make it right. You need to stop selectively reading.

As for the point of STI testing/treatment without consent, it shows that Texas does give sexual health rights to minors already. This would be consistent with that.

Also, care to answer my question?

 

[xiphoid2010]

"I am no lawyer" is about the only correct thing you have said in a while in this thread.

Just out of curiosity, I looked up "affirmative defense" mentioned in the law.

In law, an affirmative defense is a complete or partial defense to a civil or criminal claim based on facts other than those alleged by the plaintiff or prosecutor. An affirmative defense alleges facts that, if proven by the defendant, would defeat or reduce a claim even if the allegations alleged in the claim are all proven. In civil lawsuits, affirmative defenses include the statute of limitations, the statute of frauds, and waiver. In criminal prosecutions, examples affirmative defenses include self defense,[1] insanity, and the statute of limitations.

 

[eagles22]

Just out of curiosity, I looked up "affirmative defense" mentioned in the law.

In law, an affirmative defense is a complete or partial defense to a civil or criminal claim based on facts other than those alleged by the plaintiff or prosecutor. An affirmative defense alleges facts that, if proven by the defendant, would defeat or reduce a claim even if the allegations alleged in the claim are all proven. In civil lawsuits, affirmative defenses include the statute of limitations, the statute of frauds, and waiver. In criminal prosecutions, examples affirmative defenses include self defense,[1] insanity, and the statute of limitations.

So let me put this in our case. The facts are that someone had sex with a 16 year old girl (which is a violation of the first part of the law). We're admitting this happened which if it was the end of the story, would be a guilty verdict. However, when he is investigated, it is found out that this person is also 16 (within 3 years of 16 since 16-16=0). He also did not coerce her, and he isn't a registered sex offender. With this in mind, he would not be found guilty since the law literally says these circumstances are the affirmative defense. That's how to interpret this law.

So yea, thanks for posting what proves my point. Anyways, care to answer the question I posed?

 

[All4MyDaughter]

Read the law again. It does not say adult vs minor. It specifically states "A person commits an
offense if", not adult, but a person, without age limit.

STD is not oral contraceptive, which plan B is. So why is Texas law irrelevant to plan B age issue?

You try to argue your point of view, but I'm arguing that taking away all age limit is unreasonable. I argue for a reasonable middle ground, why you must insist on taking it to the extreme? But don't get frustrated, you don't like things that don't go against your views, neither do I, but why get upset on the internet?

No, I don't need to read the law again. I understood it the first time. The comprehension problem is yours.

Sex between minors is not illegal in Texas or anywhere else. You are flat out wrong.

The "consent to contraceptives" provision of the law just means that minors can go to their doctors and get an RX for Depo or Yasmin and don't need parental permission.

But none of that applies to Plan B because FEDERAL law governs who can buy it, not state law. It is regulated by the FDA, not the State of Texas. And I have already told you that, but you either didn't read it, didn't understand it, or chose to ignore it.

 

[xiphoid2010]

A) You are no lawyer so stop trying to twist this law. It's written in plain English. It literally says it's an affirmative offense. Which is when "the defendant affirms that the condition is occurring or has occurred but offers a defense that bars, or prevents, the plaintiff's claim." It's how laws are written. You set a broad picture then carve out the exceptions.

Clearly, it is not illegal for 16 year olds to be doing it, otherwise there would be a ton of kids in jail. Literally, every high school movie would be about kids setting off to rape their peers. This is clearly not the case.

B) answer my question.

See post above. Affirmative defense what it is. With 16 years old, affirmative defense is what allows them to be guilty but go unpunished.

B. Relax, I'm tying on my iPad. And you don't have an answer to that question any more than I do. Show me data on percentage of kids will ask for Plan B vs will risk pregnancy. Otherwise, its just conjecture.

 

[eagles22]

See post above. Affirmative defense what it is. With 16 years old, affirmative defense is what allows them to be guilty but go unpunished.

B. Relax, I'm tying on my iPad. And you don't have an answer to that question any more than I do. Show me data on percentage of kids will ask for Plan B vs will risk pregnancy. Otherwise, its just conjecture.

I'm not asking for a randomized controlled trial. I'm asking your opinion on it. Do you really think kids will come to mom and dad rather than hoping for no pregnancy?

And again, you're wrong. An affirmative defense results in a not guilty verdict. These are jury instructions. www.isc.idaho.gov/jury/civil/04/IDJI_4.26.docx

Granted, this example is for self-defense, but use your imagination and it fits fine. And I know it's from Idaho, but it should hold try for Texas.

 

[xiphoid2010]

I'm not asking for a randomized controlled trial. I'm asking your opinion on it. Do you really think kids will come to mom and dad rather than hoping for no pregnancy?

And again, you're wrong. An affirmative defense results in a not guilty verdict. These are jury instructions. www.isc.idaho.gov/jury/civil/04/IDJI_4.26.docx

Granted, this example is for self-defense, but use your imagination and it fits fine. And I know it's from Idaho, but it should hold try for Texas.

Everyone has an opinion, but debates never goes anywhere based on opinions. But as for the record, my opinion is circumventing parental involvement on birthcontrol will do more harm than good overall.

And what law degree allow you to interpret laws for others. For example, the insanity plea that cited as a affirmative defense. An insanity defense can still be found guilty but sent to a mental ward. Are you so well versed in law? At least I cite references that explains affirmative defense is equate being legal.

Anyway, iPads battery is dying and wife is calling me to bed. We can continue this some other time if you wish. Good night.

 

[eagles22]

Everyone has an opinion, but debates never goes anywhere based on opposing opinions. But as for the record, my opinion is circumventing parental involvement on birthcontrol will do more harm than good overall.

And what law degree allow you to interpret laws for others. For example, the insanity plea that cited as a affirmative defense. An insanity defense can still be found guilty but sent to a mental ward. Are you so well versed in law? At least I cite references that explains affirmative defense is equate being legal.

Neither of us is lawyers, but your arguments are just illogical. We don't find people guilty then not give any punishment. Not guilty by reason of insanity is something completely different than what we're arguing. And it literally is a NOT GUILTY result. It says it in the name. You have no idea what you're talking about. BTW, not all NGRIs go to the psych ward.

Let's try one more example. A surgeon perform surgery without a patient's consent. Should be battery. However, the affirmative defense is that this was an emergency and getting consent wasn't possible. We wouldn't find this person guilty in court, would we?

Also, you just answered a question different from what I asked. I didn't ask if circumventing parental involvement was good, I asked if you thought a kid would come to mom and dad or just wait and hope there is no pregnancy.

Anyways, I'm done with this discussion. Your arguments lack logic. You flat out refuse to answer a simple question because you know if you answer, you'll admit that your premise is wrong. You have diverted the question away from its original purpose and now we're just arguing.

 

[Pharmacy Kid]

Does anyone else think its messed up that a judge is making this decision? What's next, Judge Cheech making Marinol OTC?

It should be put up for an FDA panel vote. I wouldn't mind making it a state issue either.

 

[wucool33]

Xipoid has a weird way of arguing with people in anything none pharmacy related and it never makes too much sense.

Anyway... This is really a none issue. Underaged teens are already getting plan bs. I mean if 16 year olds wanted plan b, all they have to do is ask their senior friends to get them one. Easy...

Xipoid also said he did a lot "illegal stuff" as a teen... I wonder if he came clean to his parents right after?

 

[npage148]

I love how xophoid claims to a great centrist yet on several issues he comes off as nothing but a hard inflexible conservative and tries to use weird legal arguments to justify his position. It's ok to be conservation (not really) but you need to at least admit it

 

[ttopping]

My only concern would be that someone who isn't mature enough to make certain well informed medical decisions about themselves would use this as a cover up when they may need medical attention (sexual assault, multiple partners and not truly understanding the STI risk). Someone who is 15 and sexually active could realistically view this as no big deal when it's really supposed to be emergency contraception.

That being said, people who were previously old enough to get it without a prescription certainly did that as well, but they at least (I would hope) had more information and were mature enough to choose to disregard said information. Not to mention I'm sure it was easy to find someone to get it for you if you were <17. I'm a little torn on the issue. Hopefully it does more good than harm

 

[spacecowgirl]

Now kids are just these young kids are gonna start saying "forget a condom, baby just go get the pill tomorrow and everything will be all good

Which is worse than, baby don't worry, we'll get Medicaid and SSDI and welfare from the state to take care of the baby we didn't want, can't afford and can't take care of?

 

[eagles22]

My only concern would be that someone who isn't mature enough to make certain well informed medical decisions about themselves would use this as a cover up when they may need medical attention (sexual assault, multiple partners and not truly understanding the STI risk). Someone who is 15 and sexually active could realistically view this as no big deal when it's really supposed to be emergency contraception.

From what I've seen, these kids just eschew all forms of medical treatment until there is a symptom. It's not like 15 year old girls are coming straight forward right after the fact asking for a medical checkup. They wait until something is wrong to report it, and by then Plan B is useless. At least by making Plan B available, we taking the worry of pregnancy off the list of those other very serious problems.

I don't get the "mature enough to make a medical decision" approach either. Adults are just going to go get the Plan B and give it to the girl. This new interpretation cuts out the middle man and still ends with the same result. When an adult gets a kid plan B it's mature but when a kid gets herself plan B it's not? I see getting the Plan B as a mature, responsible decision in the aftermath of a stupid action. And there is evidence that increased access does NOT lead to increased risky behavior.

http://journals.lww.com/greenjourna...ffect_of_Increased_Access_to_Emergency.8.aspx

 

[Digsbe]

My opinion is that I'm fine with Plan B being available without a prescription for minors. However, I would prefer that it be a behind the pharmacy counter item where a pharmacist should counsel on it. It could just be me, but I've dealt with many questions regarding Plan B where some have called and believed it blocked STDs, others thought that they could take it now and then have a crazy weekend of unprotected sex and use it as a form of primary birth control. I've even had a lady ask if she could somehow buy it, split the med and use it in smaller doses each day because she thought it would make her breasts and hair grow more.

I know that this is all anecdotal, but society as a whole is not educated enough with Plan B (which is also evident by all the people claiming it's an abortion pill) to have it be fully OTC right there next to condoms or Tyelenol being sold is stores where a pharmacist isn't even present.

I also have some concerns with abuse or men buying it for sexual partners that force them to take it. I think it should be OTC for all ages of reproductive age but it must be sold in a pharmacists and the patient should sign off on it and have their purchase recorded (almost like Sudafed, only not as extreme). I'm not completely opposed to having it be OTC and I do think that requiring a prescription for minors is a barrier to preventing pregnancy (especially given the time window), but I also do not think that minors would on average know how to appropriately use Plan B and I don't think it's best to have it completely OTC on the shelves. I would also be fine with requiring parental consent or at least parental notification, but I think that should be a state issue.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

This thread turned "stupid waste of my time" pretty fast.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

Which is worse than, baby don't worry, we'll get Medicaid and SSDI and welfare from the state to take care of the baby we didn't want, can't afford and can't take care of?

Medicaid. Our country is going to be going through a birth rate decline. We need more babies. The generation born today will be paying for my medicare and social security when I'm old. We need more workers, fools. The dumber, the better. Then we can do to them what the baby boomers did to us. Mwahahahaha.

 

[Digsbe]

Medicaid. Our country is going to be going through a birth rate decline. We need more babies. The generation born today will be paying for my medicare and social security when I'm old. We need more workers, fools. The dumber, the better. Then we can do to them what the baby boomers did to us. Mwahahahaha.

So we pay for the Medicaid babies while we are working adults and the Medicaid babies in turn pay off our SS and Medicare when we are old?

 

[rxlea]

Just wait until your teenager rolls up in an Escalade with 5 medicaid babies because she couldn't get Plan B and had to sell her body for her cocaine addiction.

 

[rxlea]

So we pay for the Medicaid babies while we are working adults and the Medicaid babies in turn pay off our SS and Medicare when we are old?

That's what the boomers did to us, except they didn't have to pay for that many medicaid babies and they had jobs...without needing degrees...after smoking and ****ing their 20's away not worrying about **** like AIDS.

 

[Digsbe]

That's what the boomers did to us, except they didn't have to pay for that many medicaid babies and they had jobs...without needing degrees...after smoking and ****ing their 20's away not worrying about **** like AIDS.

We just need to deny Plan B to people that have a stable income

 

[docss26]

Only stupid people are procreating. Watch Idiocracy. It's the future.

 

[Skrumpy]

Assuming your son tells you about the sexual encounter immediately after it happens. How likely is that?

If I was underage I would always tell my parents immediately after having sex.. I mean it's not like I would be ruining a good thing right? Because kids always think about the consequences of their actions..

 

[Skrumpy]

Only stupid people are procreating. Watch Idiocracy. It's the future.

Loved that movie.. it's so true. Studies have been done showing that the more educated a woman is the less likely she is to have children. It's pretty much taken as fact in the anthropological community.

 

[xiphoid2010]

I can't believe people think that kids of any age can make medical decisions. When do you think a child has the ability to think about the consequences of sex and choose medical treatment without any external guidance? 5? 10? 15? If you guys think 5 and 10 year old has that capacity and don't need parental or healthcare professional involvement, then I guess your opinions are so far off from common sense that there is really nothing further to debate.

We have minimum age for driving/smoking/voting/drinking/sign loans, etc. It's common sense that kids under a certain age just don't have the ability to make rational choices. You don't grant them more power play with, you empower the parents/guardian/professionals to supervise them. Whether kids should be allowed to choose oral contraceptives without guidance shouldn't even be up for debate. The only point that should be up for debate is what is a reasonable age for a child make that choice independently. And it should be common sense that it shouldn't be <10.

I think american sense of freedom and personal rights is just so overboard in some areas. Parents can't do this, teachers can't do that. Give kids more rights but not the smarts. Guess that kind of explains why crime rate is higher than more strictly disciplinarian asian countries. But hey, if you guys really think your kids are better off with less parental oversight, it's your kids and your choice.

 

[owlegrad]

Oh geez talk about a straw man argument. Lame sauce.

 

[All4MyDaughter]

 

[Ackj]

So why only Plan B? Why not all make all OC OTC with no age limits? It sounds like a lot of the arguments being used here could be applied to the qd product as well.

 

[All4MyDaughter]

So why only Plan B? Why not all make all OC OTC with no age limits? It sounds like a lot of the arguments being used here could be applied to the qd product as well.

ACOG agrees with you.

 

[Bostonredsox]

I had a teenage girl in my clinic intern year that when I asked her what she used for contraception she told me Plan-B was her Plan-A. I cried a bit on the inside.

 

[Carboxide]

So why only Plan B? Why not all make all OC OTC with no age limits? It sounds like a lot of the arguments being used here could be applied to the qd product as well.

Because Plan B is safer. There are NO absolute contraindications to Plan B...but OC patients need to be evaluated for migraines, migraines with aura, age, DVT history, etc.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

I can't believe people think that kids of any age can make medical decisions. When do you think a child has the ability to think about the consequences of sex and choose medical treatment without any external guidance? 5? 10? 15? If you guys think 5 and 10 year old has that capacity and don't need parental or healthcare professional involvement, then I guess your opinions are so far off from common sense that there is really nothing further to debate.

We have minimum age for driving/smoking/voting/drinking/sign loans, etc. It's common sense that kids under a certain age just don't have the ability to make rational choices. You don't grant them more power play with, you empower the parents/guardian/professionals to supervise them. Whether kids should be allowed to choose oral contraceptives without guidance shouldn't even be up for debate. The only point that should be up for debate is what is a reasonable age for a child make that choice independently. And it should be common sense that it shouldn't be <10.

I think american sense of freedom and personal rights is just so overboard in some areas. Parents can't do this, teachers can't do that. Give kids more rights but not the smarts. Guess that kind of explains why crime rate is higher than more strictly disciplinarian asian countries. But hey, if you guys really think your kids are better off with less parental oversight, it's your kids and your choice.

See, there is something you need to understand. Women's reproductive rights in the US are considered more important than people living.

Why do I say this? Because insurance companies can charge whatever the hell they want for life-saving medications. You need a beta blocker to live? $15 a month. Now...female contraception? **** that, it's free, period. Period. Insurance companies HAVE TO give it away for free. And specifically FEMALE contraception. Need to see a specialist cardiologist for your serious, potentially lethal condition because its too complex for your PCP? That'll be the higher $50 copay. Need an annual vaginal exam? Free, period.

It should also be noted that boys don't get condoms for free from their health insurer, either. Hence, I say that SPECIFICALLY female contraception is considered so important in the US...and it is considered a more fundamental right than actually getting to live.

Now with this sort of an atmosphere, really, how can you expect anything to be more important than access to birth control to the average person? Do you think your right to know your underage child's behavior is more important than some person having access to a medication that will save their life? Of course you don't, you're not a sociopath. THEREFORE...your right to know is easily trumped by the almighty access to contraception.

That said, I'm glad at least something in this country is guaranteed concerning health care. Though why they decided to make access to contraception only for females literally the only medication of every medication and any situation potentially possible that your insurance company can't charge a copay for really should boggle your mind.

 

[Momus]

You want to get screwed for life? Marry a woman. Women's rights > ALL in USA

 

[npage148]

You want to get screwed for life? Marry a woman.

I dont know about you but that was my rationale behind getting married

 

[rxlea]

Condoms are covered by medicaid here.
Not sure what the doc has to do to get them covered. But I've seen them allow 3 large boxes a month.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

You want to get screwed for life? Marry a woman. Women's rights > ALL in USA

Not totally true.

Attractive women have the easiest lives. Ugly women have the toughest lives. Men are right there in the middle.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

You want to get screwed for life? Marry a woman. Women's rights > ALL in USA

Condoms are covered by medicaid here.
Not sure what the doc has to do to get them covered. But I've seen them allow 3 large boxes a month.

Everything is covered on Medicaid. I've seen them pay for contact lens solution.