[alocasia-1]

Sure,

In 2020 there was a SCOTUS decision allowing employers to refuse insurance coverage for contraception for their employees for "religious or moral" reasons, aka "we don't like it". https://www.npr.org/2020/07/08/889112788/the-supreme-court-a...

At least twelve states have laws allowing institutions and healthcare professionals to simply refuse to provide contraception if they want. https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/refusing-pro...

Meanwhile, the push to classify some methods (morning-after pill & IUDs), which may prevent fertilized eggs from implanting, as "abortifacients" and therefore subject to the abortion bans now active in many states, has been going on for years but is picking up steam. Missouri's abortion ban in particular, now active, defines pregnancy as a fertilized egg, implanted or not.

[yucky]

So those aren't examples of contraceptive access being removed, they're examples of the Supreme Court ruling that government can not force private insurers to cover specific things if they don't want.

It seems like the solution to that would be to pick a different insurance plan (Obamacare marketplace has no plans that restrict contraceptive coverage) or go through one of the hundreds of organizations like Planned Parenthood. Since any employee is free to pick an Obamacare plan by law, does that not ensure contraceptive coverage is always available?