Can You Buy Plan B In Texas
As Texas swerved sharply to the right in recent decades, anti-abortion politicians vowed to run Planned Parenthood out of the state, enacting a cascade of restrictions. In 2011, Republican lawmakers slashed funding for the state family planning program by 66%, and more than 80 family planning clinics closed.
can you buy plan b in texas
Download File: https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Fjinyurl.com%2F2ueEPg&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AOvVaw016QPiLsu7IVUwxKIom032
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists finds that a pregnancy is not established until a fertilized egg is implanted in the lining of a person's uterus, which could take several days after initial meeting of egg and sperm. Gestation refers specifically to the duration of a pregnancy, often measured from the first day of the last menstrual period, according to the organization.
"I think there is certainly a strong potential for a prosecutor who wished to do so to use this bill to go after either emergency contraception that worked on un-implanted embryos or to go after fertility clinics that didn't perpetually preserve the embryos that were sitting in a test tube," said Chandler.
According to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, an ectopic pregnancy occurs when a fertilized egg implants outside of the uterus. In about 90% of ectopic pregnancies, this occurs in a fallopian tube, which can then rupture and cause major internal bleeding. This is life-threatening and requires immediate surgery to remove the egg, which results in the termination of the pregnancy. According to the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, about 1 in 100 pregnancies are ectopic.
Ella, a prescription-issued emergency contraceptive, is marketed as 85% at prevented unplanned pregnancies and is effective for people weighing more than 165 pounds. The drug maintains its efficacy when taken within five days of unprotected sex.
High demand means it may take more than 2 weeks to get a kit delivered to you. If it has been more than 2 weeks since you requested a Repro Kit, please reach out to us at ReproKit@everybodytexas.org.
The partnership also helps with the following programs. Benefit Counselors are specially trained to help you understand all the fine print to find and apply to a plan that works for you. They advocate for you with these programs and help you get the services you need.
If you live outside the U.S.: You may want to get Part B if you plan to return to the U.S. to get health care services. Get help signing up for Part B if you live in a foreign country.
A merger filing instrument must include either (1) the plan of merger or (2) the statements set out in section 10.151(b)(1) of the BOC. The secretary of state merger forms include an option for providing the alternative statements.
A conversion filing instrument must include either (1) the plan of conversion or (2) the statements set out in section 10.154(b)(1) of the BOC. The secretary of state conversion forms include an option for providing the alternative statements.
A certificate of formation attached to a conversion filing instrument must state (1) that the entity is formed under a plan of conversion and (2) the name, address, date of formation, entity type, and jurisdiction of formation of the converting entity (the entity before the conversion).
NOTE: Individuals who were terminated from Part A 36 months after receiving a kidney transplant may be eligible for the Part B Immunosuppressive Drug benefit. Learn more about Part B Immunosuppressive Drug Coverage.
Individuals who do not enroll in Part B or premium Part A when first eligible because they were covered under a group health plan based on their own or a spouse's current employment (or the current employment of a family member, if disabled) may enroll during this SEP.
The individual can enroll at any time while covered under the group health plan based on current employment, or during the 8-month period that begins the month the employment ends or the group health plan coverage ends, whichever comes first.
Individuals who do not enroll in Part B or premium Part A when first eligible due to misrepresentation or reliance on incorrect information provided by their employer or group health plan (GHP), agents or brokers of health plans, or any person authorized to act on behalf of such entity may enroll using this SEP.
Individuals and married couples with an income over a certain limit must pay a higher premium for Part B and an extra amount for Part D coverage in addition to their Part D plan premium. This additional amount is called income-related monthly adjustment amount. Less than 5 percent of people with Medicare are affected, so most people will not pay a higher premium. Visit the Medicare Parts A & B Income Related Adjustment Amounts page for information about income limits.
The 2022 State Water Plan is the eleventh state water plan and the fifth plan based on the regional water planning process. In addition to incorporating the regional water plans, the state water plan serves as a guide to state water policy and identifies river and stream segments of unique ecological value and sites of unique value for the construction of reservoirs that the Board recommends for protection.
If you have already begun the application process for federal tax credits and wish to subsequently apply for the state credits, simply submit the application forms for the Texas Historic Preservation Tax Credit program. You do not need to send another set of supporting documents (photos and plans) if your scope of work is the same.
IUDs, implanted in the uterus by a health provider, are a semi-permanent birth control method. They also prevent fertilization, but in some cases may prevent implantation. About 6.1 million women used IUDs over a one-month survey period in 2018, the same number as those relying on male condoms, according to the Guttmacher Institute, an abortion rights advocacy and research organization.
Those developments are in addition to actions some red states have taken trying to curtail family planning funding to certain reproductive health centers, which could limit access to birth control, particularly for low-income women, and to block legislative measures that would make contraceptives more accessible.
In 2019, the Trump administration adopted new rules blocking Title X family planning funding from going to providers who also offered abortion services or referred patients for abortions. The rules expelled many providers, notably Planned Parenthood, prompting some to close and eliminating for many patients access to the full range of reproductive health services.
All Harris Health patients are asked to make a minimum payment at the time of their hospital or clinic visit, except for pediatric and prenatal care visits. Service fees do not apply to patients in the Healthcare for the Homeless Program or other insurance plans. Insurance plan copays will be collected according to plan requirements.
Two life insurance plans are provided to employees by the City, at no cost to the employee: one year's salary through the Texas Municipal Retirement System for full-time and most part-time employees, and a $10,000 Life and AD&D policy through the group health plan provider for full-time employees. Optional additional coverage is available to full-time employees for themselves, spouse, and/or children at a group rate with deductions from each paycheck.
This optional benefit is available to full-time and part-time employees through the ICMA-Retirement Corporation or Nationwide Investments. This voluntary 457-deferred compensation plan allows for employees to have a selection of investment opportunities, with the contributions taken on a pre-tax basis from each paycheck.
The argument is that IUDs and emergency contraception, which make it harder for eggs to be fertilized but also can prevent fertilized eggs from implanting in the uterus, cause abortions. That view has no medical basis, note physicians and other reproductive health experts.
With federal abortion protections likely to be struck down this summer, anti-abortion lawmakers are turning their attention to the next target: birth control \u2014 in particular, emergency contraception and intrauterine devices (IUDs). \n\n\n\nThe talks are still in their early stages. Days after the leak of a draft Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade, Brent Crane, a senior state lawmaker in Idaho, said publicly he wanted to hold hearings on banning emergency contraception. Earlier this month, Louisiana lawmakers considered a bill that would have classified abortion as homicide \u2014 and that could, experts say, have criminalized IUDs and emergency contraception as well. The Louisiana bill ultimately failed.\n\n\n\nThough it\u2019s early, the support for these bans is there, reproductive policy observers told The 19th. Influential anti-abortion groups have indicated they would back legislation banning these birth control methods. And recent litigation over the Affordable Care Act\u2019s mandated contraceptive coverage has showcased the potency of abortion opponents\u2019 appetite for limiting access to IUDs and emergency contraception.\n\n\n\n\u201cWe are likely to see emergency contraception, at least, as the next step,\u201d said Elizabeth Sepper, a law professor at the University of Texas at Austin. \u201cThere are a number of hints of that happening. And to me, the largest indication was the concerted litigation campaign against the ACA\u2019s contraceptive mandate, where it\u2019s fairly obvious there was an attempt to confuse the public about what emergency contraception and IUDs do, and what they are.\u201d \n\n\n\nThe impact would be sweeping. IUDs are the most effective form of reversible birth control, and usage has increased dramatically in the past 10 years. About 1 in 10 people using birth control have an IUD, per the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Emergency contraception pills have grown similarly more widely used. Between 2013 and 2015, about 22 percent of women between the ages of 15 and 44 who have had sex reported using an emergency contraception pill at least once, per the Kaiser Family Foundation.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nThe right to contraception is protected by two Supreme Court cases: the landmark 1965 ruling in Griswold v. Connecticut, which found that married couples had the right to use birth control, and a subsequent 1972 ruling in a case known as Eisenstadt v. Baird, which extended that protection to unmarried people.\n\n\n\nRoe v. Wade, the 1973 case that guaranteed the federal right to an abortion, relies on the legal notion that the constitution grants a right to privacy \u2014 as does Griswold. But even as Justice Samuel Alito wrote a draft opinion that would overturn Roe, he argued that it wouldn\u2019t require gutting Griswold. \n\n\n\n\n\nBut even with Griswold intact, conservative legal minds have laid the groundwork to weaken contraceptive protections.\n\n\n\n\u201cThe immediate threat is there even if you don\u2019t touch Griswold. It\u2019s in the way that a lot of anti-abortion actors or activists and even in some cases judges have been defining abortion,\u201d said Rachel Van Sickle-Ward, a political studies professor at Pitzer College who has studied the politics of contraception. \u201cIt isn\u2019t like a totally pie in the sky, out of left-field idea. This is already built into the logic of their arguments.\u201d\n\n\n\nThe argument is that IUDs and emergency contraception, which make it harder for eggs to be fertilized but also can prevent fertilized eggs from implanting in the uterus, cause abortions. That view has no medical basis, note physicians and other reproductive health experts. \n\n\n\nBut in 2014, the Supreme Court\u2019s majority allowed for exactly that line of reasoning in a case known as Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. And that decision, legal scholars told The 19th, could now open the door for states to begin restricting access to contraception.\n\n\n\nEstelle Griswold (left), medical advisor and Executive director of the Planned Parenthood Clinic in New Haven, and Ernest Jahncke, President of Parenthood League of Connecticut, flash a victory sign as a result of the court\u2019s decision that the birth control law is unconstitutional.\n (Getty Images)\n\n\n\nThe Hobby Lobby decision, also authored by Alito, allowed for certain employers to partially opt out of the Affordable Care Act\u2019s \u201ccontraceptive mandate\u201d \u2014 requiring they provide insurance that covers birth control with no copay \u2014 if it violated their religious beliefs, including the idea that life begins at fertilization and that contraception blocking fertilized eggs from implanting constitutes an \u201cabortion.\u201d\n\n\n\n\u201cIf a legislature were to pass something similar, to say life begins at fertilization or conception or anything like that, then you could see a court saying the same thing: \u2018These elected officials say life begins at fertilization, we can\u2019t step in and say that doesn't qualify as an abortion,\u2019\u201d said Michael Ulrich, an assistant professor of health law, ethics and human rights at Boston University. \u201cEven this idea of what is an abortion could become a lot more expansive.\u201d\n\n\n\n\n\nThe federal government has more tools at its disposal to challenge state laws banning these types of contraception than it does abortion access. \u201cThere\u2019s a role for the federal government to play on contraception, and it\u2019s easier to see than for abortion,\u201d said Elizabeth Nash, who tracks state policy for the Guttmacher Institute. \n\n\n\nThe Affordable Care Act\u2019s contraceptive mandate \u2014 though significantly weakened by the Hobby Lobby decision and a subsequent Supreme Court ruling \u2014 could be used to argue against state laws restricting contraceptive funding. The government could also argue that state contraception bans complicate efforts to administer the federal Title X program, which funds family planning clinics across the country. But these are legally untested questions, and it\u2019s hard to know how those arguments might hold up. \n\n\n\n\u201cThat would not be a settled lock as quickly as banning abortion,\u201d said Laurie Sobel, associate director of women's health policy at the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation. \u201cIf IUDs and Plan B are illegal, I foresee that to be heavily litigated.\u201d\n\n\n\nLori Windham, senior counsel for The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, addresses the press in front of the Supreme Court after the decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores in June 2014.\n (Chip Somodevilla\/Getty Images)\n\n\n\nIn theory, the federal government is perhaps more likely to challenge contraception bans than abortion ones because of public perceptions, Van Sickle-Ward said. Abortion rights are fairly popular, but support can decline based on how bans are framed. Contraceptive rights, on the other hand, have for decades had stronger, broader support, including with Republican-identified voters. As recently as 2019, polling from the Public Religion Research Institute found that almost two-thirds of Republicans supported government-funded health programs covering contraception \u2014 while barely a quarter supported such coverage for abortion.\n\n\n\nBut at the same time, she and others said, legal challenges launched by the federal government could still lose. The Hobby Lobby precedent creates an opening for courts to uphold contraceptive bans, especially given the rightward shift of the federal courts. \n\n\n\nIt\u2019s not yet clear which states might pursue these kinds of contraceptive bans or when. The majority of state legislatures are part-time; most have finished their sessions for the year. And even many lawmakers who have passed legislation banning abortion \u201cat fertilization\u201d have been careful to include exemptions for birth control.\n\n\n\nEven with Roe soon likely to be overturned, the politics of promoting such bans may be a tougher sell than abortion restrictions. Crane, the Idaho lawmaker backing bans on emergency contraception, said that he was unsure if he would also push for restrictions on IUDs. Last year, lawmakers in Missouri sought to block Medicaid coverage of IUDs and emergency contraception \u2014 but those efforts failed. \n\n\n\nStill, the will is there. Many influential anti-abortion advocates have made clear that they support limiting access to IUDs and emergency contraception. Students for Life, a national organization that lobbies for abortion restrictions, has endorsed banning IUDs, emergency contraception, the pill and other types of hormonal birth control. National Right to Life, another major anti-abortion organization, officially does not take a position on contraception; but in a statement to The Washington Post, the organization clarified its opposition to \u201cany device or drug that would destroy a life already created at fertilization.\u201d\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nNational Democrats have already begun campaigning on the issue, arguing that potential state contraception bans are another reason to elect Democrats in this fall\u2019s midterm elections. At a press conference last week, Sen. Patty Murray, a Democrat from Washington, argued that the threat to abortion rights extends to at least these two forms of contraception.\n\n\n\n\u201cRepublicans don\u2019t just want to ban abortion. They\u2019re coming after the birth control that millions of patients rely on to plan a family, which includes IUDs and Plan B,\u201d Murray said.\n\n\n\nBut Democrats have so far not offered any kind of legislative plan around maintaining access to either method of birth control.\n\n\n\n\u201cTo the extent Democrats want to protect these rights that are clearly in the crosshairs \u2014 and apparently they were unwilling to protect the right to an abortion \u2014 they should be putting up to vote the right to contraception, to same-sex marriage, and the rights currently protected by the Constitution,\u201d Sepper said. \u201cThey should be codifying these rights and making them stick for the future.\u201d\n\n\n","post_title":"With abortion rights in limbo, conservative lawmakers are eyeing restrictions on IUDs and Plan B","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"restrictions-birth-control-iuds-plan-b","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2022-06-28 14:18:17","post_modified_gmt":"2022-06-28 19:18:17","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/19thnews.org\/?p=39383","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},"authors":["name":"Shefali Luthra","slug":"shefali-luthra","taxonomy":"author","description":"Shefali Luthra is our health reporter covering the intersection of gender and health care. Prior to joining The 19th she was a correspondent at Kaiser Health News, where she spent six years covering national health care and policy.","parent":0,"count":249,"filter":"raw","link":"https:\/\/19thnews.org\/author\/shefali-luthra"]} Up Next Election 2022 041b061a72