Which is also unavailable in many places because the clinics that provide those services are associated with abortion.

But also, this is a "well actually" that attempts to dodge the substance of my post to chip away at it. Ostensibly, these cheaper tactics are frowned upon here and generally considered beneath the desired level of the discourse here.

> But also, this is a "well actually" that attempts to dodge the substance of my post to chip away at it.

I'm not sure it is. Your assertion was a central tenet of your argument. Abortion, although I totally agree with it being allowed, is admittedly a messy issue, and I can see why it's polarizing. Trying to frame that as an example for why women supposedly don't have equal rights is IMHO disingenuous.

No. My assertion is that women in many places simply cannot buy many types of health care because they're associated with reproductive needs.

But I don't see any evidence of that. They can buy it, just not usually with federal funds.

You should research this then. I've provided a link in other parts of this thread, please refer to it as the root.

Because I really question if you'd know simply by casually inspecting your surroundings.

I've read your link and replied to it. It only points to a grand total of three conservative states cutting off federal funding.

To be completely honest, what you just wrote is far more disruptive to the conversation than what I wrote.

The analogy you made was a pretty central part of your post, and it's really disingenuous to compare abortions to vasectomies. They are utterly different procedures. There simply is no analogy to an abortion procedure for men.