As a bit of segue here, several years ago the Viagra vs. birth control issue became a hot button topic: One woman legislator proposed men be required to have rectal exams prior to be being prescribed Viagra b/c women couldn't get key birth control (e.g. diaphragms) fitted w/o gyn exams.

First, I believe all birth control products should be readily available to all who seek them, as I believe abortion & all OB services should be readily available.

But they really are, from a medical standpoint, apples & oranges. Impotence is a medical dysfunction; pregnancy per se isn't. It's one natural outcome of sexual contact. This is why some insurers covered Viagra, etc., & not birth control. If your converge strictly pertains to medical dysfunction, then yes, Viagra is included, the Pill isn't.

Many argued pure sexism was at play in the choices of coverage, when it was actually bureaucracy.

Again, to be clear: Insurers should cover all women's reproductive services from birth control to abortion to well mother exams. The gamet. It just seems like sophistry to me when people compare the two.