clovenhooves The Personal Is Political Reproductive Rights Social Media "Will IUD bans mean with with current IUDs are forced to have them removed?"

Social Media "Will IUD bans mean with with current IUDs are forced to have them removed?"

Social Media "Will IUD bans mean with with current IUDs are forced to have them removed?"

 Print Thread
 
Clover
Kozlik's regular account 🍀🐐
Find
1,153
Sep 19 2025, 3:34 PM
#1
A woman on Reddit asks a question in r/Legal: https://www.reddit.com/r/legal/comments/1nkejub/will_iud_bans_mean_with_with_current_iuds_are/

streachh LOCATION: NC/TN/SC USA

Title should say "women with current IUDs" sorry for typo

There are bills now being introduced that aim to ban certain types of birth control.

I live in NC currently but may be moving to TN or SC. I have heard SC is working on a bill along these lines, and expect the entire rest of the South to do the same.

I have an IUD. It expires in two years, so I will need to get it replaced before the next presidential election.

I want to ask my doctor to replace it early, before any of these bills are passed, so that they can't stop me from getting it.

However, if IUDs are banned, will I be forced to have mine removed? I can't imagine they could realistically do that, but you never know these days.

I don't want to shell out $$$ for a new IUD if it's going to be a waste of money if these bill pass.

blueskies8484 I think the bigger risk than forced removal in a state like South Carolina is that they try to pass a law that says IUDs cause abortions and therefore having one or prescribing one is tantamount to having an illegal abortion. Realistically, they might try to prosecute a test case or two especially where a woman on an IUD has it fail and gets pregnant and has a miscarriage and blame the miscarriage on the IUD. Some people will tell you this is hysteria considering such a law but similar laws have been passed in other countries previously and we aren’t special - it could happen here just like it’s happened elsewhere. What that means for your personal birth control choices or decisions about where to live, only you can decide. But any person capable of getting pregnant should be monitoring their state laws regularly and should at least try to live in areas within these states with DAs that are unlikely to want to bring charges related to reproductive decisions.

Gloomy_Tie_1997 The federal government has recently classified IUDs as “abortifacients” and is halting giving any to other countries. They’ve gone so far as to destroy birth control they deem an abortifacient, despite evidence to the contrary. None of this is an exaggeration; you can google it.

I’d be getting a new IUD NOW while you still can, OP. I’d maybe discuss the 10 yr copper with your doctor. It’s what I have and despite my partner having had a vasectomy, after the last election I decided to keep it until it expires for peace of mind.
Kozlik's regular member account. 🍀🐐
Reply
Reply
Clover
Kozlik's regular account 🍀🐐
Sep 19 2025, 3:34 PM #1

A woman on Reddit asks a question in r/Legal: https://www.reddit.com/r/legal/comments/1nkejub/will_iud_bans_mean_with_with_current_iuds_are/

streachh LOCATION: NC/TN/SC USA

Title should say "women with current IUDs" sorry for typo

There are bills now being introduced that aim to ban certain types of birth control.

I live in NC currently but may be moving to TN or SC. I have heard SC is working on a bill along these lines, and expect the entire rest of the South to do the same.

I have an IUD. It expires in two years, so I will need to get it replaced before the next presidential election.

I want to ask my doctor to replace it early, before any of these bills are passed, so that they can't stop me from getting it.

However, if IUDs are banned, will I be forced to have mine removed? I can't imagine they could realistically do that, but you never know these days.

I don't want to shell out $$$ for a new IUD if it's going to be a waste of money if these bill pass.

blueskies8484 I think the bigger risk than forced removal in a state like South Carolina is that they try to pass a law that says IUDs cause abortions and therefore having one or prescribing one is tantamount to having an illegal abortion. Realistically, they might try to prosecute a test case or two especially where a woman on an IUD has it fail and gets pregnant and has a miscarriage and blame the miscarriage on the IUD. Some people will tell you this is hysteria considering such a law but similar laws have been passed in other countries previously and we aren’t special - it could happen here just like it’s happened elsewhere. What that means for your personal birth control choices or decisions about where to live, only you can decide. But any person capable of getting pregnant should be monitoring their state laws regularly and should at least try to live in areas within these states with DAs that are unlikely to want to bring charges related to reproductive decisions.

Gloomy_Tie_1997 The federal government has recently classified IUDs as “abortifacients” and is halting giving any to other countries. They’ve gone so far as to destroy birth control they deem an abortifacient, despite evidence to the contrary. None of this is an exaggeration; you can google it.

I’d be getting a new IUD NOW while you still can, OP. I’d maybe discuss the 10 yr copper with your doctor. It’s what I have and despite my partner having had a vasectomy, after the last election I decided to keep it until it expires for peace of mind.

Kozlik's regular member account. 🍀🐐

Reply
Reply
YesYourNigel
Find
261
Sep 20 2025, 4:00 PM
#2
With all these misogynistic laws coming out, I think we're more than ever in need of denormalising PiV and penetrative sex in general. It already has its own issues with being painful and unpleasant (which often gets sexualised) and risky in terms of std, infections and pregnancy risks even with birth control, and is completely neglectful of the actual centre of women's sexual pleasure, but removing birth control from women makes it infinitely worse.

Sadly androphillic women are too brainwashed by patriarchal norms, both the mainstream male ones and the derived female romantic and sexual content produced therein, for anti-PIV to really gain traction, unless it's maybe in the context of more niche male-pandering fetishes, which is the only way I could see that gain traction. Sure, a straight relationship might forego penetrative sex if the man is like, really into feet and his gf one-sidedly and preferably happily fulfills that for him. The clit? What is that?

I for one could never be with a partner who expected me to engage in penetrative sex, knowing the risks involved, but I understand that it feels impossible for most women to make that ask, given how inevitable and universal PiV is treated in straight relationships, how little men give a shit about women's pleasure and misery, and how neglected the clitoris is (the height of male progressivism is that a woman can maybe touch it a little if it helps her achieve 20 orgasms from PiV, and in the context of TIMs' dicks, which is literally the only time when the "clit" isn't neglected 🙄), which is all the more reason for feminism to pick up the slack on this issue. Even more radical feminist spaces seem to treat the mere notion of foregoing penetrative sex as extreme. Radical feminist spaces are eager to slide back into "choice feminist" narratives to avoid thinking about it. If something is dangerous and damaging to women's health, well-being and rights, it should be discouraged and healthy alternatives encouraged instead. It's that simple.
Edited Sep 20 2025, 4:08 PM by YesYourNigel.
Reply
Reply
YesYourNigel
Sep 20 2025, 4:00 PM #2

With all these misogynistic laws coming out, I think we're more than ever in need of denormalising PiV and penetrative sex in general. It already has its own issues with being painful and unpleasant (which often gets sexualised) and risky in terms of std, infections and pregnancy risks even with birth control, and is completely neglectful of the actual centre of women's sexual pleasure, but removing birth control from women makes it infinitely worse.

Sadly androphillic women are too brainwashed by patriarchal norms, both the mainstream male ones and the derived female romantic and sexual content produced therein, for anti-PIV to really gain traction, unless it's maybe in the context of more niche male-pandering fetishes, which is the only way I could see that gain traction. Sure, a straight relationship might forego penetrative sex if the man is like, really into feet and his gf one-sidedly and preferably happily fulfills that for him. The clit? What is that?

I for one could never be with a partner who expected me to engage in penetrative sex, knowing the risks involved, but I understand that it feels impossible for most women to make that ask, given how inevitable and universal PiV is treated in straight relationships, how little men give a shit about women's pleasure and misery, and how neglected the clitoris is (the height of male progressivism is that a woman can maybe touch it a little if it helps her achieve 20 orgasms from PiV, and in the context of TIMs' dicks, which is literally the only time when the "clit" isn't neglected 🙄), which is all the more reason for feminism to pick up the slack on this issue. Even more radical feminist spaces seem to treat the mere notion of foregoing penetrative sex as extreme. Radical feminist spaces are eager to slide back into "choice feminist" narratives to avoid thinking about it. If something is dangerous and damaging to women's health, well-being and rights, it should be discouraged and healthy alternatives encouraged instead. It's that simple.

Reply
Reply
 Print Thread
Recently Browsing
 1 Guest(s)
Recently Browsing
 1 Guest(s)