I agree about the apples to oranges comparison. ED is, as you say, a medical condition. The "dysfunction" in the name indicates that things aren't working pro

I agree about the apples to oranges comparison. ED is, as you say, a medical condition. The "dysfunction" in the name indicates that things aren't working properly. In contrast, no one has ever been diagnosed with being fertile, because being fertile is not a dysfunction. I do want to suggest, however, that a change of language is warranted around this issue. You write: "there are women that need to be on birth control for actual medical reasons in that they have complications with PMS and this mitigates things." These women do not need to be on birth control. They need to receive hormone therapy, which happens to be, in a lot of cases, the same medication used for birth control. I know it sounds like a distinction without a difference, but it's actually quite a meaningful distinction. I would not say that a newborn girl with chronic pulmonary hypertension needs to be on erectile dysfunction medication. Rather, I would say that she can be treated with sildenafil, which happens to also be the active ingredient in Viagra. Similarly, a woman might use hormone therapy to avoid menorrhagia, and a side effect might be that it decreases her ability to become pregnant, and she may or may not be happy with that side effect. When you make this language shift -- "birth control" applies to contraception, which disrupts the body's natural fertility, and "hormone therapy" applies to treatment of medical conditions and dysfunctions -- it helps resolve some hot-button issues. For instance, if a woman works for a religious employer that does not cover contraception, I would imagine that employer would have no issue with her receiving appropriate hormone therapy for a medical condition such as menorrhagia, even if a decrease in fertility is a known side effect.