How about we end this back and forth that has far removed itself from my original comment and I'll state the gist of that comment again.
I basically said, counter to what Sangha was claiming, that the cost of the pill would not be a prohibiting issue to the under 17 year old child because under the new Obamacare HHS mandates, the morning after pill has to be included, free of any charge or co-pay, under all insurance policies and that the reproductive rights people and their friends in the Obama administration and HHS will ensure that the morning after pill will be available free of charge.
Over the counter, under the counter, whatever, my point was that the reproductive rights people will ensure that this court case, granting access to the morning after pill to under 17s without a prescription, will not be essentially voided by cost considerations. You may disagree, as is your right, but I stand by my opinion going forward.