Seems to be referring to the whole section

In the context of current and emerging reproductive technologies, HHS policies should never place the desires of adults over the right of children to be raised by the biological fathers and mothers who conceive them. In cases involving biological parents who are found by a court to be unfit because of abuse or neglect, the process of adoption should be speedy, certain, and supported generously by HHS.

Page 451 (tbh more about voluntary adoption and possibly sperm donation than contraceptives but not that much of a stretch considering the mention of reproductive technologies.)

Additionally, TANF priorities are not implemented in an equally weighted way. Marriage, healthy family formation, and delaying sex to prevent pregnancy are virtually ignored in terms of priorities, yet these goals can reverse the cycle of poverty in meaningful ways. CMS should require explicit measurement of these goals.

Page 476 (They really want to promote abstinence and fertility awareness as the end-all be-all methods of contraceptive.)

Teen Pregnancy Prevention (TPP) and Personal Responsibility Education Program (PREP). TPP is operated by the Office of Population Affairs in the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health; PREP is operated by the ACF Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation. Both programs should ensure that there is better reporting of subgrantees and referral lists so that they do not promote abortion or high-risk sexual behavior among adolescents. CMS should ensure that Sexual Risk Avoidance (SRA) proponents receive these grants and are given every opportunity to prove their effectiveness. SRA programs, both at ACF and at OASH and both discretionary and mandatory, should be equal in funding and emphasis. Qualitative research should be conducted on both types of programs to ensure continuous improvement.

In addition, certain provisions should be employed so that these programs do not serve as advocacy tools to promote sex, promote prostitution, or provide a funnel effect for abortion facilities and school field trips to clinics, or for similar purposes. Parent involvement and parent–child communication should be encouraged and be a part of any funded project. Risk avoidance should be prioritized, and any program that submits a proposal that promotes risk rather than health should not be eligible for funding.

Site visits should be revamped to ensure adherence to these optimal health metrics, and a cost analysis of programming as compared to students served should be a metric in funding (taking into account that in certain cases, intensive programs will serve fewer students and can have more positive results). These same parameters should apply to sex education programs at ACF. Any lists with “approved curriculum” or so-called evidence-based lists should be abolished; HHS should not create a monopoly of curriculum, adding to the profit of certain publishers. Furthermore, lists created in the past have given priority to sex-promotion textbooks. HHS should create a list of criteria for evaluating the sort of curriculum that should be selected for any sex education grant programs, both at OASH and at ACF, with the aim of promoting optimal health and adhering to the legislative language of each program.

Page 477 (again more about sex ed than contraceptives but how are adults supposed to know about them if they cant be legally taught at school age, for fear of “promoting sexuality” despite abstinence-based (so-called “”“risk avoidance”“”) programs not actually reducing sexuality in young people.)

Restore Trump religious and moral exemptions to the contraceptive mandate (also a CMS rule). HHS should rescind, if finalized, the regulation titled “Coverage of Certain Preventive Services Under the Affordable Care Act,” proposed jointly by HHS, Treasury, and Labor.70 This rule proposes to amend Trump-era final rules regarding religious and moral exemptions and accommodations for coverage of certain preventive services under the ACA. Preventive services include contraception, and it appears the proposed rule would change the existing regulations for religious and moral exemptions to the ACA’s contraception mandate. There is no need for further rulemaking that curtails existing exemptions and accommodations.

Eliminate the week-after-pill from the contraceptive mandate as a potential abortifacient. One of the emergency contraceptives covered under the HRSA preventive services guidelines is Ella (ulipristal acetate). Like its close cousin, the abortion pill mifepristone, Ella is a progesterone blocker and can prevent a recently fertilized embryo from implanting in a woman’s uterus. HRSA should eliminate this potential abortifacient from the contraceptive mandate.

Pages 483/484 (actually, everything 483 - 485 really, its just a lot to paste here so im pulling out the worst ones. Left out the calls for promotion of fertility awareness, because totally in isolation of the rest of this stuff and with proper warning of its limitations I have less a problem with that than with losing access to more reliable contraceptives.)

Promoting Life and Family. In dealing with sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancies, the OASH should focus on root-cause analysis with a focus on strengthening marriage and sexual risk avoidance. Strong leadership is needed in the Office of Science and Medicine to drive investigative review of literature for a variety of issues including the effect of abortion on prematurity and breast cancer; lack of evidence for so-called gender-affirming care; and physical and emotional damage following cross-sex treatments, especially on children. The OASH should withdraw all recommendations of and support for cross-sex medical interventions and “gender-affirming care.”

Page 490 (they really talk around it here but the mention of STDs, unwanted pregnancies, and again “risk-avoidance” makes this pretty loaded. Hormonal contraceptives could also be considered gender-affirming care, as it alters a person’s natural hormonal state.)

Edits for formatting

I don’t have time/computer access right now to dive into actual doc and work to point you in the right direction work citation. But it’s likely discussing measures that would indirectly eliminate access to the so called “morning after pill” plan b, or oral birth control at least. Maybe through something like title X or things like that attempt to enforce that obscure law from the 1800s that didn’t ban the drugs directly, but banned shipping them into states (which again, would be an effective ban unless every state stood up its own infrastructure, which of course they’d also likely be trying to eliminate that ability to do that in parallel)

If you’re genuinely curious and not just a sad, impotent troll that looks at an entire mountain rocks on “blue mountain” and says, “AHHHH!!! But I found this one greenish blue rock!!! So it’s not actually blue mountain!!!” then here is a link that dives into some of the fascist’s angles on this specific matter - https://www.mediamatters.org/project-2025/inside-project-2025s-attack-reproductive-rights-contraception

You have to buy the book dummy - it’s always a grift inside a grift. Here, spend some coin: https://www.project2025.org/policy/

I have not bought the book. Many, many scholars have. I suppose they are all lying though, you know, deep state this that or something?