Except that one of the implied assumptions of the "preconceptive care" paradigm, I think, is that all women need to be prepared to carry a baby to term because in the event of an unplanned pregancy, failure to do so could harm the chances of the baby being carried to term in a healthy manner. Which in turn makes the assumption that unplanned pregnancies inevitably lead to deliveries. And in America, there has been for many years an alternative option regarding an unplanned pregnancy: the one that began from Roe v. Wade.

Or, put bluntly, if a woman deliberately chooses to abort any child not deliberately sought, she could argubly not need preconceptive care; since any baby she did want she would scrupulously avoid endangering from the moment of attempted conception; and she would not need to take precautions to make sure any unplanned baby was not harmed because no unplanned baby would ever make it to term. Almost all the guidelines deal with that -- harm to fetus -- and very few to harm to the *potential* fetus -- that is, the eggs of the mother. And for very good reasons, basically centering on anything good for the eggs of a woman (or a man's sperm) is good for every other cell in their body, and you'd need no particular reason to single out the reproductive cells from the rest.

*That's*, in my mind, the *real* difference between "reproductive life planning" and "preconceptive care". Because, at least by what is currently legal in America, the strategy I laid out in the prior paragraph is an entirely legal and completely rational means of avoiding the dangers of harm to an unplanned pregnancy. One doesn't need to take measures to protect an unplanned pregnancy if one decides their contingency against an unplanned pregnancy is that no unplanned pregnancy will ever reach term.