Obviously you are welcome to your opinion, but I have to respectfully disagree. “Reproductive health” is not remotely inclusive when you consider the sheer number of people who do not use their bodies for reproducing, in addition to the fact that RH is a relevant category for male-bodied people as well.
Yes, I said “male-bodied.” Because while biological sex is a social construct in the sense that EVERYTHING is a social construct, it is a relevant construct when discussing the realities of the physical bodies we inhabit. It is both succinct and scientifically inclusive without being excessively reductionist. And while I can respect that some find it offensive (“uterus-bearer,” for example, makes my lip curl, so I’m not about to poo-pooh anyone’s preferred term), the company isn’t saying it’s the perfect term or that they do not want a better one. Just that this is what they’re using for now.