The resistance at City Hall continues.

Supervisor Jane Kim is working on legislation to require that San Francisco pick up the tab for birth control for any woman living in the city whose free prescription stands to be cut off under President Trump.

While Trump has so far focused mostly on immigration policy and working himself into a lather over “Saturday Night Live” skits, Kim said she is bracing for an anticipated crackdown on birth control access from the new administration.

Throughout the presidential campaign, Trump vowed to repeal the Affordable Care Act, which has greatly expanded women’s access to free birth control.

While the fate of the act is very much up in the air, women’s concerns about retaining their access to free birth control are real. But Republicans in Congress have largely dismissed the birth control worry in their pursuit to dump the health care law, and House Speaker Paul Ryan even shrugged it off as a “a nitty-gritty detail.”

To Kim, it’s anything but.

“Trump is holding true to his campaign promises and his word, and I think eventually the president will go on a full-frontal assault on women’s health care,” Kim said. “We want to be prepared for that.”

She and her all-female team of legislative aides met a couple of days after Trump’s shocking win to mourn, gripe and come up with a plan of action.

“It was just us sitting around going, ‘Oh my God, what’s going to happen?’” recalled Ivy Lee, an aide to Kim.

The group noticed a barrage of tweets recommending that women get IUDs, a birth control method that would outlast a four-year Trump term. They then decided to figure out how San Francisco could protect access to birth control.

“The city needs to make sure birth control is covered; that can’t even be a question,” Lee said.

Kim’s office has asked the city controller to figure out how many San Franciscans would lose access to free birth control if the Affordable Care Act is repealed and how much it would cost the city to make up the difference. Kim said she is hopeful legislation will be ready in the next six weeks.

Here’s hoping she gets pushback from the GOP or even Trump himself — not because the idea isn’t a good one, but because I really want to use the phrase, “She was warned. She was given an explanation. Nevertheless, she persisted.”

Go get ’em, Supervisor.

Speaking of “she persisted,” quotes from the GOP are quickly being emblazoned on must-have items for liberal Bay Area women.

First, Trump called Hillary Clinton “a nasty woman,” a phrase that immediately turned up on mugs, cell phone cases, tote bags and T-shirts. Then, his crude remarks about grabbing women’s genitalia were co-opted into knitted pink protest hats worn by millions the day after his inauguration.

By Wednesday, Sen. Mitch McConnell’s shushing of Sen. Elizabeth Warren — culminating in his “nevertheless, she persisted” comment — was all over throw pillows, stickers and hoodies for sale online.

I asked San Francisco’s top public relations gurus what advice they would give Republicans before their next utterance turns up all over Etsy. Turns out it’s a real head-scratcher, even for guys with tough jobs.

Tony Winnicker, a senior adviser to Mayor Ed Lee who has the daunting task of making the lifelong bureaucrat sound dynamic and inspiring, said of the Trump and McConnell crew, “I think that’s who they are, and they just can’t help themselves. ... They believe they can say and do almost anything with little political consequence.”

Nathan Ballard, a Democratic strategist, has been busy helping Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf explain the damning public records showing numerous city contacts with the Ghost Ship warehouse before it burst into flames, killing 36 people.

“If I was a GOP political operative, my advice to my boss would be to stay dignified,” Ballard said. “I bet there are Republican press secretaries all over Capitol Hill giving this advice right now.”

But the question really stumped crisis control expert Sam Singer, the guy who famously managed to make a tiger that killed a teenager at the San Francisco Zoo in 2007 look sympathetic.

“Wow, that’s the challenge of all time!” he said with a laugh, before coming up with a new slogan: “The Warren Act: One Strike and You’re Out!”

Remember those innocent times when San Franciscans were worried about whether we should tax soda? Though it was lost in the shuffle on election day — and, yeah, that’s the biggest understatement of the week — the soda tax did pass and will go into effect in January.

Final campaign finance statements are out, and a stupefying $34.6 million was spent on the race, tripling the previous spending record for a San Francisco political contest.

That’s about $83 per vote cast in the election. Or enough to give every homeless person in the city more than $5,000. Or enough to give every teacher in the city’s public schools a bonus of more than $10,000.

The pro-tax side spent $12 million, $9.7 million of which came from former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. The antitax side spent $22.6 million, almost all of which came from the American Beverage Association.

The San Francisco soda tax was the most expensive local race in the country. The soda industry’s $22.6 million was topped by only three statewide — yes, statewide! — campaigns to defeat a measure: California’s drug pricing measure, California’s tobacco tax increase and Oregon’s business tax increase.

“Wowza,” said Dan Newman, the spokesman for the pro-soda-tax side. “It shows how badly the soda companies desperately feared the precedent that voters ultimately established by overwhelmingly passing the initiative.

“That’s surely the most expensive local ballot measure in American history,” he said. “I can’t imagine what would be more.”

I called the spokesman for the antitax side but didn’t get a call back. When you’re enjoying the money made off that kind of campaign, guess there’s no use crying over spilled Coke.

San Francisco Chronicle columnist Heather Knight appears Tuesday and Friday. Email: hknight@sfchronicle.com Twitter: @hknightsf