Access lo health service, especially {antily planning, is o. major heal th o tui sleveiopmcnt issue endorsed in the consiitusion of Ethiopir: as one of the right« vf wontc~. Therefore, measuring acccssi.bili(.y to I, TRCJVf ond. hocusg a comprehensic« uruiersuuulisu; of the non-users are imponani to define equ.ily arui • .t::lf'ecii1<ely uddrcss tlu: barriers (or further invesuncul. aimed. a: ' fi/!ing the gaps of accessibility. The study ww..s both GIH anil. cross sectional me/./wd to measure acceuibility (physical accessibility, ar.cefltobilit,y, ' ac•oi.lctbility and nffordahilityj to T.TRC:\1. The analysis of thi~ ;;t1.dy id«n!.i/ied phy;;icolly occeselble and in-accessible geograohlco! rueas ti:ith • reference to the spatial distribution of health i11stit1.:ti.011s, current ., knotcledge and coiuroceptuse access, econonuc s/.atus c:.1id tz .... illingness o.f women to pny for the seruice, current resource access and the harrier for . rwn itse. The ~tm!y concludes /.iy reconunendine the need for cxoansio« of h~'tillh [ccilities, appropriate site selection; eucceeeioe o.u:i:ir•!rtess creel ion and improcin« road netuiork.