Emergency Contraception (EC)

Is it birth control or an abortifacient?

Sponsored link.

Is EC a form of abortion or of birth control?

There is general agreement among pro-choice groups, and medical professionals that emergency contraceptives is a contraceptive. It does not not induce abortions. In the even that a pregnancy has begun -- that is, a blastocyst has implanted in the wall of the uterus -- the medication has no effect.

Pro-life groups have a unique definition of the terms "pregnancy" and "abortion" and maintain that these pills can and sometimes do induce an abortion.

It is birth control, according to physicians and pro-choice groups:

Medical professionals and Pro-Choice groups generally define pregnancy as beginning when a fertilized ovum, which has developed to the blastocyst stage, has attached itself fully to the lining of the uterus. Mary Pendergast of the FDA stated that:

"The scientific and medical definition of abortion is after implantation [in the wall of the uterus]...These birth control pills are used to prevent pregnancy, not to stop it. This is not abortion." ₃

At the time of the FDA announcement, Gloria Feldt, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said that the FDA had taken "a bold step -- a courageous step..." because it brings the information to far more women.

Physicians -- at least those who are not conservative Christians -- generally agree that:

Physicians conclude that the morning after pill and the IUD are not abortifacients. They do not induce abortions, but rather prevent pregnancy from starting up.

It can cause an abortion, according to some pro-life groups:

Most, (if not all) pro-life groups define:

As noted above, it is probable that when EC is taken:

Under these conditions, EC acts as a contraceptive. However, it is possible that when emergency contraception is taken, conception has already taken place. Thus they consider the morning after pill as having the potential to terminate a pregnancy and induce an abortion. And since they believe that it terminates the life of a child -- a human person -- they regard both techniques as potentially causing a murder.

Some pro-life groups appear to ignore the fact that EC usually acts as a contraceptive; they seem to assume that it always acts as an abortifacient:

"Contrary to the claims of some, the so-called 'morning-after pill' will dramatically increase - not decrease - the tragic number of abortions in this country. The public is being misled into believing that this concoction prevents a pregnancy when actually in most cases it will abort a pregnancy...Approving and promoting these pills is not only medically irresponsible, it is also sending the wrong message to the American public. Instead of promoting this as an alternative for family planning, we should be emphasizing sexual responsibility."

Who is right?

Religious conservatives and pro-life supporters, alone, classify EC as abortifacient medication. This is consistent with their unique definition that pregnancy begins at conception. Physicians, religious liberals and pro-choice supporters classify EC as a contraceptive, because it prevents pregnancy. This is consistent with the generally accepted definition of when pregnancy begins.

The fundamentalist Christian organization, Family Research Council (FRC), accuses what they call the "Contraception and abortion industries" of deliberately confounding "the events of female fertility for self-serving reasons. For example, they attempt to redefine the beginning of pregnancy: They claim that pregnancy starts upon implantation of the embryonic human being, rather than when the new life is created at fertilization." ₂ The historical record shows that there has been a consensus among physicians for many decades that pregnancy begins at implantation. It is only religious conservatives, and then only recently, who have redefined it as occurring at conception.

Some pro-lifers assert that the "Contraception and abortion industries" define EC as contraceptive medication in order to make it more acceptable to women. The FRC suggests that stem cell researchers are also somehow involved in the promotion of EC. The rationale is that by treating a pre-embryo (a fertilized ovum which has not implanted in the wall of the uterus)  as "an entity lacking in rights," that the public might be more willing to allows the use of stem cells extracted from pre-embryos "for scientific research, or as a subject for genetic screening."  Some pro-choicers assert that pro-lifers and religious conservatives define EC as abortifacient in order to convince more women to not take EC, with the result that they risk becoming pregnant.

References:

1. Lawrence Morahan, " 'Morning-After' Pill Available at Some DoD Clinics," CNSNews.com, 2002-JUN-3, at: http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPentagon This URL is no longer accessible.
2. "Little Pills: Targeting Youth with New Abortion Drugs," Family Research Council. Online at: http://www.frc.org/
3. FDA panel endorses 'morning after' pill," CNN, 1996-JUN-29, at: http://www.cnn.com/

Copyright © 1999 to 2007, by Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance
Originally published on 1999-JAN-13
Latest update: 2007-AUG-15
Author: B.A. Robinson