Emergency Contraception (EC)

Is it birth control or an abortifacient?

Sponsored link.

Is EC a form of abortion or of birth control?

The answer is either one, depending upon to whom one is talking.

The definition of terms related to conception, implantation, and pregnancy are a bit of a mine field. Different groups assign slightly different meanings to various terms. Thus communication between groups promoting and inhibiting abortion access -- that is, pro-choice and pro-life -- is often quite difficult.

There is general agreement among pro-choice groups and medical professionals that:

• contraceptives include actions, devices, sexual practices or medications that prevent pregnancy from starting.
• Abortifacients are actions, devices, or medication that terminate pregnancies that have aready begun.

The medical and pro-choice communities generally define pregnancy as beginning when the blastocyst is implanted.

EC does not induce abortions. In the event that a pregnancy has begun -- that is, a blastocyst has implanted itself -- the medication has no effect.

Pro-life groups have a unique definitions 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. This almost always happens in the uterus where it has a fair chance of developing into an embroy, fetus and eventually a newborn baby. However, in a small percentage of cases, it can attach itself to the wall of a fallopian tube, or elsewhere outside the uterus, where it can initiate an ectopic pregnancy -- a potentially life-threatening situation.

Physicians generally agree that:

	Pregnancy does not begin when an ovum is fertilized; i.e. at conception.
	Pregnancy typically begins about 13 days after conception, after the blastocyst has travelled down a fallopian tube and becomes fully implanted -- generally in the lining of the womb.
	Abortions are defined as medical interventions after pregnancy begins.
	Since the emergency contraception pills are normally taken within 3 days of intercourse or an Intra-uterine device (IUD) is inserted within 5 days, they generally prevent the start of pregnancy. Thus, emergency contraception is not a form of abortion.

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.

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.

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

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

	The life of a human person as starting at during the process of conception.
	Pregnancy as starting at conception.

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

	Either an ovum has not been released, or
	An ovum has recently been released but not fertilized.

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 by preventing conception; they seem to assume that it most frequently or always acts as an abortifacient:

	Gracie Hsu of the Family Research Council said: "For pro-lifers in general, we believe that [human] life begins at conception and that means this, technically, is an abortifacient." 4
	Robert Maginnis, vice president of the Family Research Council said: "As far as we're concerned it causes an abortion to take place. It kills a human embryo." 1
	On 1997-FEB-25, the "Christian Medical & Dental Society" (CDMS) of Bristol, TN issued a press release. Using the pro-life definition of pregnancy, they stated that:

"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."

On 2008-DEC-12, the Roman Catholic issued a papal document titled "Dignitas Personae." It considers EC to fall "within the sin of abortion." Catholic hospitals will probably start to deny EC to women worldwide. More details

Who is right?

Religious conservatives and pro-life supporters, alone, classify EC as abortifacient medication. This is consistent with their definition that pregnancy begins during the conception process. Physicians, religious liberals and pro-choice supporters classify EC as a contraceptive, because it prevents pregnancy which they believe starts at implantation.

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. By insisting that 'pregnancy begins at implantation,' they then market drugs that destroy life before or upon implantation as 'contraception,' even though such anti-implantation drugs are actually abortifacients. They also gain ground in their efforts to classify the pre-implantation embryo as an entity lacking in rights, and therefore available as material for scientific research, or as a subject for genetic screening."

"The abortion and contraception lobbies believe they can get away with this rather bad faith 'sleight-of-definitions' because doctors have traditionally been able to confirm pregnancy only upon implantation. At this point, the early developing placental tissue produces HCG (human chorionic gonadotropin), a hormone which doctors can detect in the mother's urine and blood to verify pregnancy. The mother is obviously pregnant before that point, however, since the embryo's journey to the uterus requires five to seven days."

"The ability to confirm life's existence is of course different from the point at which the life begins. But confounding the two allows the contraception industry to market abortifacient drugs as 'contraceptives' to an unsuspecting public." ₂

The statement that the woman is "obviously pregnant" before implantation is only valid if the pro-life/religious conservative definition of pregnancy is used. Otherwise, it makes no sense.

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.

Meanwhile, some pro-choicers assert that pro-lifers and religious conservatives define EC as abortifacient in order to convince more women to not consider taking EC, with the result that they risk becoming pregnant.

Conclusion:

Emergency Contraceptives are an abortifacient if the pro-life/conservative religious definition of the start of human personhood and the timing of the start of pregnancy are used.

They are a contraceptive if the pro-choice/medical definitions of the timing of the start of pregnancy is used.

References and a footnote:

The following information sources were used to prepare and update the above essay. The hyperlinks are not necessarily still active today.

1. Lawrence Morahan, " 'Morning-After' Pill Available at Some DoD Clinics," CNSNews.com, 2002-JUN-3, at: http://archive.newsmax.com.
2. "Little Pills: Targeting Youth with New Abortion Drugs," Family Research Council, at: http://www.frc.org/
3. FDA panel endorses 'morning after' pill," CNN, 1996-JUN-29, at: http://www.cnn.com/
4. John Schwartz, " Morning-After Contraceptive Given Government Approval," The Washington Post, 1997-FEB-25, at: http://tech.mit.edu/
5. There are no precise estimates of the interval between conception and implantation -- i.e. between the pro-life and pro-choice timing of the start of pregnancy:
   • 10 to 14 days by the Mayo Clinc at: http://www.mayoclinic.com/
   • 6 to 8 days after fertilization according to Wikipedia at: http://en.wikipedia.org/
   • About 6 days to the start of implantation, 9 to 10 days to the completion of implantation according to Planned Parenthood at: http://www.plannedparenthood.org
   • 6-12 days after conception according to Saving Angel at: http://www.savingangel.org
     

Copyright © 1999 to 2010, by Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance
Originally published on 1999-JAN-13
Latest update: 2010-MAR-02
Author: B.A. Robinson

Sponsored link

Web ReligiousTolerance.org