Part 1: Can EC and regular hormonal
pills prevent implantation
in the uterine wall? In other words,
is it contraceptive or abortifacient?
The very first processes that lead to the birth of a newborn infant are typically:
Release of a very lucky spermatozoon about a month before conception from a man's testicle. It is one of hundreds of millions of sister and brother spermatozoa that will subsequently attempt to fuse with an ovum.
Release of an ovum by a woman's ovary shortly before conception.
Conception occurs. The ovum is fertilized by one spermatozoon to produce a zygote (commonly referred to as a fertilized ovum, fertilized egg, or pre-embryo)
The zygote travels down a fallopian tube towards the uterus. If all goes well, it develops into a blastocyst through cell multiplication during its travel. When it reaches the uterus, it starts to implant itself in the inner wall of the womb. A week or two after conception, it is fully implanted and the pregnancy can be detected by a urine or blood test.
Initially, medical researchers suspected that EC might prevent pregnancy in three ways:
By preventing ovulation -- the release of an ovum from an ovary. Thus, conception would be impossible.
If ovulation had already occurred, it would prevent conception by making the ovum more resistant to fertilization.
If the ovum was already fertilized, EC might prevent the implantation of the resulting blastocyst in the wall of the uterus.
Further medical research has shown that the third path is very unlikely or impossible. Unfortunately not everyone accepts the medical evidence. The result is a hopeless deadlock:
Essentially all conservative social and religious information sources and pro-lifers state that:
Pregnancy begins at conception when a spermatozoon fertilizes an ovum.
In spite of all the evidence to the contrary, they believe that EC often works by preventing implantation.
Some sources believe that it always works in this way.
Some sources simply refer to EC as an abortifacient.
Essentially all liberal social and religious information sources and pro-choicers state that:
Pregnancy begins when the fertilized ovum is implanted in the wall of the uterus.
EC only works by preventing ovulation or preventing conception. Thus EC does not stop a pregnancy.
Some medical sources suggest that if EC failed to prevent conception that it might work in a way that improved the fertilized ovum's
chances of implantation.
Thus EC is a truce contraceptive most of the time, but may be a pregancy promoter in rare instances. It never acts as an abortifacient.
Webmaster's rant (Bias alert):
This is just one more example of a conflict between some religious believers and science. Other conflicts are as varied as the age of the Earth, whether Adam and Eve actually existed, the nature of homosexuality, sex-education, the nature of transsexuality, etc. There is a good chance that these conflicts could be resolved if people of good will from both sides could enter into dialogue. However, there appears to be no dialogue, and little debate. There are only people hiding behind figurative barricades and throwing verbal rocks at each other.
End of rant.
Teva Pharmaceuticals are the developers of Plan B. They are required by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to place a warning label on their product stating that the drug:
"... may inhibit implantation by altering the endometrium"
The endometrium is the inside lining of the uterus (a.k.a. womb).
Teva has repeatedly asked the FDA for permission to remove the warning because there is no scientific evidence to support it.
The 2003-MAY issue of Christianity Today -- North America's leading evangelical Christian publication -- was the first conservative Christian information source that we have seen that revealed accurate information to its readers about EC. 2 Hopefully, conservative Christian news sources will recognize the danger to their credibility in the future if they continue to imply that EC works after conception. Perhaps they will start stating accurate information in their news releases.
Why is this question important?
It is the primary determining factor whether most religious conservatives, social conservatives, and pro-life advocates will accept or oppose women's access to emergency contraception (EC).
There is general agreement among pro-life, pro-choice groups, and medical professionals that:
Contraceptives include actions, devices, sexual practices or medications that prevent pregnancy from starting.
Abortifacients include actions, devices, or medications that terminate pregnancies that have already begun.
Unfortunately, there is no consensus on exactly when pregnancy begins. This makes it difficult for all three groups to agree on whether EC acts as an abortifacient or as a contraception.
Most pro-lifers and other conservatives believe that both a human person and pregnancy begin at the same time, during the process of fertilization. Some refer to the "instant of fertilization" or conception. However, the process actually takes hours.
They base this beliefs in pregnancy and personhood on the fact that a unique human DNA is created at that time.
If EC subsequently prevents implantation of the embryo in the wall of the uterus, then pro-lifers could considered EC to be an abortifacient. That is, it would kill a human person just like they believe RU-486 or an early surgical abortion does. Tho them, there would be no ethical difference between strangling a newborn infant, taking EC, taking RU-486 or having a surgical abortion. All would involve the termination of a human life and a human person.
However if EC only interrupts processes before conception -- by stopping the ovary from releasing an ovum or by causing the ovum to resist sperm -- then it would merely prevent a pregnancy from starting; it would act as a method of birth control, and would ethically be similar to the use of condoms or "the pill." That is, it would be forbidden by the Roman Catholic Church, allowed by almost all other faith groups, and overwhelmingly accepted by both the Catholic and Protestant laity.
Protestant pro-lifers and conservatives generally have no objection to birth control but are unalterably opposed to abortion; they regard it as taking a human life. The heirarchy of the Roman Catholic Church is unalterably opposed to both birth control and to abortion. However most Catholic laity has ignored the church's contraceptive teachings and has no objection to "the pill" and other methods of birth control. Further, the abortion rate by Catholic women is equal or perhaps slightly higher than the national average.
Most pro-choicers follow the medical understanding that pregnancy begins when the blastocyst becomes fully implanted in the wall of the uterus. Thus, even if EC could prevented implantation, they would not consider it to be an abortifacient since a pregnancy would not have started. In addition, most pro-choicers believe that human life, in the form of an ovum and spermatozoon becomes a human person only later in pregnancy:
Perhaps when the fetus first becomes sentient -- i.e. it attains some level of consciousness, becomes at least partly aware of its surroundings, may be able to feel pain, etc., or
Perhaps when the newborn has emerged from its mother during childbirth, or
Perhaps at some other time during pregnancy.
Thus, most pro-choicers have no objection to the use of EC, even if they are not aware of the recent medical evidence that there is reasonable certainty that EC does not interfere with the implantation of a blastocyst.