Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Abortifacient: an agent (as a drug) that induces abortion.

Abortion: : the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus: as

 a : spontaneous expulsion of a human fetus during the first 12 weeks of gestation — compare miscarriage
b : induced expulsion of a human fetus

c : expulsion of a fetus by a domestic animal often due to infection at any time before completion of pregnancy — compare

Pill tablet

Pill tablet (Photo credit: @Doug88888)

To wit: OTC and prescription drugs such as “The Pill” and “Day/morning After Pill” can be abortifacient.

In the discussion and debate over abortion, there is the related topic of contraceptives.  Many on both sides of the spectrum see contraception, specifically medicinal, as reasonable, to the point that it virtually erases the need to even discuss abortion.  This is because many on both sides see pharmaceutical contraceptives as not abortifacient what-so-ever.  The problem arises when someone comments or claims that such drugs are/can cause abortions to which they are usually derided as regurgitating so much far-right propaganda and unscientific lunacy.  But, are they?  Many liberals and pro-choice individuals claim that such information seeking to confirm drugs such as the pill and morning after pill are abortifacients can/are always ONLY found on Christian, conservative, pro-life sites.  It is my endeavor to try and provide a clearinghouse of information.  From there, the conclusion is yours to make.  For me, my wife and many others, the evidence points clearly to The Pill and Morning After pill having abortifacient capabilities.

There are many pro-choice websites, news articles, organizations, individuals and even doctors who will state that these contraceptives are not abortifacient.  I encourage you to read their statements and claims.  While you do that however, pay attention to wording, phrases, information, etc. used or not used and so on.  I came to my conclusions based upon my own research – just like I found out that some of our common pediatric vaccines have human cells which came from source cells which were taken from aborted babies many decades ago.  This doesn’t mean that pro-choice people don’t do their own research.  What I am most certainly claiming however is that when individuals seek to deceive, they will do their utmost to obfuscate, and I find that many pro-choice or at least pro-contraceptive people are naive and duped into accepting what looks like legitimate claims and truth as fact.

The first source is an article by Eternal Perspective Ministries, a Christian organization.  The article is long and the editing a bit shabby so that sometimes it gets a little confusing, but there is a wealth of information in it and worth the entire read.

EPM – In that article is a snippet of an oral argument that took place before the Supreme Court in 1989.  Webster v. Reproductive Health Services.  The whole transcript can be found here and a video here.  Here’s the key exchange:

Mr. Susman: …For better or for worse, there no longer exists any bright line between the fundamental right that was established in Griswold and the fundamental right of abortion that was established in Roe. These two rights, because of advances in medicine and science, now overlap. They coalesce and merge and they are not distinct.

Justice Scalia: Excuse me, you find it hard to draw a line between those two but easy to draw a line between first, second and third trimester.

Mr. Susman: I do not find it difficult –

Justice Scalia: I don’t see why a court that can draw that line can’t separate abortion from birth control quite readily.

Mr. Susman: If I may suggest the reasons in response to your question, Justice Scalia. The most common forms of what we generically in common parlance call contraception today, IUD‘s, low-dose birth control pills, which are the safest type of birth control pills available, act as abortifacients. They are correctly labeled as both. Under this statute, which defines fertilization as the point of beginning, those forms of contraception are also abortifacients. Science and medicine refers to them as both. We are not still dealing with the common barrier methods of Griswold. We are no longer just talking about condoms and diaphragms. Things have changed. The bright line, if there ever was one, has now been extinguished. That’s why I suggest to this Court that we need to deal with one right, the right to procreate. We are no longer talking about two rights.

Now, some might say, well, that’s just one person making such a claim, and a lawyer at that… mind you, the lawyer for the abortion clinics.  So, let’s find more, but first, let’s consider some biology and chemistry…

A woman typically ovulates once a month.  That egg, once ovulated – that is, released from the ovary – has a 12 – 24 hour lifespan unless it is fertilized by a sperm, thus conception of a new human being occurs.  Sperm can live for up to 3 – 5 days in a womb upon release.  So, while a woman ovulates only once a month, the window of opportunity for pregnancy extends to several days.  Furthermore, while it more often might take a day for conception/fertilization to occur, it’s entirely possible for it to happen in a matter of minutes.  All of this is occurring in a very narrow space, less than a foot long and sperm are very fast movers.  Fertilization typically takes place in the fallopian tubes as it takes an egg several days to move on its own into the uterus.  Thus, typically, by the time the embryo tries or does implant itself into the uterus, it’s over a week into its gestation/development already.

The Pill is supposed to do three things; slow or stop ovulation from occurring, slow the advance of sperm by increasing mucus, and thirdly, affect the lining of the uterine wall.  It is this third point that is key.  The first two effects are purely contraceptive.  It is the third effect which can be abortifacient.  You see, an embryo needs lots of nourishment and the right environment in the womb which ovulation typically creates.  The Pill often thins the lining of the uterus making implantation difficult if not impossible.

Guess what.  The Pill is not 100% effective.  Pregnancies can and often still do occur even when a woman has taken The Pill.  Here’s where you have to do a little bit of thinking.  If pregnancies sometimes still occur with proper use of The Pill, doesn’t that lead one to consider the probability that abortions of embryos can occur too?  Not surprisingly though, the drug makers and others will all couch these pregnancies while taking the drug as a result of not taking the drug correctly.  Yep, not their fault.  Yours.  Has to be.  Absolutely no way their drug couldn’t prevent a pregnancy even while being taken correctly…  That’s called covering your butt in legalese.

Now, some will then say, okay, BUT… The Morning After Pill… THAT isn’t abortifacient because it’s a different drug!  Sorry.  The Morning After Pill is really just a mega dosage of The Pill, so, same drugs, meaning it supposed to do the same thing, just faster.  And guess what… people can still get pregnant with The Morning After Pill, so… if A=C and B=C, then, you guessed it, The Morning After Pill can be an abortifacient too.  Some might say that the drug works too quickly for it to properly affect the uterine lining and thus decreasing implantation.  Possibly, but considering how quickly many drugs do work in a variety of ways to increase or decrease this or that and given that the day after pill has a couple of days window… as does fertilization… see where I’m going?

Back to EPM again with another article which I encourage you to read.  You see, this article is a bit old and many of the pro-choice/pro-contraception articles you’ll come across are newer.  Something else to consider; the chemistry of the drugs has pretty much stayed the same.  So, what’s changed?  Words and phrases are left off, forgotten, ignored.  Even though the internet is vast, people tend to read the same things and reuse the same information, passing it around.  Shift people over to the newer, edited material and if people come up with older material that’s different, many think the older material a lie. Mr. Alcorn’s article has lots of references at the bottom.

When the Pill thins the endometrium, it seems self-evident a zygote attempting to implant has a smaller likelihood of survival. A woman taking the Pill puts any conceived child at greater risk of being aborted than if the Pill were not being taken.
Some argue that this evidence is indirect and theoretical. But we must ask, if this is a theory, how strong and credible is the theory? If the evidence is only indirect, how compelling is that indirect evidence? Once it was only a theory that plant life grows better in rich, fertile soil than in thin, eroded soil. But it was certainly a theory good farmers believed and acted on.
… Some physicians have theorized that when ovulation occurs in Pill-takers, the subsequent hormone production “turns on” the endometrium, causing it to become receptive to implantation.[19] However, there is no direct evidence to support this theory, and there is at least some evidence against it. First, after a woman stops taking the Pill, it usually takes several cycles for her menstrual flow to increase to the volume of women who are not on the Pill. This suggests to most objective researchers that the endometrium is slow to recover from its Pill-induced thinning.[20] Second, the one study that has looked at women who have ovulated on the Pill showed that after ovulation the endometrium is not receptive to implantation.[21] …

Dr. Walt, a blog article which offers a number of sites, for, against and neutral to the consideration of whether The Pill can be an abortifacient.

Click here to visit the Ortho Tri-Cyclen Lo website, specifically their Product Information Page.  Ortho is one of the most well known and used brands of “The Pill”.  You have to download and open a pdf file.  Yes, this information isn’t automatically open and available on their website and possibly not on any insert in the drug when you get it – at least not in full.

CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY

Oral Contraception

Combination oral contraceptives act by suppression of gonadotropins. Although the primary mechanism of this action is inhibition of ovulation, other alterations include changes in the cervicalmucus (which increase the difficulty of sperm entry into the uterus) and the endometrium (which reduce the likelihood of implantation).

Semantics.  Just because a word isn’t there doesn’t mean you can’t put the pieces together.  As my step-father used to say, “Word Games”.  In this case, Ortho isn’t lying, they’re just not being blunt.  Obfuscation.

In an active controlled clinical trial 1,673 subjects completed 11,003 cycles of
ORTHO TRI-CYCLEN® Lo use and a total of 20 pregnancies were reported in
ORTHO TRI-CYCLEN® Lo users.99 This represents an overall use-efficacy (typical user efficacy)
pregnancy rate of 2.36 per 100 women-years of use.

12. Ectopic Pregnancy Ectopic as well as intrauterine pregnancy may occur in contraceptive failures.

From the Physician’s Desk Reference:

Ortho Tri-Cyclen Lo:
MECHANISM OF ACTION Estrogen/progestogen oral contraceptive; acts by suppression of gonadotropins and inhibits ovulation. Also produces alterations/changes in the cervical mucus (increases difficulty of sperm entry into uterus) and the endometrium (reduces likelihood of implantation).
Plan B:
MECHANISM OF ACTION

Synthetic progestogen emergency contraceptive; believed to prevent ovulation or fertilization by altering tubal transport of sperm and/or ova. May also inhibit implantation by altering the endometrium.

Is there definitive proof that abortions have and can occur as a result of said drugs even if properly taken?  No, but where else can the evidence take us?  Is it not better to err on the side of caution, specifically if you believe that all human life is sacred from the moment of conception to natural death?

Here’s one other bit of word gaming or at least goal-posting (setting definitions/rules/guidelines).  The scientific and medical community has largely defined pregnancy as beginning once the embryo has implanted itself, so says the Guttmacher Institute, a heavy in the pro-choice community, and to be fair, they’re  right in their assessment that the medical community largely accepts said definition of pregnancy.  So, if the fertilized egg, now over a week into development doesn’t implant, well, you’re not pregnant… besides, you’d not find or figure out for another 3-7 weeks.  Shape the terminology, shape the debate, only it doesn’t add up.  Kind of like the legal loophole of abortion.  You’re not a “person” until you’re born, so you don’t have any rights until you’re born.  Just because something is legal or illegal doesn’t make it right or wrong nor moral or immoral.  Men constantly devise ways to work around “problems”, and the abortion laws are surely that, except now modern medicine and technology is leapfrogging the law so that many premature babies who might have been legally killed had they been in-utero can now survive though born far too early… I digress, but the point is there.

And hey, President Obama doesn’t want you punished with a baby you don’t want, right?  How sweet…

So, you’re reading this… are we both talking about apples, or are you talking about bananas?  If so, that’s another discussion entirely.

I’ll leave you with a video put forth by a pro-choice – and thus pro-contraceptives – organization that isn’t just tactless, it’s ignorantly sick.  But, this is what seems to pass as tongue-in-cheek humor for the left, for the pro-choice and for many who think that contraceptives are a right… and should be made available and paid for by the government and thus by extension, you, the tax payer.  Notice the deeper underlying theme once you get past the unsubtle sexual innuendo?  Me, me, me, me, me…  Yeah… abortion and contraceptive rights… that’s sexy.  Sickening.

What a dark world.  We slide ever farther down the scree as a society to the fiery remnants of Gomorrah below us.

Hotair has an article commenting on a reflection on abortion in a Salon article. Chilling. Makes the discussion on the use of The Pill and the Morning After pill all the more important.