Correct. Besides, I personally have never heard God decree that it is OK to stop ovulation post sexual act, consent or not, or artificially interfere with fertilization (or implantation) before or after the fact. Maybe that meme went out above my pay grade also. To say these things are permissible because the woman did not choose contracepted sex is the sort of wordsmithing for which the libs are notorious.
Back in 1960 there were Catholic Belgian nuns in the Congo who heroically did not want to leave their medical mission stations, despite civil war, and the widespread terrorist tactic of raping nuns.
The fact is that the Church made it clear that nuns in danger of rape, could use diaphragms (known at that time as "pessaries"), and, later, that Catholic women in Bosnia in the early 1990s in danger of rape, could take birth control pills, because the sin of contraception consists in "choosing a contracepted act of sex." No choice, no sin.
It was Spanish theologian Fr. Marcelino Zalba --- an outspoken supporter of Casti Cannubi and, later, of Humanae Vitae ---who proposed that the Holy See clarify that the sin of contraception is the sin of choosing a contracepted sexual act, and the Holy Office agreed with this as a legitimate doctrinal clarification.
Also, Catholic hospitals have no objection to morning-after pills, so long as ovulation has not taken place, and therefore there can be no question of abortion, not even of a zygote or morula-stage human being.
I do not think that this has the status of an "irreformable doctrine," but only that reputable Catholic authorities --- including the Holy Office in 1960 --- thought this interpretation was correct, and I am unaware of them ever repudiating this intepretation.
If anyone has information I am missing here, I would be grateful to be corrected. I will always withdraw my own opinion in favor of the Magisterium of the Church.