Posted on 01/19/2004 2:13:22 PM PST by Theodore R.
The "Morning After" Pill: Another Republican Sponsored Disaster!
By Chuck Baldwin
Food For Thought From The Chuck Wagon
January 20, 2004 With the anniversary of the infamous Roe v Wade Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion on demand just two days away, it is important for the American people to realize that Republicans, even more than Democrats, are responsible for the killing of innocents in the womb. Furthermore, President Bush's Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is proposing to put the "morning after" pill on grocery store shelves next to aspirin. Such a move would result in the deaths of even more unborn babies.
While conservatives like to condemn Democrats for their pro- abortion position (justifiably so), they seldom hold Republicans to the same standard. It seems that most conservatives only object if Democrats kill babies. Republicans, however, are able to kill babies with impunity.
For example, the court that decided the Roe case back in 1973 was dominated by Republican appointees by 6-3. Yes, Martha, it was a Republican court that legalized abortion on demand which has resulted in the deaths of more than 40 million unborn babies. And, there is no end in sight.
Furthermore, Republican courts have repeatedly upheld Roe v Wade and have worked to permanently ensconce abortion on demand as a constitutionally protected "right" in this country. Beyond that, a Republican Congress has done absolutely nothing to overturn Roe, even though Article III, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution clearly gives it the authority to except and/or regulate the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
In other words, Congress has the power to overturn Roe v Wade and put an end to legal abortion in this country any time it wants to. That professing pro-life Republicans have dominated Congress (to one degree or another) for some two decades now, but have done positively nothing to end abortion on demand means that the pro-life rhetoric of the Republican Party is only that: rhetoric. But the story only gets worse.
The FDA is currently proposing to make the "morning after" pill available without a prescription. Sometimes called "Plan B," this pregnancy-terminating pill would be placed on drug and grocery store shelves somewhere near aspirin and cold medication, making it accessible to everyone, including teenagers.
The "morning after" pill is called "Preven," and according to the manufacturer, has the potential to produce serious side effects including blood clotting, chest pain, coughing of blood, shortness of breath, high blood pressure, vomiting, dizziness, disturbance of vision or speech, etc. Can you imagine any other medication with such risks being approved for over-the-counter sales?
However, the worst part of Preven is that it terminates an early pregnancy. By preventing the fertilized egg from attaching itself to the wall of the fallopian tube, Preven aborts a newly conceived baby.
If the Bush administration allows Preven to be purchased without a prescription, can you imagine the numbers of babies that will be aborted? The numbers would be incalculable!
Furthermore, just as the federal government's promotion of "Plan A" (condoms) has resulted in a substantial rise in promiscuity and venereal disease so will its promotion of "Plan B" (the "morning after" pill.) Without understanding its intrinsic risks and even how it actually works, women (and girls) will attempt to use the "morning after" pill as simple contraception. The results will be devastating.
Many women who are medically at risk for taking the drug will experience numerous serious side effects. Many will become murderers by deliberately inducing the deaths of their own babies. Others will take the pill too late and will then opt to get a late term abortion. All in all, the "morning after" pill seems destined to be the latest Republican sponsored disaster!
© Chuck Baldwin
I'm as sick of the compromises of Republican Party as any paleoconservative Republican (and I do consider myself a paleoconservative, despite the fact that I'm only 19), but I have to agree with you.
I wonder if Baldwin would've endorsed Reagan in 1980...
You can't "abort" a "baby" OR a "fetus" with the morning after pill.
The morning-after pill works just like the birth-control pill, since it IS a birth control pill.
With either, it's POSSIBLE that it may at times prevent implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterine wall (failure of a fertilized egg to do so is something that happens often naturally)
And I hate to break it to the most fanatical extremists in the Right-to-Life movement, but the overwhelming majority of the people in this country do not consider a single-cell egg to be a "baby" and you'll never succeed in convincing a majority of the public that it is.
Public opinion is clearly against stuff like partial-birth abortion (not that that was common in the first place) and overall public opinion does seem to be shifting against abortions.
All the morning after pill does is end up preventing abortions down the road. Isn't that a good thing?
Those who resort to abortion or induced-nidation failure are always women. Strange that the public discourse puts the blame on male republicans. Only women--not politicians nor judges nor philosphers regardless of political persuasion---can solve this problem.
The morning-after pill works just like the birth-control pill, since it IS a birth control pill.
Wrong.
The Annals of Pharmacotherapy: Vol. 36, No. 3, pp. 465–470.
Postfertilization Effect of Hormonal Emergency Contraception
Chris Kahlenborn, 1 Joseph B Stanford, 2 and Walter L Larimore3
DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION: A MEDLINE search (1966–November 2001) was done to identify all pertinent English-language journal articles. A review of reference sections of the major review articles was performed to identify additional articles. Search terms included emergency contraception, postcoital contraception, postfertilization effect, Yuzpe regimen, levonorgestrel, mechanism of action, Plan B.
DATA SYNTHESIS: The 2 most common types of hormonal EC used in the US are the Yuzpe regimen (high-dose ethinyl estradiol with high-dose levonorgestrel) and Plan B (high-dose levonorgestrel alone). Although both methods sometimes stop ovulation, they may also act by reducing the probability of implantation, due to their adverse effect on the endometrium (a postfertilization effect). The available evidence for a postfertilization effect is moderately strong, whether hormonal EC is used in the preovulatory, ovulatory, or postovulatory phase of the menstrual cycle.
CONCLUSIONS: Based on the present theoretical and empirical evidence, both the Yuzpe regimen and Plan B likely act at times by causing a postfertilization effect, regardless of when in the menstrual cycle they are used. These findings have potential implications in such areas as informed consent, emergency department protocols, and conscience clauses.
Summary and Implications Return to Top
The evidence to date supports the contention that use of EC does not always inhibit ovulation even if used in the preovulatory phase, and that it may unfavorably alter the endometrial lining regardless of when in the cycle it is used, with the effect persisting for days. The reduced rates of observable pregnancy compared with the expected rates in women who use hormonal EC in the preovulatory, ovulatory, or postovulatory phase are consistent with a postfertilization effect, which may occur when hormonal EC is used in any of these menstrual phases.
This interpretation of the cited literature has important ramifications, given the polarizing opinions about EC use.45 For example, many state laws contain conscience clauses in which medical personnel (e.g., physicians, pharmacists, nurses, physician assistants, nurse practitioners) cannot be forced to participate in, or refer for, any surgical or drug-induced abortions. Therefore, evidence in favor of a postfertilization effect may have legal implications for healthcare providers who either prescribe or have objections to prescribing these agents.
Emergency department protocols could also be impacted by evidence of a postfertilization effect. For example, emergency departments of Catholic hospitals usually allow either no use of hormonal EC in their rape protocols or limited use (i.e., preovulatory use of hormonal EC).45 Catholic hospitals that do allow hormonal EC use prior to ovulation may wish to reassess their policies given the findings that EC use does not consistently stop ovulation and has the potential of causing a postfertilization effect even when used prior to ovulation. Most large secular hospitals have fewer limitations on the use of hormonal EC as part of their rape protocols. Nevertheless, evidence of a postfertilization effect from use of hormonal EC is important to physicians who must make a moral decision about prescribing or referring for a drug that can cause an early abortion.
There are potential limitations in our conclusions. Because no controlled trials have been done with women using EC, our conclusions are based on the existing data of case series with historical controls. However, these are the best available data for hormonal EC use. In addition, we have assumed, based on our discussions with physicians and laypeople across the country, that a significant number of physicians and patients would be concerned about a possible postfertilization effect. Although some evidence does exist to support our assumption,45 ,46 further research is needed. Nevertheless, the principle of informed consent would state that it is important to inform women who may use hormonal EC about this possible effect so that they can choose based on the best available data.
Regardless of the personal beliefs of the physician or provider about the mechanism of hormonal EC use, it is important that patients have information relevant to their own beliefs and value systems. It has been suggested to us by some that postfertilization loss attributed to hormonal EC use would not need to be included in informed consent until it is either definitely proven to exist or proven to be a common event. However, rare but important events are an essential part of other informed-consent discussions in medicine, primarily when the rare possibility would be judged by the patient to be important. For example, anesthesia-related deaths are rare for elective surgery; nevertheless, it is considered appropriate and legally necessary to discuss this rare possibility with patients before such surgery because the possibility of death is so important. Therefore, for women to whom the induced death of a zygote/embryo is important, failure to discuss the possibility of this loss, even if the possibility is judged to be remote, would be a failure of informed consent. Furthermore, based on the data reviewed in this article, it seems that a postfertilization effect is probably more common than is recognized by most physicians or patients. This is particularly true because in the studies done to date, women have been more likely to request treatment after intercourse that occurred near the time of ovulation than after intercourse that occurred earlier in the cycle.44
Some have suggested to us that an overemphasis of possible postfertilization effects might make women choose not to use EC and therefore increase the incidence of unplanned pregnancies. Both of these views fail to acknowledge the value of a woman's right to make decisions based on informed consent. During informed-consent discussions, overemphasis of any single possible risk may not result in appropriate informed consent; however, failing to mention a possible risk would be a failure of adequate informed consent. Therefore, discussion of a potential postfertilization risk should occur and should be kept within the perspective of the available medical evidence.
Proper informed consent requires patient and physician comprehension of information, the disclosure of that information, and the sharing of interpretations. If a postfertilization mechanism of hormonal EC use violates the morals of any woman, the failure of the physician or care provider to disclose that information would effectively eliminate the likelihood that the woman's consent was truly informed.
Finally, there is in our view a potential for negative psychological impact on women who value human life from conception onward, and have not been given informed consent about hormonal EC use, and later learn of the potential postfertilization effects. Their responses could include disappointment, guilt, sadness, anger, rage, depression, or a sense of having been violated by the provider. To assume that all patients will not care about a postfertilization effect is not supported by the literature.45 ,47–49
How many people, teenagers especially, will think this is RU486? How many will try to induce an abortion by taking more pills than prescribed, thus overdosing themselves?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.