'If the hormonal agents used in emergency contraception are intended to suppress ovulation, and if they’re applied at a point in a victim’s cycle where they truly can prevent ovulation, Catholics can support their use.
But many backers of emergency contraception intend much more than simply blocking conception. They define it to include methods that are abortifacient — in other words, that kill the fertilized egg after pregnancy has begun by preventing it from implanting in the uterine wall.
For Catholics and Catholic hospitals, this creates a grave moral problem. The size of an unborn human life doesn’t matter; the scientific fact that a human life has begun, does. Once conception occurs, two sets of rights must be protected: the woman unjustly violated, and the innocent life who results. To the degree that supporters of “emergency contraception” obscure this fact, as many often do, they act dishonestly.'
That's what I mean. His "if" here implies that the situation he discusses exists and can be accurately determined, under emergency conditions, by persons with limited knowledge of fertility signs and other relevant facts.
I don't believe this is possible. I've been charting for Natural Family Planning for over ten years, and I have two children whose date of conception I simply could not determine, based on my recorded observations. And my experience isn't unusual among the women I know. Identifying ovulation and fertility, and placing a date of conception appropriately in the cycle, can be quite complicated.
Either the Archbishop isn't aware of these facts, or he's endorsing a "Let's just assume ... our intentions are honorable ..." approach regarding a possible conception. If that's the case, I think he should admit that up front.