Posted on 09/07/2006 3:57:14 PM PDT by wagglebee
Recent publicity concerning Plan B has been seriously misleading. The Plan B morning-after pill has been referred to as "contraception," even though it may act after fertilization to cause the death of a human embryo. This is an important mistake because, whatever one's judgment on abortion may be, I think we all agree that no woman should be misled into doing what she would consider to be taking a life without realizing that she is doing so.
There has been a shameful disinformation campaign on Plan B for years, and the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has failed to demand candor. Perhaps the simplest way to discern the truth is to look very carefully at the manufacturer's own "information" for consumers, found on its website at http://www.go2planb.com/section/about/index.html:
How does Plan B work (mechanism of action)?
Plan B is believed to act as an emergency contraceptive principally by preventing ovulation or fertilization (by altering tubal transport of sperm and/or ova). In addition, it may inhibit implantation by altering the endometrium. Plan B is not effective if a woman is pregnant. Plan B is a contraceptive and cannot terminate an established pregnancy.Will Plan B harm an unborn fetus?
There is no evidence that Plan B would harm a pregnant woman or a developing fetus if the product were accidentally taken during early pregnancy.... Plan B is not an abortifacient. It is an emergency contraceptive and should not be confused with RU486 or any other abortifacient.
Note that the manufacturer claims that Plan B is "contraceptive", "not effective if a woman is pregnant", will not "harm an unborn fetus," and "is not an abortifacient." Sure sounds like it doesn't destroy an unborn human life, and that's the message swallowed and spread by the media.
However, note also that the drug maker admits that Plan B "may inhibit implantation by altering the endometrium [i.e. the lining of the womb]." In other words, Plan B may cause a newly-conceived embryo to die (and be expelled) because it cannot implant itself in the lining of the womb. For this reason, some South American courts have found the Plan B drug to violate an unborn child's constitutionally-guaranteed right to life.
In light of the manufacturer's own admission, its other statements above may at first seem to be flat-out lies. But careful analysis reveals them to be deeply misleading rather than flatly false. Although many people (e.g. the legal philosopher Ronald Dworkin) use the word "fetus" to refer to an unborn child at any stage of development, in medicine a developing human life is usually called an "embryo" rather than a "fetus" prior to implantation in the mother's womb. The statement that Plan B does not "harm an unborn fetus" is true if we use this technical medical definition of "fetus," even though it may be misleading for those of us who don't distinguish fetuses from embryos.
But if Plan B may work post-fertilization, may cause the death of a newly-conceived human embryo, how can the drug maker say that the pill is only a "contraceptive," is "not effective if a woman is pregnant," and "is not an abortifacient"? The short answer is that the manufacturer appears to rely on recent (and perhaps politically motivated) redefinitions of conception, pregnancy, and abortion: According to the new definitions, "conception" and "pregnancy" begin at implantation rather than at fertilization, and "abortion" means the termination of a post-implantation "pregnancy." The drug makers can claim, rightly, that their statements are true under these new definitions.
One large problem is that the lay readers of the drug information packet are not told up front that these special new definitions are being used. Thus this "information" is quite unfair and misleading to average men and women who may remember from high school biology that fertilization and conception meant the same thing and that fertilization marked the beginning of pregnancy.
Moreover, the drug maker's insistence that Plan B does not terminate a pregnancy is a red herring to begin with. Nobody has any qualms about terminating pregnancies per se. After all, that's what birth itself does! What pro-life women and men don't want to do is to have an "abortion" in the ordinary sense of terminating LIFE. When the drug maker tells them not to worry because they are not terminating a pregnancy, they may conclude incorrectly that Plan B cannot cause the death of their unborn child. When they find out too late that they were misled and may have taken the lives of their own children, they may be devastated. And the drug maker, the media, and the FDA will be responsible.
In making this potentially lethal pill more easily available, the FDA should at least have required the drug maker to come clean, to say prominently on its label something like "WARNING: THIS DRUG MAY CAUSE THE DEATH OF AN EMBRYO." Its users would then be able to exercise informed consent about whether to take a chance on destroying a developing human life.
_______
Richard Stith J.D.(Yale), Ph.D.(Yale) is a Professor of Law at Valparaiso University School of Law in Indiana
Everything the abortionists say is a flat-out lie.
Dang! How the heck are we gonna harvest the stem cells? /reckless science
Pro-Life Ping
Freepmail wagglebee or little jeremiah to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
So what?
I read this "may inhibit implantation by altering the endometrium" and I ask just one person to show me the research to support this assertion, to show me how this Plan B can alter the endometrium and in what way is the endometrium is altered, but not a single fellow pro-life has even tried to show the facts as established by research. I am fully capable of understanding scientific research if offered for my reading, but not a single person has bothered to back up this accusation with anything stronger than the specious 'well, it was said by the people who are selling this drug'. Why is that? Isn't it better to be fully truthful than to lie or mischarachterize?
You took the words out of my mouth!!
Birth control pills fool the body into acting as if it's pregnant. Birth control pills, also called oral contraceptives (OCs), come in two forms: the combined OC, a combination of two synthetic hormones, estrogen and progestin; and, the minipill, which consists solely of progestin. Combined OCs are more commonly used, though both kinds are available through health care providers. The combination pill prevents ovulation by suppressing the natural hormones in the body that would stimulate the ovary to release an egg. By taking this estrogen throughout the month, you insure that no egg will be developed or released for that cycle. Progestin thickens the cervical mucus, hindering the movement of sperm. Progestin also prevents the uterus's lining from developing normally; so, if an egg were fertilized, implantation is unlikely.
The minipills, which contain no estrogen, inhibit the egg's ability to travel through the fallopian tubes, alter the cervical mucus to block sperm, partially suppress the sperm's ability to unite with an egg, and partially inhibit implantation in the uterine wall. For maximum effectiveness, you need to take the pills as prescribed.
source: GoAskAlice
The difference is that the birth controll pills of the same drug when "used as contraceptives" are at a lower dose. So to be used in the "morning after" (or abortificant mode), the physician has to prescribe them for an "OFF LABEL USE", at typically tripple the dose that they're labeld for as "birth controll".
Does anyone remember the screen names of any of those pro-aborts who have been posting to the Plan-B threads claiming it isn't an abortifacient? It would be nice to ping them so we could end that lie right here.
Isn't this kindof a "duh" statement? People aren't buying it to treat allergies!
So, if either birth control pills or Plan B have no effect on an fertilized embryo pre-implantation what accounts for the five-fold increase in the rate of ectopic pregnancy? Logically, something is disrupting the normal course of implantation and in the absence of other evidence the only answer is the drug.
It is well established that Levonorgestrel affects the endometrium Marvin. See Norplant on any search engine. Whether Levonorgestrel affects the endometrium enough at these doses to prevent implantation falls under the category of dunno.
Levonorgestrel causes an artificial build up in the endometrial lining in preparation for receiving an embryo. The ectopic pregnancy increase is likely (because I have yet to see specific findings to suppor it, I say likely from past understanding of ectopic causes) due to decrease in the fluidity of the mucosal environment of the fallopian tubes. As pointed out by garv above, this is a stong indication that the medication does cause changes. I'm still not convinced and the drug ought never be OTC anyway, but to say it is a sure abortifacient is at best misleading and we certainly don't need that sort of ammo fed to the pro death crowd at this juncture for them to paint pro life folks as kooks. When a solid proof of mechanism for ANY abortifacient means is established, I will be all over the call to take this drug not just off of OTC but off of the market as a dangerous medication. Unfounded extremism is not comforting or attractive.
Plan B is a bolus dosing of a progetin artificial hormone mimicking what occurs naturally following the eruption of an ovum from an ovary follicle. The drug is designed to prevent the release of the ovum, to forstall the eruption of the follicle. When progestin only BC method (I prefer to call them contraceptives) are used the continued holding off of ovulation then allowing it when the drug is stopped for menses is why there are increased ectopic pregnancies, because the mucosal of the fallopian tubes has been chnaged with prolonged ingestion of progestins or absorption of progestins (as with an implant). There is zero evidence in research to indicate that the bolus dosing of progestin causes the same inhiition of the mucosal in the fallopian tubes with such short spike in the hormone. The transference for mode of operation for fallopian tubes is not warranted at present ... unless you can point me to a study showing the implication of connection. But thank you so much for the reasoned post.
AAPLOG has an additional concern: it appears that the ectopic pregnancy rate following Plan B use can be as high as 6%. In 2003, the United Kingdom’s Department of Health alerted British physicians to this possible complication based on post-marketing surveillance in which 201 EC failures were found to contain twelve ectopic pregnancies - or a 6% rate - triple the expected rate for both UK and US. We can find no study which alleviates this concern.
your = you're. I know better. I hate when that happens.
.
“Now if I wanted to examine your Eustachian tube, Mrs. Loffler, what is the first thing I would say to you?”“Well — I don’t know, but something like ‘Take off your dress,’ or something like that.”
“Why should I?”
“Because it’s customary.”
“Not in my office.”
“It was when Dr. English examined me.”
“Made you take your clothes off to examine your Eustachian tube? That old rascal, Billy English.”
“He was a perfect gentleman. I wasn’t a bit embarrassed.”
“Mrs. Loffler, I might as well stop kidding you. The Eustachian tube is here, in your ear.” He tapped his ear.
.
— John O’Hara, A Case History.
LOL. The only problem is that I am a butt ugly 55 year old male. Nobody wants me, of either sex. :) No, it is simply dysfunctional burearcratic medical inertia, and paranoia fostered by strike suits from lean and hungry trial lawyers.
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.