Some IUDs are designed to prevent conception but they don't always do it. If an egg does get fertilized, Plan B is to prevent its implantation. That is really an abortion of a fertilized egg. So IUDs are usually contraceptive, sometimes abortive.

IUDs are almost always abortive. They cause a foreign body inflammatory response within the uterus that prevents implantation if conception occurs. If newer IUDs are impregnated with long term chemical hormones, they may at times prevent conception by stopping ovulation. However I'm not up on newer IUDs, and I'm not sure if they do use hormones in addition to the foreign body effect.

The Pill really isn't designed to prevent conception at all. I'm pretty sure it doesn't intentionally alter the properties of the egg by making it less penetrable, more breakable, or whatever, it only prevents any egg that happens to get fertilized from implanting. That's in vitro abortion pure and simple, and unless I misunderstand the full scope of what The Pill does, it's a pure abortificant and (agreeing with you) it shouldn't even be CALLED a contraceptive.

Actually, the pill WAS designed to be solely contraceptive by blocking ovulation. Here's a couple articles I wrote that explains what happened during the progreesion of the pill's dosages:

The Pill: Contraception Or Abortion?

by Brian J. Kopp, DPM

When speaking about "contraception" most of us normally assume that fertilization of an ovum by a sperm is being prevented. The two main ways of preventing fertilization are barrier methods (condoms, diaphragm, spermicides, coitus interruptus, etc.) and inhibition of ovulation (release of an egg by the ovary).

Inhibition of ovulation is most commonly accomplished today by the use of oral contraceptives ("the pill"). The original intention of the inventors of the pill was to inhibit ovulation by interrupting the natural hormonal cycle with high doses of estrogen and progesterone. These early combination pills were very successful in completely inhibiting ovulation but caused unacceptably high levels of side effects. Therefore, the hormonal content was progressively reduced. At the same time, other mechanisms by which the pill "prevents" fertilization were discovered. These are as follows:

1) Inhibition of ovulation: During the normal reproductive cycle, the pituitary gland in the brain releases hormones which stimulate the ovary to mature and release an ovum (egg). The combination pill usually interrupts the release of these pituitary hormones, thereby inhibiting ovulation. The progestin (synthetic progesterone)-only products (the mini-pill, Norplant, Depo-provera injections) generally do not suppress ovulation due to their weaker effect.1

2) Impeding sperm migration: The women’s cervix produces a watery mucus through which sperm can swim and by which the sperm are nourished in the female reproductive tract. Progestin causes thickening of this mucus, impeding sperm motility and migration.

3) Changes in fallopian tubes: The fallopian tubes transport the egg to the uterus. Progestin decreases the motility of the tube, thereby slowing down the transport of the egg to the uterus.

4) Changes of the endometrium: The endometrium, the lining of the uterus, undergoes a monthly cyclical build-up in preparation for the possible implantation of a fertilized egg. The initial build-up occurs under the influence of the body’s own natural estrogen produced by the ovary itself during a normal cycle. After release of an egg at ovulation the endometrium is maintained and further developed by the body’s production of progesterone. The combination pill causes an asyncronous build-up of the endometrial lining and altered maturation of that lining.2 The progestin component causes the inner lining of the uterus to become thin and shriveled, unable to support implantation if fertilization occurs.3

HIGH "SUCCESS RATE"?

This point is key in understanding the overall "success rate" for oral contraceptives today. As mentioned above, due to the multiple undesirable side effects, the dosages of the hormones in the oral contraceptives were progressively decreased. However, their overall effectiveness has remained around 98% to 99%. Why?

Multiple studies have established that with the reduced hormone dosages breakthrough ovulation occurs. The rates cited in the literature range from 2% to 10% for breakthrough ovulation for all forms of oral contraception. Triphasic preparations may allow an ovulation once every four months.4 The progesterone only products may allow breakthrough ovulation 50% of the time; very low dose and long term use products (such as Norplant, Depo-provera) may alter the endometrium without inhibiting ovulation at all.5

In these cases where breakthrough ovulation has occured, the other mechanisms of the pill come into play. The barrier effect of the thickened cervical mucus may prevent sperm transport thereby preventing fertilization. However, when breakthrough ovulation occurs, the body produces its own estrogen which may allow the cervical mucus to support sperm migration. We must assume, therefore, that fertilization of the egg can occur with breakthrough ovulation.

CONTRACEPTION... OR ABORTION?

What happens to the new life conceived when fertilization does indeed occur? The progestin slows the transport of the embryo through the fallopian tube. The embryo may become too old to be viable when it does enter the uterus, and it will die. If the embryo is still viable when it reaches the uterus, it is unlikely that implantation would be possible in the altered endometrium developed under the influence of the pill, and again in would die.6

Clearly, by preventing the transport and implantation of this newly conceived life, oral contraceptives are indeed abortifacient. No concrete number can be given as to the absolute frequency with which the pill acts as an abortifacient and not as a contraceptive. However, if even the possibility of an abortifacient effect exists we as Christians must seek other ways of spacing or limiting pregnancy.

"JELLIES, JAMS, AND DAMS"

Barrier methods are the second most popular form of contraceptives used by Americans. Again these include condoms, diaphrams, sponges, spermicidal jellies and foams, etc. Barrier methods as a whole have an effecitve rate of approximately 85%. This is certainly much less effective than the pill and other related medications. (Furthermore, in Genesis, Chapter 38, God speaks very clearly about Onan who "wasted his seed on the ground. . . What he did greatly offended the Lord, and the Lord took his life too." Gen 38: 10. Onan practiced coitus interruptus, withdrawing and wasting his sperm. This same thing is practiced today with barrier methods of contraception which also "waste the seed." All Christian faiths taught artificial contraception was wrong until as recently as the 1930's based on this and other Biblical texts.)

THERE MUST BE A BETTER WAY...

There is a method that is entirely safe, very effective, and requires no abortifacient chemicals or artificial barriers. This is called the symptothermal method of natural family planning. It relies on the naturally occuring symptoms of a woman’s fertility including her body temperature, cervical mucus, and other signs, to determine when the women is potentially fertile. Selective abstinence during the 6 to 10 fertile days per month allow the couple to space or limit pregnancies with a 95% to 99% use effective rate. The British Journal of Medicine recently reported a study in which 20,000 poor, mostly illiterate women from Calcutta learned and practiced this method with a 99% effective rate.7

This method is effective for women with irregular cycles, breastfeeding women, and pre-menopausal women. It is also very much in accord with God’s plan for us, because it relies on the cycles and symptoms God created in women to limit or space pregnancies.

If you would like to learn more about the symptothermal method of natural family planning, or if you provide spiritual counsel to individuals or couples who might benefit from this knowledge, please contact Natural Family Planning of the Alleghenies at (814) 946-3544 or Dr. Brian Kopp at (814) 266-1582.

NOTES

1. Goodman, Gilman. The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics. Pergamon Press. 1990. P. 1405.

2. Pritchard, MacDonald, Gant. Obstretics. Appleton-Century- Crofts. 1985. P. 812.

3. Weckenbrock. The Pill: How Does It Work? Is It Safe? pamphlet: The Couple To Couple League International. 1993.

4. Ehmann. Abortifacient Contraception: The Pharmaceutical Holocaust. Human Life International. 1993. p. 19

5. Goodman, Gilman. p 1405

6. Ibid.

7. British Medical Journal, March 1993.

Postfertilization Effects of Oral Contraceptives and Their Relationship to Informed Consent.

by Brian J. Kopp, DPM

A groundbreaking study was published in the February 2000 edition of Archives of Family Medicine entitled "Postfertilization Effects of Oral Contraceptives and Their Relationship to Informed Consent." This study has far reaching ramifications for all pro-life individuals who believe life begins at conception, as well as the health care professionals who treat them.

According to the authors, while the primary mechanism of oral contraceptives (OC's) is to inhibit ovulation, breakthrough ovulation (release of an egg) does occur. Analyzing journal articles on OC's published since 1970, they found breakthrough ovulation occurs between 1.7% to 28.6% for combination OC's and from 33% to 65% for progesterone only OC's.

The authors show that OC's maintain a high effective rate by "postfertilization effects," which come into play after an egg is released and is fertilized. According to the authors, postfertilization effects involve one or more of the following: "(1) A postfertilization preimplantation effect would consist of a slower transport of the preembryo through the fallopian tube, preventing the preembryo from implanting in the uterus... (2) A peri-implantation effect would be the alteration of the endometrium, such that a preembryo that reached the uterus was unable to successfully implant into the endometrial lining of the uterus. (3) A postimplantation effect could result from alteration of the endometrium not sufficient to prevent implantation but unfavorable for maintenance of the pregnancy..."

Most patients, for personal, scientific or religious reasons, identify the start of human life at conception. For some, a method of birth control that has the potential of killing their newly conceived child (an abortifacient) may not be acceptable. This would include all oral contraceptives, as well as Norplant, Depo-Provera, the morning after pill, emergency contraceptives, and RU486.

According to the authors, "Since it would be difficult to predict which patients might object to being given an OC if they were aware of possible postfertilization effects, mentioning the potential for postfertilization effects of OCs to all patients and providing detailed information about the evidence to those who request it is necessary for adequate informed consent." Of course, "adequate informed consent" has legal ramifications beyond the question of medical ethics.

For the pro-lifer, "postfertilization effects" is simply a medical term for early chemical abortions. How many pro-lifers are aware of these facts? Have they truly received "informed consent"? More importantly, why are our preachers and priests silent in the face of these chemical abortions, which far outnumber surgical abortions? The journal article is available online, at http://archfami.ama-assn.org/issues/v9n2/full/fsa8035.html