I'm not trying to debate this - there's no way I can match your expertise on contraceptives. But my understanding is that the pill works in more than one way. If it doesn't prevent ovulation, it then will prevent implantation.

When one consider the pill's substantial general failure rate, one suspects there also is a lot of non-implantation going on.

Add to that the far-reaching metabolic damage that playing with female hormones can do, especially in very young women, and we've got an immense problem.

p.

Getting back to the original thread of sin in the camp, birth control is the least of our worries. I live in Northwest Florida and we have had two killings by the "pro-life forces" here in Northwest Florida. In addition, the leading advocate against abortion locally, has been charged with and more or less admits to molesting young girls. There are a lot of folks out there who do not wish to be associated with killers and child molesters. Birth control is the least of our problems.

I am so glad that you speak so kindly - and that you speak to me as a fellow Christian. That's how the world will know us: that we love Him and one another.

The argument that you give against contraception is a religious belief. Religion should not and cannot be forced on others by law. It's not reasonable to expect non-Christians to act according to our ideas of First, we love them and teach them about Jesus, so that they may become our children in His Spirit.

And then, we remember that all Christians have freedom in Christ, the indwelling Spirit, and different gifts of God by that Spirit.

I personally believe that God has given us the knowledge to avoid having more children than we feel gifted to care for, physically. I don't feel any more guilty about my choice to limit my family to one, with one "serendipitous" child, than I do in not selling all my positions and acting completely on my trust in God to give me my food, housing and health.

I against the Pill strictly for the medical impact I've noticed in my clients. I'm not a doctor or anything, just a very aware health food store manager. There are better BC methods out there such as diaphragm, sponge,etc. It may not be as convenient, but when you're married do you really have to worry about convenience?

I realize I'm in on this discussion late. However, if more people worried about themselves, esp. christians, then everything would pretty much take care of themselves.

Here's an article by Christian doctors that explains what I believe. Other Christian doctors disagree with these on whether or not there are post-implantation effects. But, as I said, the numbers of pregnancies and lack of an increase in ectopic pregnancies lead me to believe that the body "treats" the oocyte, the corpus luteum and the embryo the same after ovulation, whether on combination pills or not. In contrast, IUD's do seem to have a strong risk of post-conception effects (and can harm the baby by their presence if implantation does occur) and that Progesterone only pills allow too much ovulation and increase the risk of tubal pregnancy too much to be considered "safe."

http://www.aaplog.org/decook.htm

I agree with you. We should teach about responsible contraception, but fight abortion and other actions that harm women and girls.

No medicine or medicinal treatment that has an actual effect is without its side effects.

Most women can take the oral combination pills or depoprovera, but not all can. I think the continuous oral contraceptives (3 month course) will be tolerated well by many. (BTW, I've heard Dr. Sulak, the originator of the abstinence program "Worth the Wait" and one of the research leaders for the 3 month pill regimen. She is matter of factly pro-life and adamantly pro-abstinence outside of marriage.)

That link's domain is failing here.

I did a search, though, on decook, http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&safe=off&q=%22decook%22+implantation&btnG=Google+Search , and found http://www.epm.org/bcp3300.html interesting.

"...we have had two killings by the "pro-life forces" here in Northwest Florida...."

NO, NO, NO, they were MOST definantly not pro-life.

They were abortionists of abortionists. They killed, we try to save. They took life into their hands and destroyed it, just like abortionists do. They are with the pro-abortion/death side, NOT on the side of life.

Please do not associate those two criminals with the pro-life movement.

It's not actually a pro-life article, it's a religious article, speaking about sin, which is a personal, religious viewpoint.

Murder is sin, objectionable on religious/personal, but not legal grounds? Are you stating that any act that is Biblically prohibited must not be legally prohibited?

But, I don't think the pro-life side is a "loser."

For all of the money, time, and apparent strength of the movement, lost ground is the only thing to show for it all.

Who knows how many lives have been saved by pro-lifers? Who knows how many have changed to pro-life View as HTML as a result of the pro-life movement? The populace knows that abortion is murder and has persuaded Congress to act. They refused to force SCOTUS into compliance with the Constitution Congress, the Court, and the Constitution and allow the states to deal with abortion. So, you end up with Federal legislation that limits some abortion is some cases and will be subject to scrutiny by SCOTUS.

And while many (including me) believe that all birth control is unbiblical,

Only "religious" statement I noticed in the article.

Birth control pills (every variety) have three methods -- two actually prevent conception, but the final back-up is prevention of implantation.

There simply isn't any evidence that the combination pills cause pre-implantation abortions. 57 posted on 10/04/2003 10:44 PM PDT by hocndoc

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34911 is now posted @ Doctors pass pro-life resolution: Group says Hippocratic oath forbids abortion

I live in Northwest Florida and we have had two killings by the "pro-life forces" here in Northwest Florida.

How many abortions performed? There are laws against murder, except abortion. Get your priorities straight.

From http://www.all.org/issues/nf05.htm

BIRTH CONTROL

What is Depo-Provera?
Depo-Provera [depot medroxyprogesterone acetate, DMPA] is a sterile aqueous suspension, a derivative of progesterone.1

How does it work?
Depo-Provera, a progesterone derivative, acts by transforming the endometrium (lining of the uterus) from a proliferative state which would be hospitable to the new preborn baby immediately after fertilization to a secretory state which would slough off the child, thus causing death.

Depo-Provera is a chemical that acts to kill a preborn baby during that child's earliest days of existence in the womb.2

How is Depo-Provera administered?
Depo-Provera, a "contraceptive" injection, is available as 150mg in 1-ml vials, and is administered once every three months in the glu#29c89b or deltoid muscle. According to Upjohn, the manufacturer, "to ensure that the patient is not pregnant at the time of first administration, it is recommended that the injection be given only during the first 5 days postpartum if not breast-feeding; or if breast-feeding, at 6 weeks postpartum.3

What if I am pregnant and don't know it?
The Physician's Desk Reference, 1993 edition, publishes the following warning with regard to administering Depo-Provera to women who may be pregnant:

THE USE OF DEPO-PROVERA Sterile Aqueous Suspension (medroxyprogesterone acetate) DURING THE FIRST FOUR MONTHS OF PREGNANCY IS NOT RECOMMENDED.
Progestational agents have been used beginning with the first trimester of pregnancy in an attempt to prevent habitual abortion. There is no adequate evidence that such use is effective when such drugs are given during the first four months of pregnancy. Furthermore, in the vast majority of women, the cause of abortion is a defective ovum, which progestational agents could not be expected to influence. In addition, the use of progestational agents, with their uterine-relaxant properties, in patients with fertilized defective ova may cause a delay in spontaneous abortion. Therefore the use of such drugs during the first four months of pregnancy is not recommended.

Several reports suggest an association between intrauterine exposure to progestational drugs in the first trimester of pregnancy and genital abnormalities in male and female fetuses. The risk of hypospadias [an abnormal genital opening of the male urethra upon the undersurface of the penis], 5 to 8 per 1,000 male births in the general population, may be approximately doubled with exposure to these drugs. There are insufficient data to quantify the risk to exposed female fetuses, but insofar as some of these drugs induce mild virilization of the external genitalia of the female fetus, and because of the increased association of hypospadias in the male fetus, it is prudent to avoid the use of these drugs during the first trimester of pregnancy.

If the patient is exposed to DEPO-PROVERA Sterile Aqueous Suspension (medroxyprogesterone acetate) during the first four months of pregnancy or if she becomes pregnant while taking this drug, she should be apprised of the potential risks to the fetus.4

This warning, it should be noted, though published in the Physician's Desk Reference, is NOT published in Upjohn's promotional literature. And it is obvious from this warning that Depo-Provera can be extremely dangerous to those preborn children whose lives have already begun before the killer chemical is used.
Is Depo-Provera safe for the woman who is using it?
The simple answer is no. Here are a few facts you should know. In 1990, Claire D. F. Parsons wrote in an article published in the Issues in Reproductive Genetic Engineering journal regarding the following complaints from women who had used Depo-Provera: "headaches, abdominal discomfort, anxiety and nervousness, adrenal suppression, weight gain, hair loss, decreased libido, mood swings, dizziness, fatigue, allergic reactions and severe mental depression. Such effects cannot be reversed quickly."5

In 1991, Australian Senator Brian Harradine, having noted that the United States Food and Drug Administration would not approve Depo-Provera for use in America, pointed out that the MIMS Annual 1991 medical reference book had this to say about Depo-Provera: "The use of Depo Provera for contraception is not an approved indication and such use is investigational since there are unresolved questions relating to its safety for this indication."6

The Medical Letter, 12/11/92 issue, stated with regard to Depo-Provera: "Injection of 150 mg of medroxyprogesterone acetate (Depo-Provera) intramuscularly every three months, a highly effective method of contraception used in other countries for many years, has now been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration . . . The long-term safety of this method is not entirely clear; a case-control study found a slightly increased risk of breast cancer in women who first used the drug less than four years previously, but not in long-term users (WHO Collaborative Study, Lancet, 338: 833, 1991)."7

In addition, as far back in its history as 1983, Belita Cowan, Director of the National Women's Health Network, complained that Depo-Provera was not safe for women and should never be approved for use in the United States.8

And, in 1989, after a ten-year legal battle, a woman whose physician had injected her twice with Depo-Provera in 1974, even though the chemical was not approved in the United States for contraceptive use, won an appeals court battle based upon the excessive bleeding she experienced after having the injection. The bleeding, according to the physician, could be stopped only if she submitted to a hysterectomy, which she did. In this case, which Upjohn did appeal, the firm was held liable in the West Palm Beach 4th District Court of Appeals for the $370,000 in damages sought by the woman. During that trial it was pointed out that as many as twenty-five percent of women injected twice with Depo-Provera were suffering from excessive bleeding.9

Excessive bleeding is still listed as a possible complication for those who use this injectable chemical agent.

When did the USFDA approve Depo-Provera?
In June of 1992 a panel of the Food and Drug Administration endorsed the use of Depo-Provera for contraceptive purposes. When the story broke, Sharon Camp of the Population Crisis Committee told the media that more than 10,000 women were already using the drug. "Nothing legally prevents doctors from prescribing it for unapproved uses," reported Newsweek. Depo-Provera had been approved in years past for use in the treatment of kidney and uterine cancer.10

The publicity surrounding the panel's approval did not discuss side-effects of the chemical or its many dangers to those babies who might already be in the womb but unknown to their mothers. However, one journal reported: "At the advisory panel session, Upjohn presented data from a WHO study that demonstrated a minimal relationship between this form of contraception and breast cancer_but which concluded that the relationship was not greater than that between oral contraceptives and breast cancer."11

Then, on October 29, 1992, the Food and Drug Administration formally approved Depo-Provera for use as a so-called contraceptive agent. Not one news report in our file shows, however, that the actual mechanism of this chemical injection, which must be administered every three months, works to end the life of a child whose life has begun at fertilization. In fact, it would be safe to say that so much pressure was put on the Food and Drug Administration by population control groups, pro-abortion groups and the likes of Planned Parenthood, and so little heard from the pro-life community at large, that approval could have been predicted. As the New York Times pointed out in a news story, "The contraceptive, which is available in more than 90 countries, has been the focus of a two-decade battle for acceptance in the United States because of disagreements over its cancer-causing potential and suggestions that it could be used coercively. Upjohn, of course, was overjoyed!12

Is Depo-Provera just another population elimination tool?
The Dallas Morning News pointed out that groups such as the National Black Womens' Health Project and the National Latina Women's Health Organization came out publicly and condemned the US FDA decision to approve Depo-Provera. Why? Because history has shown that Depo-Provera, like many other birth control chemicals (Norplant, the Pill, the IUD) can be used on women who are not fully informed and can even be used in a coercive way through efforts to pressure certain women not to have children because of their economic status or their skin color.13

There is a tremendous amount of documentation from reliable sources to show that Depo-Provera has been used as a literal weapon in the battle to control population by coercion. In addition, as we pointed out elsewhere in this paper, the chemical has been shown repeatedly to be totally unsafe for women and deadly to preborn children.14

Is the US now leading the way in promoting Depo-Provera?
No! As a matter of fact, in June, 1993, Canadian health officials denied approval for Depo-Provera as a female contraceptive. Why? Because apparently these officials have studied the record, ignored the pressure of pro-death groups and determined that "long-term effects" of this chemical may still be dangerous to Canadian women. JoAnne Ford, speaking for the Canadian health officials, said, "For the use of contraception, which is a long-term usage, we still have outstanding questions about safety."

And it was a mere 24 hours earlier that the World Health Organization (WHO), long known for its pro-abortion posture, had approved Depo-Provera for contraceptive use.

Clearly, at least in Canada, the health of women is still of some concern to those responsible for the welfare of citizens.15

Footnotes

1. _______, "Depo-Provera," Physicians' Desk Reference, 1993 edition, pp. 2448-9

2. _______, "Anti-Progesterones/Progesterones," Beginnings, Vol. IX, #1, 1-2/93, pp. 3-4

3. _______, "Announcing a New Contraceptive Option For Women," Upjohn publicity insert, Ob/Gyn News, 3/15/93

4. _______, op. cit., #1

5. Parsons, Claire D. F., "Drugs, Science, and Ethics: Lessons From the Depo-Provera Story," Issues in Reproductive and Genetics Engineering, Vol. 3, #2, 1990, pp. 101-110

6. Harradine, Senator Brian [Australia], "Controversial Drug to Be Used on Papua New Guinea Women," 5/14/91, media release with MIMS excerpt as background

7. _______, "Choice of Contraceptives," The Medical Letter, Vol. 34 (Issue 885), 12/11/92, p. 112

8. _______, "Effective, But How Safe?" Time, 1/24/83, p. 67; "Health Group Says It Can List 529 Women Harmed by Drug," Los Angeles Herald Examiner, 1/11/83

9. Hladky, Mary, "Drug Maker Liable For Side Effects," Broward Review, 1/12/89, pp. 1, 4

10. _______, "A New Birth Control Option?" Newsweek, 6/29/92, p. 70

11. _______, "Depo-Provera," American Druggist, 8/92, p. 16

12. _______, "U.S. Approves Injectable Drug as Birth Control," New York Times, 10/30/92, p. A1

13. _______, "Birth-Control Shot's Sale Doesn't End Controversy," Dallas Morning News, 1/4/93, pp. 1C, 4C

14. To read background materials on how Depo-Provera has been used in years past as a coercive method, particularly among the poor and people of color, we recommend the following articles, each of which is available from American Life League upon request:

_______, "Depo-Provera: A report by the Campaign Against Depo-Provera," Black Rose publications, 1979, 48 (well-documented expose on abuses among Third World women)

Dornan, Congressman Robert K., "Statement Before the Committee on Foreign Affairs," 5/7/81, 30 pp. with supporting documents

Levine, Carol, "Depo-Provera and Contraceptive Risk: A Case Study of Values in Conflict," Hastings Center Report, 8/79, pp. 1-4

Minkin, Stephen, "Depo-Provera: A Critical Analysis," Institute for Food and Development Policy monograph, 1979, 11 pp.

15. _______, "Canada Denies Approval of Depo-Provera as Contraceptive," Executive News Service, 6/2/93, #1629; "UN Contraception," APN news wire on Executive News Service, 6/1/93

coerce \ko-ers\ vb coerced; coercing 1 : restrain, repress 2 : compel 3 : enforce coercion \-er-zhen, -shen\ n coercive \-er-siv\ adj
(C) 1995 Zane Publishing, Inc. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary (C) 1994 by Merriam-Webster, Incorporated

In cpforlife.org's entry above, the underlined synonym is the operant meaning ... by mischaracterizing to them or deceiving them, the incomplete information tends to compel uninformed women into participating in an abortifacient methodology. Things are about to become much worse in America.

There is currently building a movement to coerce this nation into supporting and even demanding the utilization of stem cells and tissues harvested from alive embryonic aged individual humans, both with embryonic stem cell research and application and what is euphemistically called 'research cloning'. Why is this worse than the coercion that draws women into abortifacient acts?... Because it is not incorrect to characterize the exploitation of embryonic human lives as cannnibalism, the act of cannibalizing these embryonic aged individuals for their body parts, to be used in 'treating' the maladies of older-aged individual humans.

It is heinous manipulation to coerce women and men into aborting their conceived children. It is a step much lower down the funneled slippery slope of dehumanization to be coerced into accepting and in fact demanding human cannibalism for medical advances.

I'm putting together a 'manuscript for the layman' addressing the issues of ESCR, human cloning, and abortion on demand. I would very much appreciate any suggestions fellow Freepers could and would offer regarding this project, suggesting what may be of greatest interest to a better informed populace as we approiach this season of coercion toward cannibalizing our own fellow human beings at their earliest ages in their individual lifetimes already begun at conception. I don't intend to approach these difficult issues from a religious perspective; I don't believe increasing our fellow Americans' understanding of just what is entailed requires a religious exposition. All suggestions will be welcomed and considered. You may send suggestions to me via my freepmail account by clicking on my 'MHGinTN' and sending, or clicking on your own 'My Mail' link on the browser page and sending a freepmail. Or, if you prefer, please find my e-mail address on my profile page. Thank you ...

It is much more difficult to coerce a person who has a wider range of the facts and applies a moral perspective to those facts. I intend to provide facts in layman's terms and leave the moral weighing to my fellow Americans.

Ping to #73 ... suggestions appreciated

BTTT!!!!!!

Skip Navigation Links

lifeissues.net:clear thinking about crucial issues

Search || Home » Kahlenborn » How Do the Pill and Other Contraceptives Work?

How Do the Pill and Other Contraceptives Work?

Chris Kahlenborn, MD
Reproduced with permission
(appendix five)
Breast Cancer:Its link to Abortion and
the Birth Control Pill

Print article

1 2 3 4 »

Part A: How the pill works

The oral contraceptive pill, also known as the birth control pill, is currently being used by over 10 million women in the U.S. 1. A number of physicians and researchers have noted that the oral contraceptive pill (OCP) is actually an abortifacient (ie, an agent that causes an early abortion; specifically, any agent that causes death of the zygote, embryo, or fetus after conception has occurred). Others have stated that they do not believe the OCP is an abortifacient as noted in the recent publication (1998), written by several physicians entitled: Hormonal Contraceptives: Are they Abortifacients? 2

The ethical question of whether contraception is morally permissible has varied between the Catholic Church and the Protestant churches. Both agreed on the "sin of contraception" before 1930 3, whereas both differ in general on the issue today. This appendix will focus on the medical and technical aspects concerning the cited questions regarding the pill's abortifacient qualities.

In order to answer the question of whether the OCP causes early abortions, a number of basic questions need to be answered such as:

Q-A5A. What is an oral contraceptive pill (OCP) and how does it work?

Normally, as shown in diagram A, the pituitary gland produces two hormones called FSH (Follicle Stimulating Hormone) and LH (Luteinizing Hormone). These hormones serve to stimulate the ovary to produce an egg each month (ie, to ovulate). The ovary is the site of production of the woman's two central female hormones, estradiol (EST), a type of estrogen, and progesterone (PRO), a type of progestin. Oral contraceptive pills (OCPs) are a combination of synthetic estrogen and progestin. Oral contraceptives "fool" the pituitary gland so that it produces less follicle stimulating hormone and luteinizing hormone. These two hormones are needed for ovulation to occur, therefore, OCPs suppress, but do not eliminate ovulation.

Oral contraceptives have two other main effects:

They thin the inner lining of the uterus (called the endometrium), depleting it of glycogen (ie, a type of sugar), and decreasing its thickness. A thinner endometrium has a decreased blood supply.
They may thicken the cervical mucus, making it more difficult for the sperm to travel up through the cervix. The evidence for this is weak 4 5 and not strongly supported by the rabbit model 6.

Of course, OCP use could not cause abortions if it always stopped ovulation so this needs to be the first issue that is raised. A clear proof of the occurrence of ovulation is provided by noting what the drug companies which manufacture OCPs state. If one opens up the PDR (Physician's Desk Reference, 1998) one will find a table describing the "efficacy rate" of the OCP. In every table listed under each OCP one notes a "typical failure rate" of 3%. The PDR defines this as the rate of annual pregnancy occurrence noted in "typical couples who initiate use of a method (not necessarily for the first time) and who use it consistently and correctly during the first year if they do not stop for any other reason." This means that even couples who used the pill consistently over the course of a year had a pregnancy rate of 3%. A 1996 paper by Potter 7 gave an excellent overview of the matter. She noted that the most recent data point to a rate of pregnancy for "typical use" as being 7%, which is probably the more accurate statistic given the immediacy of her research and the fact that today's OCPs are lower dose ones, theoretically permitting a higher rate of breakthrough ovulation. From these estimates of OCP failure and the common experience of on-pill pregnancies, it is clear that both ovulation and conception occur in couples who use OCPs.

Q-A5B: Could you present the evidence that some physicians and researchers glue to support their claim that the OCP indeed acts as an abortifacient?

Before presenting the evidence, the normal anatomy and histology (ie, the study of the body's tissues on a microscopic level) of the inner lining of the uterus, (ie, the endometrium) need to be explained (see Diagram B).

The endometrium slowly gets built up before oculation (the proliferative phase) and then reaches its peak in the secretory phase (shortly after ovulation [and conception if it has occurred]). The endometrium is "ready for the newly conceived child to implant" when it reaches its peak in the secretory phase a few days after ovulation. The blood flow, specifically the oxygen and nutrients to the glandular cells of the endometrium, increases through the cycle as the spiral arteries enlarge during the secretory phase. The size of the endometrial glands also enlarge in the secretory phase. The glands contain important nutritional building blocks for the unborn child who is about to implant, including glycogen (a type of sugar), mucopolysaccharides (building blocks for a cell's growth), and lipids (fats) 8.

Q-A5C: What does the phrase "ready for implantation" mean?

The author of a histology text designed for medical students noted: "Thus, the various changes that take place in the endometrium during the second half of the menstrual cycle may be regarded as preparing the uterine lining for the nourishment and reception of the fertilized ovum (blastocyst)" [8]. It would appear that God perfectly designed a woman's body and the lining of her uterus to be "optimal for implantation" a few days after ovulation and conception have occurred.

Q-A5D: Does OCP use cause changes in the lining of the uterus that could be detrimental to the newly conceived child's ability to implant himself or herself?

It would appear so. Because we know that use of the oral contraceptive pill (OCP) allows ovulation and conception to occur at times, if OCP use causes unfavorable changes in the endometrium it would make it difficult for the unborn child to implant, and would support the conclusion that it acts as an abortifacient.

Q-A5E: What are some of those changes?

The first change that use of the OCP makes is to markedly decrease the thickness of a woman's endometrial lining. Women who take OCPs know this because they can tell you that the volume of menstrual contents lost in their monthly cycles significantly decreases once they start taking OCPs. Obviously if a woman is losing less menstrual contents each month, the layer of endometrium that is being shed must be thinner and less well developed.

Q-A5F: Is there a technical or quantitative way to measure how much thinner a woman's endometrium becomes when she uses OCPs?

Yes, in 1991 researchers in the U.S. performed MRI scans (Magnetic Resonance Imaging) on the uteri of women, some of whom were taking OCPs and some of whom were not 9. The OCP users had endometrial linings that were almost 2 millimeters thinner than that of the nonusers. Although this may sound like a small difference, it represented a 57% reduction in the thickness of the endometrial lining in women who used OCPs in this study.

Q-A5G: But is there really any evidence that a thinner endometrium makes it more difficult for implantation to occur?

Yes. A number of different research papers have studied this issue and it has been widely described in the medical literature concerning in vitro fertilization where it has been noted that the newly conceived child is much less likely to implant on a thinner uterine lining than a thicker one. Originally an older smaller study (Fleisher et al 10, 1985) did not find that the thickness of the endometrium played an important role in in vitro implantation rates, however, other studies have found a positive trend (Rabinowitz et al, 1986 11; Ueno et al, 1991 12) or a statistically significant effect (Glissant et al, 1985 13) of the decreasing thickness of the endometrium in relationship to a decreased likelihood of implantation. Larger and more recent studies (Abdalla et al, 1984 14; Dickey et al, 1993 15; Gonen et al, 1989 16; Schwartz et al, 1997 17; Shoham et al, 1991 18) have reaffirmed this important connection. Most studies have found that a decrease of even 1 millimeter in thickness yields a substantial decrease in the rate of implantation. In two studies, when the endometrial lining became too thin, no implantations occurred (Abdalla [14]; Dickey [15]).

Q-A5H: What happens to the actual endometrial lining in women who take OCPs when one looks at it under a microscope?

As we saw in Diagram B, the uterine lining is at an "optimal state for implantation" when the glands and uterine arteries are at their maximal size. This makes intuitive sense because at this point the blood supply and glycogen and lipid levels that the tiny unborn child needs to survive are at their maximal state. It has already been stated that it becomes significantly thinner but what does it look like on the microscopic level?

Researchers who study the histology of the endometrium find that OCP use causes a number of effects. First, the spiral arteries regress significantly, becoming much smaller and even difficult to find when one looks under a microscope 19 20 21 22. This of course is important, because an adequate blood supply is critical to the existence of the implanting unborn child. A loss of blood flow means a drastic curtailment in the food and oxygen supply that the child needs to survive. The blood flow to the endometrium is so important that in 1996 one researcher wrote directly about it as concerns its relationship to an unborn child's likelihood of implantation 23. She first discovered that the blood flow through the spiral arteries peaks at day 16 to 18 of the menstrual cycle and then noted that: "It seems that endometrial perfusion presents more accurate noninvasive assay of uterine receptivity than uterine artery perfusion alone. Therefore, blood flow velocity waveform changes of spiral arteries may be used to predict implantation success rate to reveal unexplained infertility problems and to select patients for correction of endometrial perfusion abnormalities. . ." [23] (emphasis added). In layman's language, Kupesic is stating that the efficacy of implantation correlates with the blood flow through the spiral arteries.

Q-A5I: Are there any other changes on the microscopic level in addition to the reduced blood supply from the spiral arteries?

Yes. the second Drominent effect is that the endometrial glands become much smaller and the "mitotic rate" (rate of cell division) of the cells of the glands decreases [19-22]. Obviously, if the glands which supply the glycogen (sugar), mucopolysaccharides, or lipids (fats) are compromised, the preborn child who needs those nutrients wild have a more difficult time implanting and/or surviving.

Q-A5J: Many of the studies that examined the endometrial lining are older and were performed when OCPs contained a much higher level of estrogen content (100 micrograms or more). Would the same effect be occurring with more recent OCPs?

Yes. First it should be mentioned that if you ask a woman who is taking lower dose OCPs about the amount of monthly menstrual contents that she loses, she will note that she loses significantly less after she starts taking the OCP. Obviously, if she is losing less menstrual contents then she is shedding less each month because the lining of the uterus has become thinner. But what about at the histologic level? Even studies which looked at OCPs that contained 50 micrograms of estrogen (a medium dose) and 0.5 mg of a progestin (eg, norgestrel) found that the spiral arteries and the endometrial glands "shrivel up." [20,21].

Q-A5K: Some researchers 24 have argued that if breakthrough cycle does occur while a woman is taking OCPs, her endometrial lining would become similar to that of the non-OCP user for that cycle. Is this an accurate statement?

To the best of this author's knowledge, that statement has no support in the literature. If the above statement were true, it would mean that each time a woman had a breakthrough cycle while taking the OCP (if she does not become pregnant), she should experience as heavy a cycle as if she were not taking OCPs. This phenomenon has not been described in the medical literature either.

Q-A5L: Is there any other new evidence that supports the argument that OCPs act by causing an early abortion?

Yes. In 1996 a researcher names Stephen Somkuti published an article concerning the endometrium and a group of molecules called "integrins." 25 Integrins are a group of adhesion molecules that have been implicated as playing an important role in the area of fertilization and implantation. There are different types of integrins and it is believed that the endometrium is most receptive to implantation when it expresses certain types of integrins. Oral contraceptive pills change the type of integrins that the endometrial lining produces theoretically making it more difficult for the unborn child to implant. In the words of Dr. Somkuti: "These alterations in epithelial and stromal integrin expression suggest that impaired uterine receptivity is one mechanism whereby OCs exert their contraceptive action." [25]

Q-A5M: Has anyone proven that OCP use causes early abortions?

In order to prove if and how often women are having abortions while taking OCPs one needs to be able to measure how often women become pregnant while taking them. But early pregnancy tests are currently not accurate enough to confirm pregnancy within the first week (although some researchers have been able to detect the hormonal changes in pregnancy as early as 4 days after conception 26 27). Until a very early test is developed that can detect pregnancy in women in spite of being on OCPs, or until researchers physically measure how many abortions are occurring in women who take OCPs, one cannot state with absolute certainty how often OCPs cause early abortions. New ultrasound technology, which is capable of detecting ovulation, may give new insights in the future (see answer to question O). As of today, the most accurate description of the current evidence is as follows:

All of the evidence on a microscopic, a macroscopic and an immunological level strongly support the argument that OCP use causes an early abortion at times. Until further studies are done, we should take heed and act upon the current data.

Q-A5N: Recently a group of physicians, many of whom are experienced Ob/Gyns, wrote a booklet entitled: Hormonal Contraceptives: Are They Abortifacients? [2] In it they wrote: "The 'hormonal contraception is abortifacient' theory is not established scientific fact. It is speculation. . ." Could you comment on why a group of physicians would hold this view and on the nature of their arguments?

An overview and rebuttal to the arguments cited in the booklet entitled "Hormonal Contraceptives: Are They Abortifacients?" is found in the Addendum to this explanation. This author believes that some of their own arguments can be shown to actually support the argument that OCP use is abortifacient.

Next page: Other Contraceptives »
1 2 3 4

Bump for ideas!

"We've been so busy trying to remove the splinter in the pagans' eyes that we have neglected the beam in our own."

Point taken. Ouch.

I used to be pro-life but pro-birth control until I got an education on what most birth control does to a woman's body and unborn, conceived human. I was pretty upset to find out the truth. No one ever told me. I thought it just prevented conception.

Since your education, how do you view IUDs?

If it prevents the implantation of a conceived human being, I would have to be against it. Personally, I never considered an IUD because of the bad stories I heard from relatives and friends who used this method of birth control.