I think the shot of whatever is far more likely to prevent implantation than fertilization thus if a fertilization has already occurred or if it occurs in spite of the measure, it is an abortion. The best response to the question is to switch tracks and ask: "Why oh why are we not imposing capital punishment for rapists?"
If it is acceptable for a rape victim to do this because she has a obvious strong revulsion to carrying the child of a monster who need capital punishment, then we are on the untenable slippery slope to allowing abortion for anyone with a strong revulsion. The enemy knows this and that's why they keep asking the undermining question.
Santorum voted for bills that included funding for Planned Parenthood.
I'll research this.
From the debate last night concerning Title X:
Santorum: "I think I was making it clear that while I have a personal moral objection to it, even though I don't support it, that I voted for bills that included it. And I made it very clear in subsequent interviews that I don't support that, I've never supported it, and on an individual basis have voted against it."
That's not good enough for me, but if every bill before Congress contains such poison pills, then nobody could vote for anything. So what about the bills Santorum voted for, made them worth taking the poison?
I see don't see a slippery slope being created if it was only permissible for a rape victim to immediately stop herself from becoming pregnant. Of course what we have now is abortion as contraception for anyone who wants it, even late in the pregnancy. Personally I would counsel a woman to not stop the pregnancy but I would not support a law that prevented her from stopping the pregnancy in the first day.