Posted on 02/19/2015 10:55:12 AM PST by wagglebee
February 18, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) -- Pro-life advocates are urging Catholic hospitals to reconsider their use of the Plan B “morning-after pill” in light of a new meta-review of past studies claiming that despite its being marketed as “emergency contraception,” it is statistically more likely to cause early abortion than prevent pregnancy.
According to the drug’s manufacturers, Plan B’s primary method of action is to suppress ovulation, thereby making conception impossible.
Some Catholic hospitals authorize the use of the pills by rape victims if it can be proven that the woman has not yet ovulated.
But according to Dr. Christopher Kahlenborn, who co-authored the analysis published in this month’s Linacre Review, past studies indicate that the pill is only effective at preventing ovulation when given at least four days in advance, which is outside a woman’s fertile window anyway. When given during the woman’s potentially fertile period, however – up to three days prior to ovulation – Kahlenborn says the drug doesn’t prevent ovulation at all, but merely makes the womb hostile to implantation of a fertilized egg, causing an early abortion. As a result, he says, the pill is much more likely to end a pregnancy than prevent one.
“It is not accurate to label [levonorgestrel emergency contraception] LNG-EC as simply a contraceptive,” wrote Dr. Kahlenborn and his co-authors, Dr. Rebecca Peck and Walter B. Severs. “If given prior to ovulation, LNG-EC should be labeled as emergency abortion/contraception.”
To back up their claims, Kahlenborn and his colleagues cited a 2011 study by Chilean reproductive biologist Gabriela Noe, noting that of the 103 women who took Plan B prior to ovulation in Noe’s study, not a single one became pregnant. Because other studies showed that Plan B has no effect on preventing ovulation once inside the fertile window, the authors reasoned that at least some of the women theoretically should have become pregnant despite their use of the pill. Since none of them did, the authors concluded that the drug worked not by preventing ovulation, but by blocking implantation of an already conceived child.
Judie Brown, president of American Life League, called on Catholic hospitals to stop using the drugs and update their policies in light of the Linacre analysis.
“Catholic bishops have been assured by Plan B proponents that the drug does not cause an abortion. We now know this is not true,” Brown said. “There is a grave risk that preborn human lives are being killed by Plan B, and Catholic hospitals need to immediately halt dispensing these drugs and review their policies.”
The abortion industry has ALWAYS known this, they just covered it up to mask their agenda.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
True.
This is the first I’ve heard of Plan B. Web MD is still reporting that it does not cause abortions, as is the Mayo Clinic. This is clearly a problem.
http://www.webmd.com/women/guide/plan-b
http://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/morning-after-pill/basics/why-its-done/prc-20012891
The medical community denies it causes an abortion because in the last two decades they’ve conveniently redefined “conception” as the moment of implantation. Therefore anything that destroys the fertilized egg prior to implantation is in their mind not abortifacient because “conception” has not yet occurred. Then based on this language manipulation, they claim anyone who points out an abortifacient effect prior to implantation is “outside the mainstream” of modern medicine and simply pushing an agenda. Goebbels would be proud.
Science facts mean nothing to pro-aborts. They don’t care if it supports their claims or not. If it doesn’t they reframe the issue to “rights” or “fairness” or whatever convenient rationale is present.
Thanks. I didn’t know that.
Thanks, Brian. That makes sense, even to the non-scientific mind (like mine).
Yes, thanks for the ping!
Notice how one of the people they interviewed tried to use the redefinition of "conception" against Dr. Kahlenborn's main point:
Jessica Arons, president and chief executive of the Reproductive Health Technologies Project, said the study authors seemed to be crafting a political statement to push their “radical notion” that Catholic hospitals should not use EC for rape victims.
“However, [the Linacre Quarterly authors’] definition of abortion to include interference with the implantation of a fertilized egg is outside the medical mainstream, said Ms. Arons.
“Whether LNG-EC disrupts ovulation, interferes with fertilization or prevents implantation is irrelevant, since all three function to prevent pregnancy under established medical definitions,” she said, adding: “No matter what patina of science they attempt to use to cloak their ideological intentions, the bottom line is this: LNG-EC works only to prevent, not end, pregnancy.”
Dr. Kahlenborn's position has only been outside the medical mainstream since they deliberately and with malice redefined these words in the recent past. They've been working on this verbal engineering since the late 1960s. Readers can see this 13 year old thread here for more on the subject:
Medical dictionaries redefine "CONCEPTION" to obscure the TRUTH regarding contraceptive technologies
Many of these sources appear to be extremely radicalized regarding contraception and abortion.
Unfortunately Big Murder has succeeded in convincing Big Pharma and the AMA to join in their satanic crusade.
I couldn’t find anything from a recognizable source (except Huffpost-and I’m not sure who the author was) in the way of a bio for the woman mentioned. That seems unusual to me.
Which is why in a Catholic hospital they will perform a pregnancy test prior to issuing a Plan B pill to a rape victim. It is not to abort the rape (which would not have conceived at the time) but to prevent the abortion of an existing pregnancy.
Yes...this has been known since the pill was “invented.” In the past, you just took an “overdose” of the BCP.
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.