So-called Emergency Contraception Pills

So-called Emergency Contraception Pills - April 2, 2001

To the Editor:

The commentary by Ellen Goodman in the 2/27/01 issue of the Independent contained some serious medical errors. I urge you and your readers to take a hard look at this issue. Lives, and fidelity to some people’s most cherished beliefs, could be at stake.

In the piece, she stated that the so-called "Emergency Contraception Pills" do not interfere with pregnancy, and do not cause abortion. These conclusions are absolutely incorrect.

Contraception refers to preventing conception or fertilization. Some people use the term to simply mean "birth control", but it is not the same thing. Killing an unborn child is an example of birth control, and so is using a condom. But, obviously the two are not the same. So, are these pills really "Emergency Contraception Pills?"

These pills can act by preventing conception, but they are not reliable. Instead, they will often allow conception to occur, resulting in the formation of a new human being. Normally, the newly formed child will then travel into, and attempt to implant onto the side wall of her womb, so that he can obtain necessary nourishment. However, the "morning-after pills" (or the IUD which is also occasionally used in a "morning-after" fashion) will then usually prevent the child from successfully implanting. If the child cannot implant, he will die of lack of nourishment and be washed out with the next menstrual period.

These facts about so-called "Emergency Contraception" can be commonly found in any standard reference. To demonstrate that my position is not some "prolife" fantasy, please check these two Web sites:

http://ec.princeton.edu/questions/ecwork.html and

http://204.168.19.126/pub_fac_ecdomestic.html .

These are sites of decidedly "prochoice" organizations. They plainly state that the "Emergency Contraceptives" act, at least at times, to prevent implantation. Yet, you will also note that they say that these pills "prevent pregnancy" according to "accepted definitions of pregnancy."

Ladies and gentlemen, Ellen Goodman's position is nothing more than verbal sleight-of-hand. She and others have decided to redefine the word "pregnancy" to mean "the state that begins with implantation." Yet, to millions of people (and most physicians) pregnancy begins with conception, the formation of a new human being. So these pills, according to the definition accepted by most people, act after pregnancy begins. And so they act to end the life of a developing unborn child. Since precious human life begins with conception, this action is the moral equivalent of murder. No one should use these pills. No ethical physician should prescribe them.

Jeremy Klein, MD, FAAFP