Pro-Life & Plan B

Chicago Tribune | For those who believe in the sanctity of life - Steve Chapman

The pro-life movement has long opposed the morning-after pill as abortion in disguise, not the "emergency contraception" it is supposed to be. Anti-abortion groups argue that by preventing implantation of a fertilized egg, it destroys a fetus.

That reputation has made many people justifiably leery of it. And that reputation apparently has been enough to deter the Food and Drug Administration from approving an application to allow over-the-counter sales of the medication known as Plan B.

But it turns out the reputation is groundless. The best scientific evidence we have indicates that the morning-after pill serves to block fertilization, while having no effect on implantation. That makes it contraception, not abortion.

As a longtime pro-lifer, I think anti-abortion groups had solid grounds to oppose the morning-after pill when its function was unclear--as I did. But given what we now know, it's a grave mistake to keep opposing it. In fact, there are grounds for celebration: A drug once believed to produce abortion is found to prevent abortion.

...

In June, Tribune reporters Judy Peres and Jeremy Manier reported a surprising consensus among experts that "there is no scientific evidence the pills prevent implantation--and considerable evidence they work mainly by blocking the release of an egg from the woman's ovary, so no embryo is formed."

They cited a study by the Karolinska Institutein Stockholm, which found that the pill's effects "involve either blockade or delay of ovulation ... rather than inhibition of implantation." Dr. David Archer, director of clinical research at the Contraceptive Research and Development Program of Eastern Virginia Medical School, said "there's no evidence scientifically" that Plan B is an abortifacient.

The GAO report agrees. The drug, it concluded, can prevent pregnancy by impeding sperm and by delaying ovulation, but it has "not been shown to cause a post-fertilization event--a change in the uterus that could interfere with implantation of a fertilized egg."

There is no way to be 100 percent sure that emergency contraception never interferes with implantation. But the mere possibility of an adverse event is a poor reason to reject its use.

A worthwhile take that I bookmark for now. I don't claim to have followed the news on Plan B as closely as some, but there appears to be some genuine safety concerns with the drug as well. Concerns that don't prevent me from supporting it's OTC availability due to pro-life concerns, so much as it concerns me for much the same reasons as things like Vioxx's safety record (albeit as a prescription drug) concern me.

Still, Chapman's is a voice I respect on the issue and arrives at his conclusion from a similar starting point as I do.