►
Birth Control Pills: Contraceptive or Abortifacient?
by ALL
Released October 12, 2005
Introduction:
A white paper by a number of pro-life physicians has been published claiming that there is no credible scientific evidence for the Pill acting to cause early abortions, except for the minipill. This paper will examine these claims. One Scrap of Good News:
The one point of “good news” is that the authors recognize that interfering with the developing human after fertilization or conception is abortion. Thus, they acknowledge that if the Pill does create a “‘hostile endometrium’ which presumably prevents or disrupts implantation of the developing baby ... If it in fact occurs, would be abortifacient.” Merits of the Scientific Claims:
A cardinal rule of all scientific inquiries is that they allow for replication. Unfortunately, the authors do not identify what journals, treatises, or books they read, or how they went about their literature search. So, whatever they did, an independent observer cannot replicate their effort.
The authors claim that there are no scientific studies verifying the validity of the hostile endometrium assumption. Yet, they provide no guide to the reader identifying the search terms they may used if they explored the Grateful Med search engine at the National Library of Medicine so that anyone else could test their conclusion.
The authors show no familiarity with the considerable effort within the population control movement and the pharmacological industry to disguise the abortifacient mode of operation of birth control chemicals and devices under a barrage of equivocal and redefined words whose common meanings were altered all with the goal of avoiding the abortion controversy. Swedish researcher Bent Boving, at a 1959 Planned Parenthood-Population Council symposium noted that: “Whether eventual control of implantation can be reserved the social advantage of being considered to prevent conception rather than to destroy an established pregnancy could depend upon something so simple as a prudent habit of speech.” [Bent Boving, “Implantation Mechanisms,” in Mechanisms Concerned with Conception, ed. C. G. Hartman (New York: Pergamon Press, 1963), 386]
The intent to deceive the public about the abortion causing nature of anti-fertility control drugs and devices was widespread. At the 1964 Population Council symposium Dr. Samuel Wishik pointed out that acceptance or rejection of birth control would depend on whether it cause an early abortion. Dr. Tietze, of Planned Parenthood and the Population Council suggested, as a public relations ploy, “not to disturb those people for whom this is a question of major importance.” Tietze added that theologians and jurists have always taken the prevailing biological and medical consensus of their times as factual, and that “if a medical consensus develops and is maintained that pregnancy, and therefore life, begins at implantation, eventually our brethren from the other faculties will listen.” (Discussion, Proceedings of the Second International Conference, Intra-Uterine Contraception, held October 2-3, 1964, New York City, ed. Sheldon Segal, et al.., International Series, Excerpta Medica Foundation, No. 86, page 212)
And in 1965 the American College of Obstetrics ad Gynecology published its new terminology bulletin that stated: CONCEPTION is the implantation of the fertilized ovum.” (ACOG Terminology Bulletin, Terms Used in Reference to the Fetus, Chicago, American College of Obstetrics ad Gynecology, No. 1, September 1965.)
Why all the dancing around with medical terms that have critical moral import if nothing is going on in the arena of reproductive technology by population control zealots? It is only reasonable to assume that these terms were changed precisely because of changes in reproductive applications that were at variance with traditional values by those who have made it clear that they wanted to overthrow these values.
The authors of this abortifacient white paper claim that “The entire ‘abortifacient’ presumption, therefore, depends upon ‘hostile endometrium’ actually being hostile to the blastocyst, resulting in the loss of blastocysts that would otherwise prosper and grow ... However, we again emphasize that there are no scientific studies that we are aware of which substantiate this presumption.”
Yet, a 1969 FDA Advisory Committee charge with examining the safety and operation of the Pill came to a different conclusion. The Committee, headed by NIH’s Dr. Philip Corfman, reported that: “The second major effect is on the endometrium. The progestin acts as an antiestrogen causing alteration in endometrial glands and as a progestin, causing pseudodecidual reactions. Both of these alter the ability of the endometrium to participate in the process of implantation.” (Advisory Committee on Obstetrics and Gynecology, Food and Drug Administration, 1969, Second Report on the Oral Contraceptives, app. 4, “Report of the Task Force on Biologic Effects,” Philip Corfman, Chairman.)
And in 1976 when the FDA mandated that physician and patient package inserts accompany the distribution of the Pill, the agency’s proposed description noted: “...oral contraceptives are of two types. The most common ... is a combination of an estrogen and a progestin, the two kinds of female hormones ... this kind of oral contraceptive works principally by preventing release of an egg from the ovary .. The second type of oral contraceptive, often called the mini-pill, contains only a progestin, It works, in part, by preventing release of an egg from the ovary, but also by keeping sperm from reaching the egg and making the uterus (womb) less receptive to any fertilized egg that reaches it.” (Federal Register, Vol., 41, No. 236, December 7, 1976, page 53640)
The Pro-life committee, rather than merely claim no evidence exists on this matter should have at least given evidence of having examined the scientific papers behind the above two FDA positions before issuing their statement that no scientific evidence exists regarding the anti-implantation effects of the Pill.
Secondly, the Pro-Life Committee members should have disclosed whether they proscribe the Pill for anti-fertility reasons to women in their practice. They did not. It is possible that such a practice may bias research efforts by finding facts to support a conclusion, rather than investigating the position of others in the scientific community who have a different view than their own. That this may have happened cannot be dismissed in light of the presentation and omissions of the Pro-life committee.
The Pro-life authors state that not one drug company “will offer data to validate the ‘hostile’ endometrium’ presumption. Frankly, it is almost amusing that the Pro-life authors consider it surprising that a drug company may be hesitant to release information that would annoy its customer base. As Tietze mentioned above, why bring this up with people for whom it is a problem? Further, from their conditional assertion, the authors apparently have not themselves asked the Pill manufacturers for such data. Instead, violating scientific canons of inquiry, they make their centerpiece conclusion depend upon an assumption.
And the authors completely ignore that Pill caused venereal diseases may produce an abortion of an early pregnancy that even the Pro-life authors would have to recognize, or a situation quite likely to end in induced surgical abortion. The National Institute of Medicine’s extensive survey of VD’s in the US (1997) acknowledges that prescriptive contraceptives predispose women to certain venereal diseases, including AIDS: A... several studies have found oral contraceptive use to be associated with increased risk of acquiring chlamydial infection (Critchlow, et al., 1995) ... Some ... studies have found an association of oral contraceptives with increased risk of HIV infection (Cates, in press).
The Institute also notes that: “Chlamydial genital infection is the most common bacterial STD in the United States: of the more than 4 million cases estimated to occur annually, 2.6 million cases occur among women (CDC DSTDP, 1995) As many as 85 percent of infections in women ... may be asymptomatic and will not be identified without screening (Fish et al., 1989; Judson, 1990; Stamm and Holmes, 1990) ... primarily as a result of unrecognized and untreated cervical infections, more than one million women each year develop pelvic inflammatory disease (Rolfs et al, 1992)”
“One of the most serious threats to the reproductive capability of women is infection of the upper genital tract, referred to as pelvic inflammatory disease (McCormack, 1994) Most cases of this disease are associated with chlamydial infection and gonorrhea (Jossens et al., 1994) ... At least one quarter of women with acute pelvic inflammatory disease will experience long-term sequelae , the most common of which are ectopic pregnancy (the development of the fetus outside the uterus) ... after an episode of pelvic inflammatory disease, a woman is six to ten times more likely to have an ectopic pregnancy compared to women who do not have pelvic inflammatory disease (Matchbanks et al., 1988) Approximately 9 percent of women with laparoscope-confirmed pelvic inflammatory disease experience an ectopic pregnancy for their first pregnancy subsequent to their episode of pelvic inflammatory disease (Westrom et al., 1992) In 1992, the estimated number of ectopic pregnancies was 108,800, or 1 in 50 pregnancies (CDC, 1995a).”
Without providing a source, the Pro-life authors claims that “The ectopic rate in the USA is about 1% of all pregnancies.” The Institute of Medicine disagrees by a factor of 100%. The Pro-life authors also claim “Ectopic pregnancies in women on hormonal contraception (except for the minipill) are practically unreported.” Yet, the Institute of Medicine clearly shows a link between the Pill and ectopic pregnancy.
American Life League urges the Pro-life authors to reconsider their paper and evaluate the uses to which pro-abortion forces will use their efforts to achieve their anti-life goals.
|
