► The Birth Control Pill: Abortifacient and Contraceptive
by William F. Colliton, Jr., M.D
Released October 12, 2005

Is it an abortifacient and contraceptive?
Believe it-the answer is yes

William F. Colliton, Jr., M.D., FACOG
Clinical Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology
George Washington University Medical Center

This question is one of the hottest topics in the medical-moral arena. How did a dinosaur like me get involved in such a lively debate? From my perspective, the answer is Divine Providence. My introduction to this issue occurred at the 1998 mid-winter meeting of the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG). Pamela Smith, M.D., then president of the organization, called for the production of a Principles of Pro-life Medical and Public Health Practice manual. When doing this she said; "it has become glaringly apparent that now is the time for us, as an organization, to sail into the dangerous and uncharted waters that we have, perhaps intentionally, avoided. These are the 'waters' of pro-life principles as they relate to fertility control.

"I have intentionally used the words 'fertility control' rather than contraception for a number of reasons. Foremost of which is the raging moral, biological and scientific debate, almost exclusively within the pro-life community, as to whether the mechanisms of certain fertility control measures are contraceptive or abortifacient at a microscopic level." The undersigned wish to commend Dr. Smith for her insight and courage in bringing this issue to the attention of the Board of AAPLOG. We also desire to contribute to the debate and witness to the medical and scientific facts that demonstrate the abortifacient nature of the hormonal contraceptives.

At the same midwinter meeting a draft document entitled "Birth Control Pills: Contraceptive Or Abortifacient?" (1) was circulated. While this was advertised as not a project of AAPLOG, eight of the signers were or are members of the board of directors. In addition, a copy of this paper was found in the administrative office of AAPLOG by Dr. Paul Byrne, President of the Catholic Medical Association which employs the same administrative service. He contacted me and I agreed with him that this paper demanded a response which I agreed to undertake.(2)

Near the beginning of their document, the opponents of an abortifacient action of the pill state: "We begin with the recognition that within the Christian community there is a point of view which holds that artificial birth control per se is wrong. We would consider this a personal matter of conscience and belief, and this paper is not intended to argue for or against this issue." While admiring the Christian philosophy of the authors, there is another truth to be considered. There is an unarguable logic connecting the contraceptive act and the abortive act. They are both anti-life.(3) To fully articulate this proposition, the contraceptive action is anti-the-formation of a new life. One does not pop a pill, slip on a condom, take a shot in the buttocks, etc. in preparation for a game of Chinese Checkers. The only logical reason for these actions is to prevent the formation of a new life while positing voluntary coital acts. One might employ condoms in the illusory hope of avoiding sexually transmitted diseases (STD's), but thus is Russian roulette revisited with twice the risk of dying if AIDS is the object of one's concern. The greatest witness to the logic of this truth is Planned Parenthood (PP). PP has progressed from being the Western world's number one promoter and provider of contraception to being the number one provider and promoter of induced abortion.

In addition, simple logic demands that those who respect the sanctity of human life from fertilization until natural death should also respect those actions which give rise to that life. They were designed by the same Creator who infuses the soul into each and every new conceptus. As 1 Samuel 2:6 informs us; "The Lord puts to death and gives life." Now to address the question, "Are BCP's abortifacient?" First, it is important to realize that there exists a large cohort of physicians currently leading our profession in the big lie. These doctors are writing and speaking across the whole nation, selling the idea that the BCP, the IUD, the "morning after pills," so-called "emergency contraception," are not abortifacient. Dr. Daniel Mishell, writing in response to a question from a pregnancy aid center about the possible abortifacient nature of Depo-Provera, replied that there was no way. That agent, he stated, blocks ovulation 100% of the time. This agent is probably the most effective contraceptive available today, prevention of pregnancy ranging from 99.5 to 99.7%. When taken as advised every 3 months, approximately 50% of users cease menstruating. This indicates that they are not ovulating and are thus at no risk for pregnancy. The other half bleed irregularly and at times heavily. The question that must be answered is: How is this remarkable success rate achieved? The .5 to .3% failure rate represent pregnancies. If pregnancies occur, obviously ovulation is occurring. Might not all three mechanisms of action traditionally reported for hormonal contraceptives (and noted by Dr. Mishell when, writing contemporaneously and more candidly, for medical students and physicians) come into play ?(4) Others have researched thus issue and concluded that all hormonal contraceptives have an abortifacient potential.(5)(6) Neither of these resources has anything to do with the Roman Catholic Church. In defense of medical experts stating that the IUD, the morning-after pill, etc., are not abortifacient, they may be relying on the circa 1970 redefinition of pregnancy declaring that it begins with implantation. This is an organized no-brainer. The woman has unprotected intercourse at her peak fertility time and conceives a tiny baby boy or girl traveling down her fallopian tube toward her womb, and they say she is not pregnant. Such an inane proposition could only fly in a culture of death milieu.

The fact that the hormonal contraceptives have an abortive potential is discussed in the paper circulated at AAPLOG's 1998 midwinter meeting.(1) "Most (virtually all) literature dealing with hormonal contraception ascribes a three-fold action to these agents. 1. inhibition of ovulation, 2. inhibition of sperm transport, and 3. production of a "hostile endometrium," which presumably prevents or disrupts implantation of the developing baby if the first two mechanisms fail. The first two mechanisms are true contraception. The third proposed mechanism, IF it in fact occurs, would be abortifacient." (author's addition) What is the precise language appearing in the Physician's Desk Reference (PDR) with regard to these agents? "Ortho-Novum: ... a progestational effect on the endometrium, interfering with implantation." "Norinyl: ... alterations in ... the endometrium (which reduce the likelihood of implantation)." They do accurately describe the findings in the endometrium of pill users proven in numerous scientific studies. They note that the findings indicate a "less vascular, less glandular, thinner lining of the uterus produced by these hormones." One of the side effects listed for BCP's is amenorrhea. This means that the endometrium is thinned out completely resulting in no menstrual flow when on the break from the hormones. They then add, "not one company will offer data to validate the `hostile endometrium' presumption."

The authors are obviously not familiar with Randy Alcorn's booklet, "Does The Birth Control Pill Cause Abortions?(6) Randy Alcorn is a Christian minister and researcher who set out to prove that the BCP's are NOT abortifacient. On pages 29-30 he recalls a conversation with a representative of Ortho-McNeil. "On March 24, 1997, I had a lengthy and enlightening talk with Richard Hill, a pharmacist who works for Ortho-McNeil's product information department. (OrthoMcNeil is one of the largest pill Manufacturers.) I took detailed notes.

"Hill was unguarded, helpful and straightforward. He never asked me about my religious views or my beliefs about abortion. He did not couch his language to give me an answer I wanted to hear . ...

"I asked him, 'Does the pill sometimes fail to prevent ovulation?' He said 'yes'. I asked, 'What happens then?' He said, 'The cervical mucus slows down the sperm. And if that doesn't work, if you end up with a fertilized egg, it won't implant and grow because of the less hospitable endometrium.' (Emphasis in the original)

"I then asked Hill if he was certain the pill made implantation less likely. 'Oh yes,' he replied. I said, ` So you don't think this is just a theoretical effect of the pill?' He said the following, which I draw directly from my extensive notes of our conversation.

"Oh, no, it's not theoretical. It's observable. We know what an endometrium looks like when it's rich and most receptive to the fertilized egg. When the woman is taking the pill, you can clearly see the difference, based both on gross appearance - as seen with the naked eye - and under a microscope. At the time when the endometrium would normally accept a fertilized egg, if a woman is taking the pill it is much less likely to do so." (Emphasis in the original)

To remove any doubt about the effects of the BCP on the endometrium, a review of a classic pathology text is instructive.(7) It is essential to remember that the endometrium, unlike other epithelia, skin for example, does not have a single static "normal" appearance. It has instead a multiplicity of constantly changing normal patterns that depend upon the nature and intensity of ovarian hormonal stimulation. For reasons of required brevity, descriptions of this tissue will be restricted to the findings on postovulatory day three and the effects of the BCP. Three days after ovulation (the day in-vitro fertilization specialists prefer to transplant the embryo in normally cycling women) the secretory endometrium is composed of tightly coiled glands lined by vacuolated cells. The vacuoles have assumed a uniform size and are located beneath the nucleus. Mother nature (God) moves things along rapidly in the normal cycle. By day four the subnuclear vacuoles slip around to the subluminal position. By day five and six the vacuoles have disappeared into the lumen of the gland. The average thickness of the endometrium at this time is 5-13 mm, whereas the average thickness of the endometrium of women on the pill is 1.1mm.(8) In women on the BCP, the endometrium is thin and populated by noncoiled or gently coiled thin-calibered glands. The stroma is dense and collagenized, and scattered thin walled vessels are present. The changes just described are seen after several months of BCP use. There is a tendency for the endometrium to become progressively thinned. Not uncommonly it consists only of a layer of surface epithelium covering a stroma that is only several cells thick and populated with few or no glands. When such a pattern is observed during the reproductive years it is almost always a result of long-term use of BCP's. It is instructive that this language describing endometrial atrophy is found in a section titled Iatrogenic (physician caused) Endometrial Patterns.(7)

A paper by four of the original signers of Hormonal Contraceptives: Are They Abortifacient? are not in agreement with these facts.(10) In their thesis, any BCP cycle in which breakthrough ovulation occurs, the endometrial patterns returns to that of a normal cycling woman, as does an intervening pregnancy if that should occur. They present no scientific evidence in support of this claim, which one might identify as the "light switch effect." On the contrary, Chowdhury et al. have demonstrated that the reverse is true.(11) In a study group of 35 sterilized women who were instructed to miss 2.30 microgram BCP's in the first treatment cycle and another 19 women to do the same in the fourth cycle, the following findings were observed. Cervical mucus and lateral vaginal wall smears were studied thrice a week. Endometrial biopsy was done on day 23 plus or minus 2 days. Two serum progesterone levels were determined between day 22 - 25 of the cycle. Escape ovulation was suggested in 19 of the 35 women in the first group (28%) and in 5 of the 19 in the second group (26%). In all of these women, endometrial biopsies did not show any secretory effect (preparation for pregnancy), and the cervical mucus was poor throughout the cycle.

In addition, Randy Alcorn found a paper entitled "The effect of oral contraceptive hills on markers of endometrial receptivity." (9) The paper was designed to determine if oral contraceptive usage alters expression of integrins associated with endometrial receptivity. Integrins are a family of heterodimeric cell adhesion molecules that have been implicated in a number of diverse physiological processes, including a role in fertilization and embryo implantation. The authors found that the expression of those integrins most closely associated with endometrial receptivity is altered in the glandular epithelium of women taking OCs. Stromal integrin expression in OC users also differs from that in cycling women. These alterations in epithelial and stromal integrin expression suggest that impaired uterine receptivity is one mechanism whereby OC's exert their contraceptive actions.

The authors repeatedly state that no scientific proof has appeared in the medical literature demonstrating that the pill is abortifacient.(1) They are correct. The reason is that such proof would require collecting, fixing, staining, and serially sectioning all vaginal contents from mid-cycle through menstruation and demonstrating the presence of an early embryo. No one has the time, money or motivation for such an undertaking. In addition, would such a study be morally permissible? We think not. Attempting to prove that any mechanism causes the death of an innocent human individual is an assault on the fifth commandment. Joel Brind, Ph.D., an internationally known endocrinologist, believes that the abortifacient nature of the pill could be licitly demonstrated using one or more of the very early pregnancy markers available today. (12)

The authors next detail the attributes of the blastocyst, and in support of her or his lack of need for a favorable endometrium, state this thesis: " the blastocyst regularly and successfully implants on tubal ciliated epithelium (commonly referred to as tubal, or ectopic pregnancies)." The authors are, at a minimum, unfamiliar with the literature on ectopic pregnancies.(13) It is very important to realize the relatively high frequency and high success rate of expectant management, i.e. careful observation only for the treatment of tubal pregnancies. These papers describe 193 cases with 129 successful outcomes (68.8%). Thus, when an unruptured, non-bleeding ectopic is diagnosed, when the size is small (equal to or smaller than 3.5 cm.), when the beta HCG is 1000 or less and falling, non-intervention or expectant management offers freedom from the toxicity of methotrexate and the morbidity of surgery. Another argument proposed by the proponents of the abortifacient nature of the BCP is this: If the pill has no abortifacient (postfertilization) effect, then the reduction of intrauterine pregnancies (IUPs) in pill-takers should be identical to the reduction in the rate of extrauterine (ectopic) pregnancies (EUPs) in pill -takers. Proponents argue that if there is an increased EUP/IUP ratio, this would be strong evidence of an abortifacient effect.(14) The issue of contraception use and the risk of ectopic pregnancy was addressed by an article in "Contraception."(15) In the body of the paper (p.339) Mol, who conducted a meta-analysis on numerous papers between the years 1978-1994, observe that, "Condom use shows no increased risk. OC's show a slightly increased risk, in contrast to IUD use and tubal sterilization, which show a strongly increased risk."

This suggestion from the authors about the lack of need of the blastocyst for a well prepared endometrium came as somewhat of a surprise. From the first year of their studies and throughout their training, medical students learn about the normal ovarian cycle and of its impact on the endometrium. Under the influence of estrogen derived from the developing follicle, the endometrium undergoes remarkable growth during the first half of the month (proliferative phase). Under the influence of the leuteinizing hormone, the follicle that has grown the most, bursts and releases the egg (ovulation).

The cells lining the wall of the now empty follicle (corpus luteum) now begin to produce another hormone, progesterone, which prepares the uterus for pregnancy. The endometrium becomes much more lush, rich in blood supply and nutrients, ready to receive a tiny girl or boy. This is the type endometrium desired by IVF practitioners to accomplish embryo transfer from the petri dish to the womb, the most difficult technological step to accomplish in that variety of artificial reproduction.

The next question raised by the authors is; "Is there actual clinical evidence of early miscarriage in pill users?(1) They note that the typical clinical picture of spontaneous abortion (heavy bleeding, severe cramping, passage of tissue) is rarely, if ever seen by practicing physicians caring for patients on the pill. They seem to overlook the fact that the abortions caused by the BCP occur when the baby is 5 to 14-16 days old and that the lining of the uterus is "less vascular, less glandular, thinner" than normal as they described it. From the clinical perspective, one would anticipate, just as in over 60% of ectopic pregnancies, a non-event. From the moral perspective, however, it is quite another story. What we are witnessing here is a tragic loss of God's children, totally innocent and made in His image. It is well to also remember that, from the moral perspective, the numbers don't matter. If one child is lost, the tragedy isn't lessened. Following this, the authors ask; "What is the conception rate for women on hormone contraception?" They answer correctly that it is impossible to say. However, earlier in their paper they noted, quite accurately, that the medical literature documents an incidence of 3-5 pregnancies per 100 women per year for pill users. Dr. Don Gambrell, Jr., a renowned gynecological endocrinologist addressed this issue during the educational segment of this same meeting. He noted a 14% incidence of ovulation in women taking the 50 microgram BCP. This rate varies from pill to pill and patient to patient. Simple logic informs one that every fertilization occurring in women on the pill doesn't result in a term "pill pregnancy" or a surgically induced abortion. But this is the precise thesis of those stating that the BCP is not abortifacient. Simple logic and deductive reasoning would suggest that many more than the clinically diagnosed pregnancies that occur are aborted because of the acyclic, unfavorable-for-implantation endometrium. If IVF practitioners relied on an endometrium that is "less vascular, less glandular, thinner" than that ideal for implantation, their success rate would approach zero today rather than the tens of thousands of babies born of that technology. More on this subject when viewing the mathematics of the issue.

The signatories were distressed by the statement that "millions and millions" of preborn sisters and brothers have been and will be lost to these hormonal agents which obviously can be abortifacient. Let's look at the math. Women on BCP's have 28 day cycles and thus have 13 cycles/year (365/28 = 13.3). According to a "Facts In Brief" from the Alan Guttmacher Institute, indicates that 10,410,000 U.S. women are current pill users, 26.9% of all methods. This is second only to sterilization used by 27.7% of contraceptors. This would appear to be another sign of their anti-life nature. Dr. Don Gambrell has informed us that there is a 14% breakthrough ovulation rate in females taking the 50 microgram pills (10,410,000 x .14 = 1,457,400 ovulations each cycle). 1,457,400 x 13 cycles/year = 18,946,200 possible exposures to pregnancy each year. The accepted rate for "pill pregnancies" is 3-5 per 100 women years. Noting the fact that there is 60+% rate of spontaneous tubal abortions with an unfavorable implantation site in ectopic pregnancies, it is reasonable for us to calculate a rate of conceptions lost to early physician (BCP) induced abortion of intrauterine pregnancies in pill users as twice that of term "pill pregnancies," given once again, an endometrium that is "less vascular, less glandular, thinner" than normal. Thus the possible abortion rate induced by BCP's is 18,946,200 x .06 = 1,136,772 or 18,946,200 x .1 = 1,894,620 per year. We are convinced that the reasoning with regard to the math on this issue is sound.

Dr. Murphy Goodwin was asked to review this reasoning and math. (16) He wrote: "It is possible that there are more than a million such losses per year but a reasonable calculation could also put the loss rate at one tenth of that number. He added: "I believe that it is most likely that the total number of excess fetal losses (abortions) due to the combined pill is in the range of several hundred thousand, substantially less than the number of elective abortions annually and 2) the fact that this is not the intended effect of the pill in most cases and the effect in any one circumstance is unknowable makes the ethical issues much more complex than those surrounding elective abortion. The educational and political challenge of elective abortion is much more straightforward and is a necessary prerequisite of undertaking the more complex moral issue of the abortifacient effect of the pill." These sound thoughts deserve the prayerful reflection of all right-to-lifers. Using a normal fecundity rate of 20% and other scientifically sound variables, Dr. Goodwin arrived at pill induced abortions totals between 104,100/year and 1,561,500/year.

Curiously his high number is approximately half-way between our two calculations. His low number is not insignificant. We must also remember that with RU486 and methotrexate waiting in the wings or available today, chemical and hormonal killing of the preborn may one day make surgical abortion look pale in the shade. We should also recall that 10-15% represent conservative estimates of spontaneous early abortions in normally cycling females desirous of pregnancy and favored with a delicately balanced reproductive cycle designed by God. To state or feel that BCP consuming females experience a 0% rate of physician-induced abortion (from the pill) is wishful thinking of the highest order.

Now preparing to conclude, the undersigned wish to express their gratitude to Chris Kahlenborn, M.D., a young internist from Kettering, Ohio. Dr. Kahlenborn took a sabbatical to write a book entitled Understanding the Link Between Abortion, Breast Cancer and the pill (in press). One of his references clearly indicates that even the pro-abortionists recognize that the pill is abortifacient.(17) The New York Times carried a transcript of the oral arguments in the Supreme Court case of Webster v. Reproductive Health Services. The following dialogue between Frank Susman, lawyer for the Missouri abortion clinics and Justice Scalia is recorded:

Mr. Susman: ...For better or worse, there no longer exists any bright line between the fundamental right that was established in Griswold and the fundamental right of abortion that was established in Roe. These two rights, because of advances in medicine and science, now overlap. They coalesce and merge, and they are not distinct.

Justice Scalia: Excuse me, you find it hard to draw a line between those two but easy to draw a line between (the) first, second and third trimester.

Mr. Susman: I do not find it difficult ---

Justice Scalia: I don't see why a court that can draw that line can't separate abortion from birth control quite readily.

Mr. Susman: If I may suggest the reasons in response to your question,

Justice Scalia: The most common forms of what we most generally in common parlance call contraception today, IUD's, low-dose birth control pills, which are the safest type of birth control pills available, act as abortifacients. They are correctly labeled as both.

Under this statute, which defines fertilization as the point of beginning, those forms of contraception are also abortifacients. Science and medicine refer(s) to them as both. We are not still dealing with the common barrier methods of Griswold. We are no longer just talking about condoms and diaphragms.

Things have changed. The bright line, if there ever was one, has now been extinguished. That's why I suggest to this Court That we need to deal with one right, the right to procreate. We are no longer talking about two rights.

Marie A. Anderson, M.D., FACOG
Tepeyac Family Center
Fairfax, VA 22033

Paddy Jim Baggot, M.D.
Geneticist, Perinatologist
Pope Paul VI Institute, Omaha, NE

Thomas L. Bodensteiner, M.D., FACOG
Beatrice, NE

John J. Brennan, M.D., FACOG
Associate Clinical Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology
Medical College of Wisconsin

John T. Bruchalski, M.D.
Diplomate, American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology
Medical Director, Tepeyac Family Center
Fairfax, VA

William F. Colliton, Jr., M.D., FACOG Clinical Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology George Washington University Medical Center

Loma L. Cvetkovich, M.D., FACOG
Wichita, Kansas

Mary L. Davenport, M.D., FACOG
El Sobrante, CA

Charles H. Dahm, M.D., FACOG
St. Louis, MO

Michael B. Dixon, M.D., FACOG, Dip. ABFP
St. Louis, MO.

Hans E Geisler, M.D., FACOG, FAGS
Director of Division of Gynecologic Oncology
St. Vincent Hospital and Health Centers
Clinical Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology
Indiana University Medical Center

Kim Anthony Hardey, M.D.
Diplomate, American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology
Lafayette, LA 70503

David R. Harnisch, Sr., M.D., F.A.A.F.P., J.F.A.C.O.G.
Beavercreek, OH

John F. Heffron, M.D., FACOG
Clinical Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology
Creighton University School of Medicine

Steve Hickner, M.D., FACOG
Asst. Professor, Dept. of Obstetrics and Gynecology
Michigan State School of Medicine

Thomas W. Hilgers, M.D.
Senior Medical Consultant, Pope Paul VI Institute
Associate Clinical Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology
Creighton University School of Medicine

William J. Hogan, M.D., FACOG
Rockville, MD

Helen T. Jackson, M.D., FACOG
Brookline, MA

James Linn, M.D.
Associate Clinical Professor, Obstetrics and Gynecology
Medical College of Wisconsin

John C. Linn, M.D., FACOG
Milwaukee, WI

Julie Mickelson, M.D., Jr. FACOG
Board Member, AAPLOG

Bernard N. Nathanson, M.D., FACOG
Perinatologist, New York, NY

James O'Connor, M.D.
Diplomate , ABOG
Manager, Ernst and Young Health Care Consulting

Konald A. Prem, M.D., FACOG
Professor Emeritus, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology
University of Minnesota Medical School

Gary W. Smith, M.D., FACOG
Medical Director, Women's Health at Robin Wood

Mark Stegman, M.D., FACOG
St. Louis, MO

Arthur J. Stehly, M.D., FACOG
Escondido, CA

Endnotes

1. DeCook, J.L., Mcllhancy, J., et al. Hormonal Contraceptives: Are They Abortifacient? A Physician's Report, frontlines publishing, 475 Martindale, Sparta, MI 49345, January, 1998. For contact information call 1-616-887-6256 (Email: order @ frontlines.org)

2. Colliton, W. F., Jr., Birth Control pill: Abortifacient and Contraceptive, Linacre Quarterly Vol. 66, No. 4, 26-36, November 1999.

3. Colliton, W. F., Jr., Contraception and Abortion: Is There a Connection? St. Louis University Public Law Review, Vol. XIII, No. One, 315-326, 1993.

4. Williams Obstetrics, 20th Edition, p. 1353, 1997.

5. Preventing Pregnancy, Protecting Health: A New Look at Contraceptive Choices in the United States, Susan Harlap, Kathryn Kost and, Jacqueline Darroch Forrest, The Alan Guttmacher Institute, 1991, pp. 17-28.

6. Does the Birth Control pill Cause Abortions? Randy Alcorn, Eternal Perspective Ministries, 2229 East Burnside #23, Gresham, OR 97080, 1998.

7. SURGICAL PATHOLOGY OF THE UTERINE CORPUS, Vol. 12 in the series MAJOR PROBLEMS IN PATHOLOGY, pp. 36, 69, 149, 274-5. Saunders, Philadelphia, 1980.

8. Larimore, W. L. The Abortifacient Effect of the Birth Control pill and the Principle of "Double Effect" ETHICS AND MEDICINE (2000) 16:1, 23-30.

9. Somkuti, et al. The Effect of Oral Contraceptive Pills on Markers of Endometrial Receptivity, Fertility and Sterility, Vol. 65, No. 3, pp. 484-488, 1996.

10. Crockett, Susan A., et al. Mechanism of Action of Hormone Contraceptives: A Review by Four Prolife Obstetricians-Gynecologists, ProLife Obstetrician (PO Box 81, Fennville, MI 49408.

11. Chowdhury, V., et al. `Escape' Ovulation in Women Due to the Missing of Low Dose Combination Oral Contraceptive Pills. Contraception Vol. 22, No. 3, 241-7, 1980

12. Joel Brind, Ph.D. - personal communication.

13. Fernandez, et al. Spontaneous Resolution of Ectopic Pregnancy, ObstetGynecol. 1988: 17:171.

14. Larimore, W. L., Stanford, J.B., Postfertilization Effects of Oral Contraceptives and their Relation to Informed Consent, Archives of Family Medicine, Vol. 9 No 2, February 2000.

15. Mol, et al. Contraception and the Risk of Ectopic Pregnancy: A Meta Analysis, CONTRACEPTION 52: 337-341, 1995.

16. Murphy Goodwin, M.D., FACOG - Personal communication - 4/23/98.

17. The New York Times - Thursday, April 27, 1989. Page B 13. A transcript of the Supreme Court Case of Webster v. Reproductive Health Services.

18. The signatories listed above did not sign on to this paper, but did so for a paper by the same author. (2) Time constraints prohibited the possibility of distributing the manuscript to these physicians, all of whom are pro-life and Board Certified. Obstetricians and Gynecologists. The message in both papers is identical.

19. The author was privileged to present this paper to the Boston, MA Guild of the Catholic Medical Association March 25, 2000. As a delightful by-product, Jenny Driver, M.D., an attractive attendant and a Level II resident in obstetrics and gynecology in the Harvard Medical School program rose to state that she had been taught in medical school that the BCP is an abortifacient. She is a graduate of the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine.

Epilogue

Ever since becoming involved in this debate in the first months of 1988, I have been curious about why the discoverers of the birth control pill (BCP), from the earliest days of their work described three mechanisms of action for their products; inhibition of ovulation, thickening of the cervical mucus (both contraceptive actions), and endometrial changes making implantation unlikely (an abortifacient action). Did they have animal or human studies to prove this? Our confreres of the opposing view suggested that they did not. This third mode of action, they suggested, was merely a marketing ploy to ensure women of the complete effectiveness of the BCP.(1) In October, 1999 I had the privilege of meeting Elora J. Weringer, Ph.D., a biologist with connections to the Pfizer Company. I inquired of her the location of the early studies of Gregory Pincus, D. Sc. and John Rock, M.D. She referred me to the Worcester Foundation for Experimental Biology located in the city of the same name In Massachusetts. Several long distance calls to that fair city indicated that the Foundation had broken up into several different disciplines, and that none of the librarians whom I contacted had any information about the location of Dr. Pincus' early studies. Subsequent to that point, the Holy Spirit entered the scene.

Via e-mail originating from Janet E. Smith, a philosopher at the University of Dallas, arrives a copy of an article which appeared in the New York Times (June 25, 2000). It was written by Barbara Seaman and entitled The pill and I: 40 Years On, the Relationship Remains Wary. The pill was the brainchild of Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood and an unconquerable fighter for women's rights. In 1950 she was introduced to Gregory Pincus, a reproductive scientist. She raised approximately $150,000 -mostly from her friend, Katherine McCormick, an heiress to a farm-machinery fortune. She urged Pincus to get started on a universal contraceptive. Twenty years earlier researchers had established that hormones could prevent ovulation in rabbits and other species. Mrs. Seaman notes that Dr. Pincus was interested in a progesterone-only pill because he was wary of estrogen as it was already understood to increase cancer risks. She adds: "But there is a problem with progesterone-only contraceptives: they produce irregular and unpredictable spotting, or conversely, a complete absence of menstruation." She labels this "menstrual chaos." Pincus eventually put estrogen back into the BCP.

How did Mrs. Seaman learn all this? She has made a study of Dr. Pincus' papers which are now housed in the Library of Congress. She notes: "They comprise approximately 44,000 items, filling 213 containers on 85.2 feet of shelf space. They reveal an awesome scientific and entrepreneurial brinkmanship, and make one wonder why Pincus didn't burn the evidence." It is sordid. Read Barbara Seaman's article. I won't trouble you with the details. Her article informed me that the object of my search was a 20-minute subway ride from my home with no downtown parking problems. Gregory Pincus was the steroid guru of his day and was internationally acclaimed. I reviewed only 4 boxes (#'s 93,107,142, and 145), but the contents were most revealing.

With regard to the issue of the abortifacient nature of the BCP, the following correspondence is enlightening. It is a letter from Albert Segaloff, M.D., dated September 4, 1964. He must have been an editor for Steroids an international journal. He writes: "Dear Goody, I am enclosing your manuscript on "Further Studies on Implantation Inhibitors." I want to thank you for submitting this most fascinating paper on a very interesting series of compounds to Steroids." The opening paragraph of this paper co-authored by Upendra K. Banik and J. Jacques of the Worcester Foundation for Experimental Biology and the College de France reads:

"Twenty-three compounds injected on day 1 or days 1 through 3 of pregnancy in rats have been tested as possible inhibitors of implantation. Among them eight have proven active at total doses of 1.5 mg per rat or less. Administration of some of the active compounds by gavage has also led to implantation inhibition. The group of compounds found to be active were also the most potent in uterotrophic assay in immature mice. Among them a highly active compound, A-norandrostane-2a, 17a-diethyny-2b, 17b-diol (V) has been examined in detail. It appears to act primarily by causing expulsion from Fallopian tubes and uterus of the free, pre-implantation ova, and was ineffective in the usual sterilizing dose in terminating implanted embryos."

In 1965 in the World Health Organization Technical Report Series No. 303 appeared an article titled Mechanism of Action Of Sex Hormones and Analagous Substances, subtitled Report of a WHO Scientific Group. On page 17, p. 5.1 reads: "Both the steroid hormones and the synthetic analogues, when used during long periods, have effects on the reproductive tract that needs evaluation. In the normal female, endogenous hormones are secreted cyclicly (sic), involving the interrelated rise and fall of estrogen and progestrogen; this seems to be a protective mechanism of considerable significance. If there is continuous exposure to even low doses of estrogens, either endogenous or exogenous, pathological effects are produced, the endometrium becoming hyperplastic. On the other hand, if progestogens and gestogens are given continuously at even low levels, amenorrhea and sterility result, with regression of the endometrium to a thin layer having scant if any secretory activity." Thus finding has been known for a long time.

In Dr. Pincus' files was a paper by Professor L. T. Samuels, a temporary member of the WHO Scientific Group. On page 5 of his paper we note: "Excess estrogens can interfere with either fertilization, blastocyst formation, or implantation, depending on the time after ovulation when the high level occurs." And later on the same page he adds: "The retention and rate of development of the blastocyst in utero has long been known to be progesterone-dependent. Estrogens inhibit the blastocyst stimulating effect of progesterone. It is, of course, well known that excess estrogens prevent implantation, just as they prevent gestogen-induced deciduoma formation in experimental animals." I found several other references verifying these findings, but sufficient to clinch the long-known fact of the abortifacient nature of sex steroids under certain circumstances is another letter from Victor A. Drill, M.D., Director of Biological Research for G.D. Searle & Co.. It is dated July 14, 1954, and addressed to Dr. Pincus. On page 2, one finds this paragraph. "We will not send any compounds for anti-ovulatory or anti-implantation tests this month. If you need any for the following month, this, of course, will be indicated on your list of requested numbers of compounds."

Share your own Pro-Life Story here!