The Spin on Abortifacient Contraception

The federal government has finally acknowledged that hormonal contraceptives could possibly be abortifacient by interfering with the implantation of a newly conceived human being. This acknowledgment has the contraception world in an uproar. An article by Christina Page states:

White House Tries to Define Contraception As Abortion | AlterNet

In a spectacular act of complicity with the religious right, the Department of Health and Human Services Monday released a proposal that allows any federal grant recipient to obstruct a woman's access to contraception. In order to do this, the Department is attempting to redefine many forms of contraception, the birth control 40 percent of Americans use, as abortion. Doing so protects extremists under the Weldon and Church amendments. Those laws prohibit federal grant recipients from requiring employees to help provide or refer for abortion services.

Don't you love it? The statement from the department of Health and Human Services is immediately written off as "complicity to the religious right." It is interesting that the "religious right" has not really been fighting against contraception, and has only recently begun to recognize the abortifacient potential of chemical contraception. Catholics who do oppose contraception and who have been trying to get the word out about the abortifacient potential of some forms of contraception are not really part of the religious right (which consists mostly of evangelicals). The key to this argument is the definition of pregnancy.

Up until now, the federal government followed the definition of pregnancy accepted by the American Medical Association and our nation's pregnancy experts, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, which is: pregnancy begins at implantation. With this proposal, however, HHS is dismissing medical experts and opting instead to accept a definition of pregnancy based on polling data. It now claims that pregnancy begins at some biologically unknowable moment (there's no test to determine if a woman's egg has been fertilized).

An interesting spin, that. In truth, the definition of pregnancy as beginning at implantation is a very new definition that became "accepted" in order to classify chemical contraceptives as contraception rather than as abortion. It was a political decision, not a scientific one. While it is true that the moment of conception cannot be medically pinpointed, this fact does not make the definition of pregnancy as beginning at conception "unscientific." We know that

• conception does in fact occur
• at conception a new human life begins, as can be measured by the definition of "life" and the fact that the DNA of this life is human
• ending this life would be to kill a human being whose status as a person is questioned by politics, not by science
• whether or not you call this an "abortion" based on your definition of "pregnancy" (another political rather than scientific question), you are killing a human being.

The other rarely discussed issue here is whether hormonal contraception even does what the religious right claims. There is no scientific evidence that hormonal methods of birth control can prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the womb.

Frankly, this is a new argument. Page claims that even pro-life scientists caution against making the abortifacient claim. All of the scientific studies with which I am familiar have strongly indicated that chemical contraception has the potential to interfere with implantation. I am a strong advocate of supporters of the Culture of Life using accurate science, so I do not only look for studies that show what I want them to show. If science tells us that chemical contraception does not interfere with implantation, we must not make the claim that it does. However, studies that I have seen put this article's claim in a shadow so suspicion. Page also lists the IUD as one of the "suspected abortifacients" that would be reclassified if the HHS proposal is approved. That the IUD is abortifacient cannot be disputed. The fact that it has not been classified as such shows the political weight of the contraceptive mentality and the Culture of Death.

The main problem that Page has with the HHS proposal is that it would allow pharmacists and physicians to exercise their fee conscience and decide whether or not they will provide such contraception. Page seems to be against the free exercise of conscience on behalf of physicians. I argue that to be against decisions of conscience is also to be against the exercise of professional medical judgment.

Christina Page tries to contend that the HHS statement is based on pandering to polls rather than on verifiable evidence. It seems to me that she is judging the speck in her brother's eye while ignoring the plank in her own. Banter about what science shows and doesn't show is muddied by redefinitions, interpretations, and poor scientific methodology. Promoters of the Culture of Life do need to take heed and be careful not to fall to the use of propaganda. However, we need to acknowledge that promoters of the Culture of Death have been masters at propaganda and spin from the very beginning.