This is a fund-raiser, for which I apologize, but it makes an important point. In addition to the problems ObamaCare causes for businesses like Hobby Lobby, it also puts Christian colleges in an ugly pickle:
“…the Obama Administration’s abortion pill mandate has the potential to destroy much of Christian college education in America.
This mandate forces Christian schools to provide “health insurance” that triggers coverage of abortion-inducing drugs or pay fines of $100 per employee per day — an amount that would bankrupt them!”
The Pill has a back-up mechanism of preventing implantation. It probably still says so on the three foot long list of warnings and information on the insert that comes with it (it used to include this information, anyway). In order to get around that, pregnancy has simply been redefined as post implantation, not conception. But many of us firmly believe that life begins at conception because there is no other boundary line that makes scientific sense. Any birth control method which works, however rarely, to prevent implantation, is unacceptable. Any claim that the pill does not function as an abortificant, never ending a life post conception, is palpably dishonest.
Here an Ob-Gyn allegedly corrects the misconception that contraceptives can be abortificants, but there’s some slight of hand going on here.
You see, we don’t agree on terms, and the ACOG is the group that changed the terms: “In 1965, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists issued a Terminology Bulletin that ‘officially’ changed the definition of ‘conception’ from the union of sperm and egg to implantation. As a result, the medical establishment does not call the killing of a human being prior to implantation an abortion. But that is just semantics.”
Like I said- not science. Not factual. Propaganda, straight up.
Oddly, even though The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecoloy has decades of attempting to redefine pregnancy as something that happens at implantation (a week after fertilization)- this is still not the majority view among doctors.
People don’t like to admit the pill can work this way (although it says so on the inserts that come with the pill if they would only read them), but it’s not a great big secret:
“Another way that birth control pills prevent pregnancy is that they encourage the cervical mucous to be thick and tacky. Finally, birth control pills help to make the lining of the uterus less receptive to implantation.”
That is not preventing pregnancy. That is snuffing out a life.
Q. I have heard some people say the pill has an abortifacient capacity. What does this word mean, and is it really true anyway?
A. Before answering this question it is very important that we all have a correct understanding of the key biological terms related to pregnancy. The following definitions have been accept by major medical texts for decades.
‘Conception’ refers to the moment at which the sperm penetrates and fertilises the ovum to form a viable zygote. It does not refer to the process of implantation of the newly created human embryo, which is a separate event, occurring about 7-8 day’s after conception. A woman is pregnant because conception has occurred, not because implantation has occurred. This distinction is important.
At the precise and unique moment of conception, a woman is ‘pregnant’ with “a new individual “. This is an accurate and informed medical description. It is the same terminology used by Prof. John Dwyer, pre-eminent Australian AIDS expert and researcher, who has described the moment that the sperm enters the ovum as the creation of a “new and unique individual”. Well known medical writer, Professor Derek Llewellyn-Jones, author of Everywoman, has also written that when the male genetic material from the sperm joins with the female genetic material in the ovum, ” a new individual is formed”.
To stop conception occurring, that is, to stop sperm and ovum joining, is contraception. Condoms, diaphragms, spermicides, vasectomy and tubal ligation are accurately described as methods of contraception. Obviously any drug or device used after conception has occurred cannot be termed a contraceptive.
The correct term to describe any interference with the pregnancy after conception has occurred is ‘abortifacient’. This is the precise biological description for any drug or device that acts to end a pregnancy once it has begun at conception.
You might be interested to know that many major medical dictionaries have definitions of ‘conception’, ‘pregnancy’ and ‘contraception’ that are the same as those listed above.
It is medically dishonest to break from these definitions. And yet, this is precisely what some scientists have recently started to do. They seek to define pregnancy as beginning with implantation, not fertilization. But as I mentioned ealier, implantation occurs 7-8 days after the new human person has come into existence. The pregnancy, and the new human person, are already many days old by the time implantation has occurred.
Therefore, what these scientists are trying to doing is get people to think that abortifacient drugs such as the pill are really just contraceptive drugs. Do you see the clever shift in definitions these scientists are trying to make? Redefine when a pregnancy and new human life begins, and you redefine the key characteristic of the drug – how it works!
Obviously many people object to abortifacient drugs because they can cause a loss of human life. Not so many people object to methods of contraception (condoms, diaphrams etc), because these methods prevent new human life being created. Hence, if scientists succeed in convincing people that human life begins after implantation, eventually most people will have no objection to the pill. They will have been tricked into believing that human life had not begun when the pill exerted its anti-implantation effect.
Q. So how do you prove that the pill acts as an abortifacient?
Read the answer here.
This link, if you still are not convinced or if you need a better source, is extremely thorough and well researched.
This is the PDR’s product information for Ortho-Cept, as listed by Ortho, one of the largest manufacturers of the Pill:
Combination oral contraceptives act by suppression of gonadotropins. Although the primary mechanism of this action is inhibition of ovulation, other alterations include changes in the cervical mucus, which increase the difficulty of sperm entry into the uterus, and changes in the endometrium which reduce the likelihood of implantation.
The FDA-required research information on the birth control pills Ortho-Cyclen and Ortho Tri-Cyclen also state that they cause “changes in…the endometrium (which reduce the likelihood of implantation).”
Notice that these changes in the endometrium, and their reduction in the likelihood of implantation, are not stated by the manufacturer as speculative or theoretical effects, but as actual ones. They consider this such a well-established fact that it requires no statement of qualification.
Similarly, as I document in my book, Syntex and Wyeth, the other two major pill-manufacturers, say essentially the same thing about their oral contraceptives.
Reproductive endocrinologists have demonstrated that Pill-induced changes cause the endometrium to appear “hostile” or “poorly receptive” to implantation. Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) reveals that the endometrial lining of Pill users is consistently thinner than that of nonusers—up to 58 percent thinner. Recent and fairly sophisticated ultrasound studies have all concluded that endometrial thickness is related to the “functional receptivity” of the endometrium. Others have shown that when the lining of the uterus becomes too thin, implantation of the pre-born child (called the blastocyst or pre-embryo at this stage) does not occur.
The minimal endometrial thickness required to maintain a pregnancy ranges from 5 to 13mm, whereas the average endometrial thickness in women on the Pill is only 1.1 mm. These data lend credence to the FDA-approved statement that “changes in the endometrium reduce the likelihood of implantation.”