Go Back   Bloggingheads Community > Diavlog comments
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Diavlog comments Post comments about particular diavlogs here.
(Users cannot create new threads.)

Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
Old 12-16-2011, 11:48 AM
Thanar Thanar is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1
Default Re: Values Added: It's All True (Amy Sullivan & Mollie Ziegler Hemingway)

Quoting seethruit: EC MAY make the lining of the uterus less receptive to implantation but this is the same dubious argument made by some pro-lifers against the so-called "abortifacient" effect of birth control pills.
The argument that birth control pills have a secondary abortifacient effect is (1) not made solely by pro-lifers and is (2) not dubious.

1) The argument has been made by abortion advocates to the Supreme Court!

The following dialogue is taken from the transcript of the 1989 Supreme Court decision Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (492 U.S. 490). The attorney Frank Susman advocated for the abortion industry:

Unidentified Justice: 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 refers 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.

(Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, “Oral Argument of Frank Susman on behalf of the Appellees,” http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1988/1988_88_605, emphasis mine)
Feel free to listen to it and read it yourself by clicking on the mp3 there and scrolling to 28:19.

2) The argument is made in articles in peer-reviewed medical journals, which state that “postfertilization loss” (i.e. abortifacient effect) can occur and this fact should be communicated to patients as part of informed consent:

“The primary mechanism of oral contraceptives is to inhibit ovulation, but this mechanism is not always operative. When breakthrough ovulation occurs, then secondary mechanisms operate to prevent clinically recognized pregnancy. These secondary mechanisms may occur either before or after fertilization. Postfertilization effects would be problematic for some patients, who may desire information about this possibility. This article evaluates the available evidence for the postfertilization effects of oral contraceptives and concludes that good evidence exists to support the hypothesis that the effectiveness of oral contraceptives depends to some degree on postfertilization effects. However, there are insufficient data to quantitate the relative contribution of postfertilization effects. Despite the lack of quantitative data, the principles of informed consent suggest that patients who may object to any postfertilization loss should be made aware of this information so that they can give fully informed consent for the use of oral contraceptives.” (Abstract)

(Walter L. Larimore, MD; Joseph B. Stanford, MD, MSPH, “Postfertilization Effects of Oral Contraceptives and Their Relationship to Informed Consent,” Arch Fam Med. 2000;9:126-133, http://archfami.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/9/2/126)

Last edited by Thanar; 12-16-2011 at 01:10 PM.. Reason: Fixed typo
Reply With Quote

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:22 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.