|
 irginia lawmakers
— largely conservative and pro-life — are poised to authorize
the over-the-counter (OTC) sale of
"emergency
contraceptive" pills (ECPs), making Virginia only the second state,
after Washington, to eliminate the need for a doctor's prescription.
Consider this paradox: A few weeks ago the Virginia legislature
scored a long-sought pro-life victory, mustering enough votes to
pass a law mandating a waiting period before a woman may undergo
an abortion. Now, a measure that treats abortion-causing pills almost
like cough drops has garnered huge support in both houses (Senate
25-12; House 58-40). The chambers have until Saturday night to work
out a key difference — whether children under 18 will need
parental consent to purchase ECPs. Pro-life Governor James Gilmore
III has been mum on what action he'll take if a compromise bill
crosses his desk.
One pro-life delegate explained his support for the OTC-ECP bill:
"I think it's an anti-abortion vote, in the sense that it prevents
unwanted pregnancies." The argument that won pro-life support was
surely that of the bill's chief House sponsor: "Easier access to
emergency contraceptives could drastically reduce the number of
abortions in Virginia."
If one understands just the basics of fertility, human development,
and how ECPs work, both the above statements are ludicrous.
Since at least 1965, when leadership in the American College of
Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) redefined "conception" to
accommodate pre-implantation killing of embryos, the abortion industry
has run its own version of Orwell's Ministry of Truth, where definitions
are professionally tailored to fit their dehumanizing agenda. In
pro-abortion Newspeak, life begins at implantation; post-coital
interventions to end the life of a developing human are called "contraception";
and a human in the first stage of life is not an embryo, but a "fertilized
ovum" or a "pre-embryo."
Compounding the wrong of the underlying deception — passing
off pills that cause abortion as "contraceptives" — are several
other factors. "Informed consent" is central to the practice of
medicine. That is, a failure to properly advise a patient of risks
and options is grounds for a malpractice suit. Proposals like Virginia's
wrest the dispensing responsibility (which includes the exercise
of sound medical judgment) out of the privacy of a doctor's office
— where true consultation and a confidential review of the
woman's medical history can take place. Virginia's plan would leave
distraught young women standing at very public pharmacy counters
where no meaningful doctor-patient consultation is likely to occur.
Should a state law mandating parental consent for a minor child's
abortion not also apply to handing out abortion-inducing drugs?
And what of pro-life pharmacists? Should they be required to violate
their conscience and assist in terminating the life of an unborn
child?
Taking ECPs can entail risks, some of which threaten the life of
the mother. Perhaps that's why a webpage promoting ECP use, posted
by the Virginia Chapter of the National Organization for Women,
states: "Any use of emergency contraceptives should be under
the supervision of a service provider." About half the women using
the Preven
brand suffer from nausea and 20% experience vomiting (which may
include vomiting up the medication itself). The Preven website lists
many possible risks associated with use of the drug. And women using
ECPs are at risk of experiencing any of the other dangerous, sometimes
fatal, complications that have been reported in very rare cases
with the normal, prolonged use of birth control pills. These include:
thrombophlebitis (blood clots in the legs), lung clots, heart attack,
stroke, liver damage, liver tumor, gallbladder disease, and high
blood pressure.
Dr. Hanna Klaus summarizes the problems wrought by ECPs: "Women
can also expect menstrual-cycle disruptions and
| “Since
at least 1965 the abortion industry has run its own version
of Orwell's Ministry of Truth, where definitions are professionally
tailored to fit their dehumanizing agenda.” |
|
prolonged,
patternless bleeding, as well as largely as yet uninvestigated long-term
metabolic alterations. The risk of thrombotic embolism is also greater,
especially in smokers. But more insidious is the possible damage
to a woman's emotional health. Procreation is an incredibly profound
event in a woman's life. If a woman unintentionally becomes pregnant
and has an abortion, at least she acknowledges that she has conceived
a life. But if conceiving can be immediately undone, you cease to
fully appreciate that you are an acting person and that your actions
have real consequences."
There are, of course, crucial questions at stake. When does a human
life begin? Do ECPs postpone the beginning, or kill the baby whose
life has already begun? To everyone but the Roe Court, the
answer to the first question is obvious and no reputable scientist
claims otherwise. "Human development begins at fertilization, the
process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoon) unites
with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called
a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning
of each of us as a unique individual."
How soon after intercourse can fertilization occur?
First, because a healthy woman is infertile for about 21 days of
the average 28-day cycle, intercourse during that time is not likely
to produce a child. There is no ovum available to be fertilized
then, though one must allow for the roughly five-day life span of
any sperm deposited in her cervix, the life span of which may continue
into the ensuing fertile phase. Early in the luteal phase, ECPs
taken within 72 hours of intercourse are not needed to prevent conception
or implantation, but, if taken, they may delay or disrupt the next
cycle. Late in this phase, ECPs taken within 72 hours of intercourse
can prevent conception and may delay or disrupt the next cycle.
Let's next assume intercourse occurs at ovulation when an ovum has
just been released. In as little as 15 to 30 minutes following intercourse,
a sperm may begin penetrating the ovum, kicking off the process
of fertilization. If ECPs are taken, they can no longer prevent
the conception that has already begun, but will change the endometrium
to prevent implantation. The synthetic progestin of the ECPs, or
the antiprogestin of mifepristone (RU 486) prevent the normal changes
in the nutrient lining of the uterus, thus preventing implantation
of the embryo, an event which normally would occur between days
6 and 10 of life. The embryo then dies, cut off from his or her
only source of oxygen and nutrition.
If certain ECPs are taken before ovulation, when no ovum is available
to be fertilized, the ECPs may prevent the surge of luteinizing
hormone which stimulates the follicle into releasing its ovum. An
ovum otherwise may have been released in time to be fertilized.
Presumably, the ECPs would briefly continue to afford contraceptive
"protection." But this scenario is limited to a very few days out
of the "monthly" cycle.
Returning to our original claim: Will easier access to ECPs "drastically
reduce the number of abortions in Virginia"? No. It's likely that
with easy availability, no medical advice, and operating under a
72-hour decision deadline, a greater number of frightened teens
and women will resort to using ECPs and experience these early abortions.
During a trial period in Washington State when pharmacists were
allowed to dispense ECPs over the counter, calls to the ECP hotline
increased ten-fold to 1,160 per month. More than 2,700 prescriptions
were filled in the first four months alone. Dr. Anna Glasier and
others conducted a study in Scotland to see if women allowed to
keep ECPs in their medicine cabinet would be more or less likely
to use them than women who first needed to obtain a doctor's prescription.
All women had either prior ECP use or a prior surgical abortion.
Forty-seven percent of the "medicine-cabinet" group of women used
ECPs at least once in the two-year study period, compared to 27%
of the women in the control group. Ten percent of each group used
them more than once. One woman was dropped from the study after
she used ECPs four times in four months.
Some may argue that if a woman is abortion-minded, it's better for
her to take the life of a week-old embryo than one at 10 weeks.
But it's wrong to consider early hormonally induced abortions a
lesser evil than later-term abortions simply because the embryo
has less resemblance to what we think humans look like. In fact,
we all once looked exactly like a week-old embryo. The essence and
effect of both abortions is the same: An individual is deprived
of her entire earthly life span. She will never be kissed or cuddled,
never walk on a beach or ride a bike, never sing in a choir or graduate
from college, never fall in love, raise kids, have a fulfilling
career, or leave the world a better place for having lived there.
Women and their children deserve better than this.
|
