Emergency Contraception
Tribune Letter on Emergency Contraception -- With Study Citations
09/03/2007 08:54 AM
A letter from
Planned Parenthood's Amy Jacobson in the Bismarck
Tribune prompted this response from
Christopher Dodson, executive director of the
North Dakota Catholic Conference. Word limits
prevented Dodson from listing sources for the
studies mentioned in the letter. This restatement
of the letter gives citations in
bold.
Planned Parenthood's Amy Jacobson accuses pro-life groups of falsely claiming that emergency contraception is an abortifacient. Maybe we could quibble about the definition of “abortifacient,” but the fact remains that both the FDA and the pill's manufacturer admit that emergency contraception may prevent implantation of a newly formed embryo. [Concerning the definition of what is an embryo, see http://www.usccb.org/prolife/issues/bioethic/fact298.shtml.] Call it what you will, but in those cases where fertilization has occurred, emergency “contraception” works only because it prevents the embryo from attaching to the uterine wall. [According to the FDA, "EC pills ... act by delaying or inhibiting ovulation, and/or altering tubal transport of sperm and/or ova (thereby inhibiting fertilization), and/or altering the endometrium (thereby inhibiting implantation)" (FDA Notice, 62 Fed. Reg. 861 [Feb. 25, 1997]).]
Ms. Jacobson also claims that greater access to contraception and emergency contraception will reduce unintended pregnancies and abortions. A report from Planned Parenthood's own research arm, however, shows that states that most aggressively promote contraceptives have some of the highest abortion rates in the country. States that do not, such as Kansas and the Dakotas, have the lowest abortion rates. [Data available from Guttmacher Institute's "Contraception Counts: Ranking State Efforts" (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/2006/02/28/IB2006n1.pdf) and "Abortion in Women's Lives" (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/2006/05/04/AiWL.pdf); for analysis of the data, see: Response to Guttmacher Institute’s Claims On Contraception and Abortion Policy and Latest Guttmacher Institute Report At Odds With Itself.]
Studies from other countries also show that contraceptive programs do not reduce abortion rates. [A. Glasier et al., “Advanced provision of emergency contraception does not reduce abortion rates," Contraception 69 (May 2004): 361-6 (www.cwfa.org/images/content/scotland0905.pdf; visited Feb. 14, 2007).T. Raine et al., “Direct Access to Emergency Contraception Through Pharmacies and Effect on Unintended Pregnancy and STIs,” Journal of the American Medical Association 293 (2005): 54-62 (www.dph.sf.ca.us/sfcityclinic/providers/Directaccesscontraception.pdf; visited Feb. 14, 2007).Xiaoyu Hu et al., “Advanced provision of emergency contraception to postnatal women in China makes no difference in abortion rates: a randomized controlled trial,” Contraception 72 (2005): 111-6.S. Girma and D. Paton, "Matching Estimates of the Impact of Over-the-Counter Emergency Birth Control on Teenage Pregnancy," University of Nottingham School of Business Occasional Paper Series, No. 2005-15 (October 2005) (www.nottingham.ac.uk/%7Elizecon/RePEc/pdf/matching.pdf; visited Feb. 14, 2007; Anna Glasier, Editorial, “Emergency Contraception: Is it worth all the fuss?”, British Medical Journal 333 (2006): 560-1; A. Williams, "The Morning-After Pill," Scottish Council of Human Bioethics (Nov. 2005) (www.schb.org.uk, click on "Publications" then "Sexual Health;" T. Tyden et al., “No reduced number of abortions despite easily available emergency contraceptive pills,” Lakartidningen 99 (2002): 4730-2, 4735 (abstract at www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12523048&dopt=Citation; visited Feb. 14, 2007; J. Gardner et al., “Increasing Access to Emergency Contraception Through Community Pharmacies: Lessons from Washington State,” Family Planning Perspectives 33 (2001): 172-5 (www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3317201.pdf; visited Feb. 14, 2007).]
In fact, says one recent overview: “Most studies that have been conducted during the past 20 years have indicated that improving access to contraception did not significantly increase contraceptive use or decrease teen pregnancy.” [Douglas Kirby, “Reflections on Two Decades of Research on Teen Sexual Behavior and Pregnancy,” Journal of School Health 69.3 (March 1999).]
The same is true with emergency contraceptives. When leading experts who favor emergency contraception programs recently summarized 23 studies gauging the effect of such programs, they had to admit that not one of the 23 found a reduction in unintended pregnancies or abortions. [E. Raymond et al., “Population Effect of Increased Access to Emergency Contraceptive Pills,” Obstetrics & Gynecology 109 (2007): 181-8.]
Planned Parenthood's Amy Jacobson accuses pro-life groups of falsely claiming that emergency contraception is an abortifacient. Maybe we could quibble about the definition of “abortifacient,” but the fact remains that both the FDA and the pill's manufacturer admit that emergency contraception may prevent implantation of a newly formed embryo. [Concerning the definition of what is an embryo, see http://www.usccb.org/prolife/issues/bioethic/fact298.shtml.] Call it what you will, but in those cases where fertilization has occurred, emergency “contraception” works only because it prevents the embryo from attaching to the uterine wall. [According to the FDA, "EC pills ... act by delaying or inhibiting ovulation, and/or altering tubal transport of sperm and/or ova (thereby inhibiting fertilization), and/or altering the endometrium (thereby inhibiting implantation)" (FDA Notice, 62 Fed. Reg. 861 [Feb. 25, 1997]).]
Ms. Jacobson also claims that greater access to contraception and emergency contraception will reduce unintended pregnancies and abortions. A report from Planned Parenthood's own research arm, however, shows that states that most aggressively promote contraceptives have some of the highest abortion rates in the country. States that do not, such as Kansas and the Dakotas, have the lowest abortion rates. [Data available from Guttmacher Institute's "Contraception Counts: Ranking State Efforts" (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/2006/02/28/IB2006n1.pdf) and "Abortion in Women's Lives" (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/2006/05/04/AiWL.pdf); for analysis of the data, see: Response to Guttmacher Institute’s Claims On Contraception and Abortion Policy and Latest Guttmacher Institute Report At Odds With Itself.]
Studies from other countries also show that contraceptive programs do not reduce abortion rates. [A. Glasier et al., “Advanced provision of emergency contraception does not reduce abortion rates," Contraception 69 (May 2004): 361-6 (www.cwfa.org/images/content/scotland0905.pdf; visited Feb. 14, 2007).T. Raine et al., “Direct Access to Emergency Contraception Through Pharmacies and Effect on Unintended Pregnancy and STIs,” Journal of the American Medical Association 293 (2005): 54-62 (www.dph.sf.ca.us/sfcityclinic/providers/Directaccesscontraception.pdf; visited Feb. 14, 2007).Xiaoyu Hu et al., “Advanced provision of emergency contraception to postnatal women in China makes no difference in abortion rates: a randomized controlled trial,” Contraception 72 (2005): 111-6.S. Girma and D. Paton, "Matching Estimates of the Impact of Over-the-Counter Emergency Birth Control on Teenage Pregnancy," University of Nottingham School of Business Occasional Paper Series, No. 2005-15 (October 2005) (www.nottingham.ac.uk/%7Elizecon/RePEc/pdf/matching.pdf; visited Feb. 14, 2007; Anna Glasier, Editorial, “Emergency Contraception: Is it worth all the fuss?”, British Medical Journal 333 (2006): 560-1; A. Williams, "The Morning-After Pill," Scottish Council of Human Bioethics (Nov. 2005) (www.schb.org.uk, click on "Publications" then "Sexual Health;" T. Tyden et al., “No reduced number of abortions despite easily available emergency contraceptive pills,” Lakartidningen 99 (2002): 4730-2, 4735 (abstract at www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12523048&dopt=Citation; visited Feb. 14, 2007; J. Gardner et al., “Increasing Access to Emergency Contraception Through Community Pharmacies: Lessons from Washington State,” Family Planning Perspectives 33 (2001): 172-5 (www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3317201.pdf; visited Feb. 14, 2007).]
In fact, says one recent overview: “Most studies that have been conducted during the past 20 years have indicated that improving access to contraception did not significantly increase contraceptive use or decrease teen pregnancy.” [Douglas Kirby, “Reflections on Two Decades of Research on Teen Sexual Behavior and Pregnancy,” Journal of School Health 69.3 (March 1999).]
The same is true with emergency contraceptives. When leading experts who favor emergency contraception programs recently summarized 23 studies gauging the effect of such programs, they had to admit that not one of the 23 found a reduction in unintended pregnancies or abortions. [E. Raymond et al., “Population Effect of Increased Access to Emergency Contraceptive Pills,” Obstetrics & Gynecology 109 (2007): 181-8.]
Emergency Contraception
01/18/2007 09:25 AM
Yesterday's
Bismarck Tribune contained a
letter questioning a statement by
Christopher Dodson, executive director of the
North Dakota Catholic Conference, reported
in this story from
December.
Below is Mr. Dodson's response:
Dear Editor:
From Virginia Dolajak’s letter regarding my statements on emergency contraception at Catholic hospitals, it appears that my comments and the teachings of the Catholic Church need some explanation.
When I stated that Catholic hospitals could provide emergency contraception once it has been determined that ovulation has not occurred, it was in the context of discussing the Catholic Conference’s opposition to any legislation forcing Catholic hospitals to dispense emergency contraception. The conference opposes such mandates because, as Virginia Dolajek rightly states, such treatment can act as an abortifacient.
What I tried to convey with the statement was that, although Catholic facilities will not provide an abortifacient drug, they can provide victims of sexual assault with what is commonly called “emergency contraception” if it has been determined that the treatment will not act as an abortifacient.
The guiding instruction to Catholic facilities on this issue is set forth in the “Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services,” which was approved by the Vatican and is binding on all Catholic health care facilities in the country. It states:
“A female who has been raped should be able to defend herself against a potential conception from the sexual assault. If, after appropriate testing, there is no evidence that conception has occurred already, she may be treated with medications that would prevent ovulation, sperm capacitation, or fertilization. It is not permissible, however, to initiate or to recommend treatments that have as their purpose or direct effect the removal, destruction, or interference with the implantation of a fertilized ovum.”
Although the Catholic Church opposes contraception, that teaching does not extend to protecting rape victims from potential conception. Under no circumstances, however, is it acceptable to destroy human life.
This teaching is a far cry from the position of Planned Parenthood, which sees no distinction between true contraception and the destruction of new life before it is implanted in the uterine wall, and would force hospitals to violate their religious and moral beliefs by requiring them to ignore the distinction.
Catholic hospitals can and will provide compassionate care to victims of sexual assault and remain committed to protecting human life at every stage of development.
Dear Editor:
From Virginia Dolajak’s letter regarding my statements on emergency contraception at Catholic hospitals, it appears that my comments and the teachings of the Catholic Church need some explanation.
When I stated that Catholic hospitals could provide emergency contraception once it has been determined that ovulation has not occurred, it was in the context of discussing the Catholic Conference’s opposition to any legislation forcing Catholic hospitals to dispense emergency contraception. The conference opposes such mandates because, as Virginia Dolajek rightly states, such treatment can act as an abortifacient.
What I tried to convey with the statement was that, although Catholic facilities will not provide an abortifacient drug, they can provide victims of sexual assault with what is commonly called “emergency contraception” if it has been determined that the treatment will not act as an abortifacient.
The guiding instruction to Catholic facilities on this issue is set forth in the “Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services,” which was approved by the Vatican and is binding on all Catholic health care facilities in the country. It states:
“A female who has been raped should be able to defend herself against a potential conception from the sexual assault. If, after appropriate testing, there is no evidence that conception has occurred already, she may be treated with medications that would prevent ovulation, sperm capacitation, or fertilization. It is not permissible, however, to initiate or to recommend treatments that have as their purpose or direct effect the removal, destruction, or interference with the implantation of a fertilized ovum.”
Although the Catholic Church opposes contraception, that teaching does not extend to protecting rape victims from potential conception. Under no circumstances, however, is it acceptable to destroy human life.
This teaching is a far cry from the position of Planned Parenthood, which sees no distinction between true contraception and the destruction of new life before it is implanted in the uterine wall, and would force hospitals to violate their religious and moral beliefs by requiring them to ignore the distinction.
Catholic hospitals can and will provide compassionate care to victims of sexual assault and remain committed to protecting human life at every stage of development.
