Is birth control pill not an option for rape victims?

[Matthew_Holford]

First, I note with interest that the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ “Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services, Fourth Edition” does not appear to have a Holy See recognitio.

It is the first time that I have heard of rape being an exception for the administration of a chemical method of contraception. There is always the danger that even the methods recommended could possibly be abortifacient.

I think the USCCB is overstepping the mark here and I wonder what the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith would have to say regarding these directives.

 

[Robert_Burns]

Is the birth control pill never an option for rape victims? Is it a mortal sin? If I had a young daughter I don’t know what I would do.

Is it just me or does this question not make sense? Who anticipates Rape? What would the Victim do ? Tell the rapist - wait a second let me make sure you use a condom? Or go to the Doctor and get put on Birth control pills anticipating the remote possibility that you might get raped?

Come on. This isnt plausible

 

[manualman]

This is one of those many cases in which it is better to comprehend the principles rather than memorize the rules.

Contraception isn’t a pill or a condom. Those are inanimate objects, not sinful in and of themselves. The SIN of contraception is the deliberate sterilization of what is supposed to be a life-giving, mutually giving experience of love, which makes it instead an occasion of mutual taking.

A single, chaste woman using “the pill” not for contraception, but for acne fighting (common!) who is raped has NOT sinned because her acne medicine had the side effect of making her infertile.

Similarly, an NFP using woman who knows she is approaching ovulation, but has NOT ovulated yet who is raped may use artificial hormones immediately after the rape to suppress ovulation. She is NOT committing the sin of contraception because there IS no mutually giving and loving relationship there to be violated/altered! There IS a risk of abortion, but not a large one, by all known medical accounts. Arguing that she must not use the pill to prevent ovulation during the lifetime of the rapists sperm because there is a CHANCE of breakthrough ovulation is like arguing that no parent should ever transport their child in a car because there is a chance of a fatal car accident.

The key here is reasonable certainty on the part of the woman that she has not yet ovulated. I’m not sure how any non-NFP user can know this with reasonable certainty. But I’m not a doctor either. That’s a question for the med guys, not a catholic internet board.

 

[archangel04]

How can you use birth control for a rape victim to preven pregnancy? Usually in order for the pill to work properly you have to take it weeks even a month before intercourse in order to “properly work”. Conception usually happens a day or two after intercourse or in this case the rape. Unless you are talking about the “morning after pill” This case it’s still consider an abortion. Although rape and incest situations are truly sad indeed, it does not justify the use of the pill or abortion.

 

[Robert_Burns]

How can you use birth control for a rape victim to preven pregnancy? Usually in order for the pill to work properly you have to take it weeks even a month before intercourse in order to “properly work”. Conception usually happens a day or two after intercourse or in this case the rape. Unless you are talking about the “morning after pill” This case it’s still consider an abortion. Although rape and incest situations are truly sad indeed, it does not justify the use of the pill or abortion.

Precisely and well put. I see a lot of questions that seemingly are posed to try to find a moral angle in which to do something immoral. The bottom line , though , is the simple fact that one can never fool GOD. Say the person wants to use Birth Control but then is confronted with the Teachings of the Church on the Subject. So they pursue various scenarios in which to use Birth Control , not to say contol Acne - but instead use the Excuse that this is why they are taking the Birth Contol - but GOD is not fooled. On judgement day they will have to reconcile themslves before him.

 

[mommamaree]

I think perhaps there is some misunderstanding going on here about what specifically is the “emergency contraception” that is used in the ER for rape victims? It is a higher dose of the regular BC pill (levonorgestrol, I think). It is not the same thing as RU-486.
After a pregnancy test to determine that the victim is not already pregnant, and after a test to determine if ovulation has occurred, during the 72-hour window following the rape, the plan B emergency contraception medication can be used to prevent ovulation, meaning, to prevent the release of an egg from an ovary. The sperm left by the rapist can live for 3 - 5 days post-rape, and conception could occur if ovulation happened during that time. It is true that plan B emergency contraceptive medication could prevent a zygote from implanting, if ovulation and conception had already occurred, which is why it is absolutely vital to test for pregnancy and ovulation having already happened. And the USCCB addresses that requirement in their recommendations. But if a rape victim had not yet ovulated, but was approaching ovulation during the first few days after being raped, what reason would we have to deny her the ability to prevent ovulation from happening in that month, so as to guard against the possibility that she might conceive a child from the rape? We are called to protect life that has already been formed, but we are not called to invite life to be conceived from a violent attack. There is a huge difference between choosing life for a child that has already been conceived from rape and taking no steps to prevent conception from happening out of some misguided notion that Catholics must never oppose conception, even in cases of a rape.

 

[puzzleannie]

Is? If I had a young daughter I don’t know what I would do.

you don’t know what you would do if your daughter possibly was pregnant with your grandchild, no matter how that possible pregancy occured? Even the remote possibility of ending that grandchild’s life is even a blip on the radar?

 

[notredame_999]

you don’t know what you would do if your daughter possibly was pregnant with your grandchild, no matter how that possible pregancy occured? Even the remote possibility of ending that grandchild’s life is even a blip on the radar?

Well Plan B is not the same thing as RU-486…and from what I’ve read on here the church hasn’t refuted the USCCB statement on using Plan B 72 hours after a rape if it is confirmed she isn’t ovulating.

 

[mommamaree]

you don’t know what you would do if your daughter possibly was pregnant with your grandchild, no matter how that possible pregancy occured? Even the remote possibility of ending that grandchild’s life is even a blip on the radar?

Please, please, read my earlier post. Plan B is not RU-486. RU-486 actually causes an abortion; it kills a child that has already been conceived. Plan B, a different medication entirely, when used before ovulation can occur, actually acts to prevent ovulation. As in, the rape victim is NOT yet pregnant, and no child has been conceived yet, and the action of the medication can prevent ovulation, and therefore conception. It is not an abortion.

 

[mommamaree]

Because of the questions raised in this thread, which were on topics that I thought, as a new Catholic, had already been sufficiently answered, I decided to go to the Catholic Education Resource Center and do a quick search for a related article. What I found surprised me, and really gave me a lot of food for thought. Granted the article I link to here is over six years old, but I share it in the hopes that we might be able to clarify some of the discrepancies that have obviously arisen. The opinion of this article is that the morning after pill is never licit, which is opposed to my personal opinion. So, I invite others to read it and consider a couple of questions which I now have.

catholiceducation.org/articles/medical_ethics/me0062.html

1. Is the MAP discussed in the article the same as the Plan B emergency contraceptive being discussed here, or are they different medications with different actions?
2. Is it true, as asserted in the article, that while an implanted pregnancy may be detected and ovulation may be detected, the missing link of fertilization may not be detected by any medical means at this point?

These are my two primary concerns, because it seemed to imply that the action most likely to result from even careful use of Plan B within the 72-hr window and after appropriate testing would still be abortifacient and not contraceptive.

I know that it is not usual for someone to post a link that presents an opinion that differs from their own, but with this truly being a life-or-death matter, I really want to know the truth here, and not just a comforting lie (in case that is what I was led to believe previously). Of course, I would be thankful if someone could provide a more recent link that addresses this situation, if one could be found.

 

[mommamaree]

Yep! That’s why the US Bishops allow emergency contraception to prevent conception, not abort. That’s why they’re so strict about their guidelines to use emergency contraception in a rape situation, but thankfully, they do allow it with those guidelines.

catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0566.html

See, this link is where I initially learned about how Catholics can approach this scenario. I read this last year, I believe, before I even began my RCIA journey. But this article is older than the one I posted with my questions. They are both from the Catholic Education Resource Center, but they have different conclusions. Now, I believe that both articles are given as opinions, and are not an infallible teaching to this matter. But has the Church (the Magisterium, I guess?) spoken to this very specific scenario? Or have they left this matter up to the victim, her priest, and her doctor? I am really confused now, and since rape is a very real threat to women, I would love to be directed to some really truthful answers. About half of the women in my life have been raped or sexually assaulted at least once in their lives, so this is not a matter that I would take lightly.

 

[revert_jen]

See, this link is where I initially learned about how Catholics can approach this scenario. I read this last year, I believe, before I even began my RCIA journey. But this article is older than the one I posted with my questions. They are both from the Catholic Education Resource Center, but they have different conclusions.

I think that the reason for the differing conclusions is partly because they are talking about different things. The newer article is talking primarily about the morning after pill. The older article is talking about a different treatment, and was written before the MAP was approved by the FDA. I think the answer is that with addition of the ovulation test and different drug in the older article, the situation is less problematic than the normal pregnancy test and the MAP.

I don’t think that there has been a decisive statement on the issue from Rome, although I would be happy to be corrected if I am wrong. The reason for this, to my mind, is that the scientific/medical questions have not been completely answered. The Church has not done well out of getting mixed up in scientific questions in the past.

Slightly tangentially, this article from the National Catholic Bioethics Center is very good:
Sexual Assault and Abortion

This article from the same source, OTOH, is not at all tangential, and is also very good:
Getting It Right “The Morning-After”

The conclusion is basically, "It is permissible, then, for Catholic hospitals to provide their patients with morning-after pills if the following four conditions are met:

1. The woman is not already pregnant from prior, freely-chosen sexual activity.
2. The woman has been sexually assaulted.
3. The woman has not yet ovulated (i.e. has not released an egg from her ovary into the fallopian tube where it could be fertilized by the attacker’s sperm).
4. The morning-after pill can reasonably be expected to prevent her from ovulating. "

I think that is probably the most authoritative answer you are going to get at the moment, although of course the NCBC is not an official arm of the Church. It does say on the “About Us” page: “The Center’s staff consults regularly on life science issues and medical issues with the Vatican, the U.S. bishops, and public policy-makers, hospitals and international organizations of all faiths. Vatican agencies which regularly consult with the Center include the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Pontifical Academy for Life and the Pontifical Council for Health Care Workers.”

–Jen

 

[mommamaree]

I think that the reason for the differing conclusions is partly because they are talking about different things. The newer article is talking primarily about the morning after pill. The older article is talking about a different treatment, and was written before the MAP was approved by the FDA. I think the answer is that with addition of the ovulation test and different drug in the older article, the situation is less problematic than the normal pregnancy test and the MAP.

I don’t think that there has been a decisive statement on the issue from Rome, although I would be happy to be corrected if I am wrong. The reason for this, to my mind, is that the scientific/medical questions have not been completely answered. The Church has not done well out of getting mixed up in scientific questions in the past.

Slightly tangentially, this article from the National Catholic Bioethics Center is very good:
Sexual Assault and Abortion

This article from the same source, OTOH, is not at all tangential, and is also very good:
Getting It Right “The Morning-After”

The conclusion is basically, "It is permissible, then, for Catholic hospitals to provide their patients with morning-after pills if the following four conditions are met:

1. The woman is not already pregnant from prior, freely-chosen sexual activity.
2. The woman has been sexually assaulted.
3. The woman has not yet ovulated (i.e. has not released an egg from her ovary into the fallopian tube where it could be fertilized by the attacker’s sperm).
4. The morning-after pill can reasonably be expected to prevent her from ovulating. "

I think that is probably the most authoritative answer you are going to get at the moment, although of course the NCBC is not an official arm of the Church. It does say on the “About Us” page: “The Center’s staff consults regularly on life science issues and medical issues with the Vatican, the U.S. bishops, and public policy-makers, hospitals and international organizations of all faiths. Vatican agencies which regularly consult with the Center include the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Pontifical Academy for Life and the Pontifical Council for Health Care Workers.”

–Jen

Thank you for responding, and for the second link you provided. It is even more recent, by a year and a half, than the articles that I have found. I know that medical science of fertility and pregnancy has made enormous strides in understanding in the past ten years, so keeping up-to-date on these matters is important.