Morning After Pill in the case of Rape

[Tosk]

Here’s a direct link to the prescribing information from Plan B’s own website. It indicates that the 1st mode of action is to inhibit/prevent ovulation. However, it indicates that its secondary mode of action is to inhibit/prevent implantation. This latter effect, if you believe as the Church teaches, is abortive. When egg & sperm join (fertilization) prior to implantation, a new human life has begun. To inhibit this new life’s implantation is the same as intentionally killing it since it cannot live w/o nourishment from the uterus/woman.

I think the link I posted earlier went over that. The maker of Plan B does claim that there is a secondary mode of action that would inhibit implantation but they are wrong. There have been numerous studies done that have confirmed this. No disagreement really about anything else you said.

 

[EvelynEVF]

And please do remember that we have ways to test where a woman is in her cycle and whether or not the possibly abortive action of Plan B would even be a concern.

 

[aggiecatholic05]

The maker of Plan B does claim that there is a secondary mode of action that would inhibit implantation but they are wrong.

ok, so you are making a claim that all the doctors and scientits for the company and the fda were and are wrong. to make such a claim for a drug it had to be fda approved, so please provide evidence for some of these studies you claim prove them wrong.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ “Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services,” fourth edition, directive No. 36

“Compassionate and understanding care should be given to a person who is the victim of sexual assault. Health care providers should cooperate with law enforcement officials and offer the person psychological and spiritual support as well as accurate medical information. 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” (No. 36). www.usccb.org/bishops/directives.shtml

The Church is against ABC in the case of INTERcourse which of course rape is not.

Not the whole truth. There is no requirement for such tests as prescribed in this paragraph you have given before a woman can access Plan B. There is no prescription required (I believe) to get it. So with out getting such a test there is no way to know that fertilization has occurred and that Plan B is not acting in a way as to stop implantation.

 

[EvelynEVF]

I hope that a Catholic practitioner or hospital would have the test. Testing, though, isn’t the only way. Any woman who knows her cycle has the information necessary. Ugly circumstances unmentioned, I could safely use Plan B tonight to prevent conception, and it would possibly have been helpful in the last few days. Tomorrow, maybe. The next day, no way, not morally. And the day after that I wouldn’t be able to conceive anyway.

Plan B is just one form of day-after pill. Before this more “convenient” form, it was possible to basically eat a whole month’s worth of regular bc pills to do the same thing. So I don’t know that it was all that hard to do before, without a prescription, etc. They could be obtained from a friend.

I think the responsibility lies with Catholic hcps to make sure that tests for ovulation are available, and that women know just what Plan B does and doesn’t do.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I hope that a Catholic practitioner or hospital would have the test. Testing, though, isn’t the only way. Any woman who knows her cycle has the information necessary. Ugly circumstances unmentioned, I could safely use Plan B tonight to prevent conception, and it would possibly have been helpful in the last few days. Tomorrow, maybe. The next day, no way, not morally. And the day after that I wouldn’t be able to conceive anyway.

Plan B is just one form of day-after pill. Before this more “convenient” form, it was possible to basically eat a whole month’s worth of regular bc pills to do the same thing. So I don’t know that it was all that hard to do before, without a prescription, etc. They could be obtained from a friend.

I think the responsibility lies with Catholic hcps to make sure that tests for ovulation are available, and that women know just what Plan B does and doesn’t do.

I would say that the responsibility lies with both. One side to do the tests the other side to actually go and get a test rather then just running to the closest pharmacy and picking it up.

I am sure though that the most use of Plan B is not for those who are sexually assaulted but by others. At least that seems to be the way it is marketed.

 

[Holly3278]

The use of the morning after pill is immoral even if after a rape.

 

[Holly3278]

The issue is still not settled. There is very little, if any direct evidence that shows the morning after pill causes an abortion and there is a mounting pile of evidence that it does not. The only thing to do is sit back and wait and see how the issue is settled.

Yes, but even so, the use of contraceptives is always immoral.

 

[TLM08]

The use of the morning after pill is immoral even if after a rape.

Tell that to the mother of a fifteen year old girl who was just gang raped. Furthermore, I’ll go out on a limb and guess that you’ve never been victimized by one of these predators.

 

[EvelynEVF]

Holly, back up a couple pages and see the statement from the USCCB on rape and contraception. God’s design for sex in the context of marriage requires it to be both unitive and procreative. But rape does not have to be procreative, and obviously isn’t unitive by definition.

Abortifacient contraception is always wrong, but delaying ovulation until the rapist’s sperm is dead, is not evil.

 

[aggiecatholic05]

Tell that to the mother of a fifteen year old girl who was just gang raped. Furthermore, I’ll go out on a limb and guess that you’ve never been victimized by one of these predators.

2 wrongs dont make a right.

 

[TLM08]

Holly, back up a couple pages and see the statement from the USCCB on rape and contraception. God’s design for sex in the context of marriage requires it to be both unitive and procreative. But rape does not have to be procreative, and obviously isn’t unitive by definition.

Abortifacient contraception is always wrong, but delaying ovulation until the rapist’s sperm is dead, is not evil.

I’ll take a step further. The rapist, once convicted has absolutely no business even being able to produce sperm. As a compassionate man, I would even allow for proper anesthetic and two follow up visits after the surgical removal of the offending organs.

Hopefully, his cell mates will be considerate and put the seat down for him after using the restroom.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I’ll take a step further. The rapist, once convicted has absolutely no business even being able to produce sperm. As a compassionate man, I would even allow for proper anesthetic and two follow up visits after the surgical removal of the offending organs.

Hopefully, his cell mates will be considerate and put the seat down for him after using the restroom.

Hmmm, does not seem consistent.

The Catechism addresses this where it speaks on Organ Donation.

Here is what is says, I think the underlined section applies.

2296 Organ transplants are in conformity with the moral law if the physical and psychological dangers and risks to the donor are proportionate to the good sought for the recipient. Organ donation after death is a noble and meritorious act and is to be encouraged as a expression of generous solidarity. It is not morally acceptable if the donor or his proxy has not given explicit consent. Moreover, it is not morally admissible to bring about the disabling mutilation or death of a human being, even in order to delay the death of other persons.

 

[BiologyBrain]

I think the link I posted earlier went over that. The maker of Plan B does claim that there is a secondary mode of action that would inhibit implantation but they are wrong. There have been numerous studies done that have confirmed this. No disagreement really about anything else you said.

I didn’t get to read the link you posted earlier, but I am hesitant to ignore the product’s own prescription information over some studies done somewhere else. The very fact that the prescription information mentions the secondary action is indicative of testing showing this to be the case. The producers of medication do not put labels on their products w/ extra side-effects and/or with faulty information. Legally they can’t provide known faulty information about their product. From a financial standpoint, its not good business to warn people away from your product. While I’m not entirely discounting that some studies may have had contradictory results from the original FDA (and prior) tests. I think they’re far from conclusive. As a Catholic I’d have to err on the side of caution for the unborn.

 

[BiologyBrain]

Here is a good article that explains how Plan B works.
ec.princeton.edu/questions/MOA.pdf#search=%22princeton%20mechanism%20emergency%20contraception%22

Notice that there is no secondary effect on implantation and more than likely the progesterone in Plan B actually helps, not inhibits, a fertilized egg from implanting. From what I understand it isn’t conclusive so, like I said, more evidence will be needed before anything final is decided.

You’re overstepping what the article actually says though. Actually, upon close re-reading of the entire article, the conclusion the authors came to was that it will never be unequivically proven that ECP’s don’t inhibit post-fertilization. The authors concluded as well that the animal studies may not be applicable to human studies (that have not yet taken place). The authors are also using the statistics that many fertilized eggs don’t implant to begin with to bolster their viewpoint. However, naturally occurring miscarriages (technically that’s what it is when its non medicated) are not the same as medicated inhibition of implantation. The authors use words like ‘tempted’, ‘on balance’, ‘nevertheless’, ‘probably’, etc to couch their opinions. The article is not coming out boldly as saying ECPs do not inhibit fertilization. The article merely indicates that there is some question as to whether fertilization is inhibited or not after using ECP. They plainly state that. **Therefore, the article cannot be viewed as definitive proof that ECPs do not inhibit fertilization as no such assertation was made in the article. **

Using ECPs is not a sure thing regardless of testing (also voiced by the authors). Its also not a sure thing that inhibition of implantation does not/cannot occur due to the use of ECPs. Therefore, it would be my conservative opinion/conclusion, that ECPs should not be used if ovulation has taken place (which is actually what the bishop’s statement indicates) b/c there is a risk of inhibiting implantation of a previously fertilized egg - aborting that new life. In other words - ECPs use should be regulated to only women who have been tested to have not ovulated. Not a free-for-all for any raped woman.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I didn’t get to read the link you posted earlier, but I am hesitant to ignore the product’s own prescription information over some studies done somewhere else. The very fact that the prescription information mentions the secondary action is indicative of testing showing this to be the case. The producers of medication do not put labels on their products w/ extra side-effects and/or with faulty information. Legally they can’t provide known faulty information about their product. From a financial standpoint, its not good business to warn people away from your product. While I’m not entirely discounting that some studies may have had contradictory results from the original FDA (and prior) tests. I think they’re far from conclusive. As a Catholic I’d have to err on the side of caution for the unborn.

This is not quite correct. The pill causes a fake pregnancy thus the body does not attempt a new pregnancy. This is primarily done through stopping egg production, however some additional affects are listed. So people buying pills are not scared to think they have may additional pregnancy retarders should an egg be produced. The germane issue here is not a single chemical abortion has been recorded from this failure to implant method. There is some indirect evidence that some such failures to implant exist however the evidence is indirect. The FDA could well stop the mfg from these claims, and probably should.

You’re overstepping what the article actually says though. Actually, upon close re-reading of the entire article, the conclusion the authors came to was that it will never be unequivically proven that ECP’s don’t inhibit post-fertilization. The authors concluded as well that the animal studies may not be applicable to human studies (that have not yet taken place). The authors are also using the statistics that many fertilized eggs don’t implant to begin with to bolster their viewpoint. However, naturally occurring miscarriages (technically that’s what it is when its non medicated) are not the same as medicated inhibition of implantation. The authors use words like ‘tempted’, ‘on balance’, ‘nevertheless’, ‘probably’, etc to couch their opinions. The article is not coming out boldly as saying ECPs do not inhibit fertilization. The article merely indicates that there is some question as to whether fertilization is inhibited or not after using ECP. They plainly state that. **Therefore, the article cannot be viewed as definitive proof that ECPs do not inhibit fertilization as no such assertation was made in the article. **

Using ECPs is not a sure thing regardless of testing (also voiced by the authors). Its also not a sure thing that inhibition of implantation does not/cannot occur due to the use of ECPs. Therefore, it would be my conservative opinion/conclusion, that ECPs should not be used if ovulation has taken place (which is actually what the bishop’s statement indicates) b/c there is a risk of inhibiting implantation of a previously fertilized egg - aborting that new life. In other words - ECPs use should be regulated to only women who have been tested to have not ovulated. Not a free-for-all for any raped woman.

There are a couple of issues here 1) the article I read as a reference reverts to “pregnancy occurs at implantation” which is an apples to oranges comparison. 2) second problem is common sense, if the pill has only 72hrs to work then rebuilding, reduce the liner is an unlikely result. Common sense says the 28 day cycle is not being redone, most likely the pill creates a hormone surge which flushes the system

Hope that helps

 

[TLM08]

Hmmm, does not seem consistent.

The Catechism addresses this where it speaks on Organ Donation.

Here is what is says, I think the underlined section applies.

2296 Organ transplants are in conformity with the moral law if the physical and psychological dangers and risks to the donor are proportionate to the good sought for the recipient. Organ donation after death is a noble and meritorious act and is to be encouraged as a expression of generous solidarity. It is not morally acceptable if the donor or his proxy has not given explicit consent. Moreover, it is not morally admissible to bring about the disabling mutilation or death of a human being, even in order to delay the death of other persons.

This isn’t an organ donation, it is more of a foreclosure, or confiscation if you will. In the interest of public safety, the rapist has forfeited his right to be in possession of a working penis.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

This isn’t an organ donation, it is more of a foreclosure, or confiscation if you will. In the interest of public safety, the rapist has forfeited his right to be in possession of a working penis.

It would be a disabling mutilation and therefore is not proper.

 

[BiologyBrain]

This is not quite correct. The pill causes a fake pregnancy thus the body does not attempt a new pregnancy. This is primarily done through stopping egg production, however some additional affects are listed. So people buying pills are not scared to think they have may additional pregnancy retarders should an egg be produced. The germane issue here is not a single chemical abortion has been recorded from this failure to implant method. There is some indirect evidence that some such failures to implant exist however the evidence is indirect. The FDA could well stop the mfg from these claims, and probably should.

There are a couple of issues here 1) the article I read as a reference reverts to “pregnancy occurs at implantation” which is an apples to oranges comparison. 2) second problem is common sense, if the pill has only 72hrs to work then rebuilding, reduce the liner is an unlikely result. Common sense says the 28 day cycle is not being redone, most likely the pill creates a hormone surge which flushes the system

Hope that helps

Actually it did just the opposite. I’m not sure what point you’re arguing.

I’ll concede that probably not many who are buying these particular pills would be put-off by the abortifacient possibility. However, there are some pro-life and/or Catholic women who are under the mistaken impression that these pills are completely innocuous. The prescribing information can (and should) put these women off buying the pills.

In the latter paragraph you indicate that this article uses implantation to indicate pregnancy. This is in & of itself contradictory to our Faith. Going back to the previous paragraph, if the authors count pregnancy as only beginning at implantation then anything preventing implantation would not be termed an abortion. Therefore, when they indicate that no chemical abortions have been recorded, they are talking about post-implantation, not prior. I am discussion fertilization as the beginning of pregnancy (as the Church regards it). Anything that disrupts the fertilized egg (embryo/fetus/baby) is an abortion. When nature cases it (ie no drugs/other methods used to affect it purposely) its called a spontaneous abortion. When drugs and/or methods cause it its called an elective, chemical, or early abortion.

The body is a wonderous thing and the scientific fact is that science doesn’t exactly know how many functions of the body (especially reproductive functions in a woman) work. It is conceivable for a drug to affect the lining of the uterus w/n 72 hours mid-cycle. If it weren’t then the drugs would have that indication on their packaging. You indicate that the proof of disruption of implantation is indirect, but I argue that indicate that proof of allowing implantation is indirect as well. The authors themselves concluded that we may well never know. That’s why the article cited cannot be used definitively either way to prove or disprove the incidence of inhibition of implantation. The scientists don’t even know and admit it - even though some are ‘tempted’ to go out on a limb & say no inhibition of implantation occurs.

Again, I emphasize that we, as caring, compassionate Catholics, should err on the conservative, life-preserving side. If there’s a possiblity that this drug is meant to inhibit implantation, it should not be used on a woman who has ovulated. To indicate otherwise, is not only contradictory to the statement the Bishops made, it is also contradictory to the Church’s consistent teaching on abortion and/or birth control.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Actually it did just the opposite. What is opposite of what?

I’m not sure what point you’re arguing.

I would say that telling women the pill is a known abortificant is to disgard honesty and all the Church’s teaching on that subject. Similarly to say; not I but he says the pill is abortificant is make the devil smile.