"The Pill" as an abortifacient

[Good_Daughter]

My apologies if I’ve posted this on the wrong forum.

I understand the birth control pill has abortifacient properties and I base this understanding on the information supplied by the Couple to Couple League which I believe to be reliable.

I would like to share this information with those I meet who are pro-life but also pro-contraception. Some of these people are Catholic, but some are not. Can anyone provide a reputable, preferably secular source for such information. The insert I checked in a friend’s prescription, surprisingly, contained no such information.

I would also like to provide my (pro-choice) doctor with a source to inform her how birth control pills really work. She assured me the new pills work only by suppressing ovulation which I know is untrue.

 

[1ke]

If you want to share this with others, I suggest you obtain some of the brochures published by www.omsoul.com as they are written by doctors and very complete.

They have several brochures, as well as more extensive booklets, on this topic.

Good luck. Many pro-life, pro-contraception people and organizations deny or ignore this issue-- including the Dobsons. Focus on the Family refuses to acknowledge this aspect of the Pill or advocate against it.

But, if you change one heart and mind, then all your efforts are worthwhile.

 

[Em_in_FL]

I would also like to provide my (pro-choice) doctor with a source to inform her how birth control pills really work. She assured me the new pills work only by suppressing ovulation which I know is untrue.

Which pills was she talking about?
Usually the pharmaceutical package insert on the pills describes how they work… you can typically look them up online!

For example… if you look into the package insert on the popular BCP Yasmin… it says…

PHARMACODYNAMICS Combination oral contraceptives (COCs) act by suppression of gonadotropins. Although the primarymechanism of this action is inhibition of ovulation, other alterations include changes in the cervical mucus (which increases the difficulty of spermentry into the uterus) and the endometrium (which reduces the likelihood of implantation).

The key here is the wording…
In bold you’ll see the secondary effect of this pill is to change the endometrium (which reduces the likelihood of implantation)… this implies that there was a fertilized egg that was “likely to implant”… ie an abortion.

Go to the SOURCE… it’s unbiased!

 

[Good_Daughter]

Many pro-life, pro-contraception people and organizations deny or ignore this issue-- including the Dobsons. Focus on the Family refuses to acknowledge this aspect of the Pill or advocate against it.

Sad but not surprising. I just recently started to realize how some non-Catholic Christians often have serious gaps in their “pro-life” positions. Thanks for the link.

 

[Good_Daughter]

Which pills was she talking about?
Usually the pharmaceutical package insert on the pills describes how they work… you can typically look them up online!

For example… if you look into the package insert on the popular BCP Yasmin… it says…

The key here is the wording…
In bold you’ll see the secondary effect of this pill is to change the endometrium (which reduces the likelihood of implantation)… this implies that there was a fertilized egg that was “likely to implant”… ie an abortion.

Go to the SOURCE… it’s unbiased!

I saw my doctor a couple years ago and she tried to talk me in to taking the pill, saying newer pills work only by suppressing ovulation unlike older pills. The Couple to Couple League mentions a progestin-only “minipill” and I suspect my doctor may have been refering to that. (To be honest, I wasn’t paying much attention to her, only listening to be polite as I knew I wouldn’t be taking the prescription.)

I went to the Yasmin link and couldn’t find your quote anywhere. Where did you find it? I’d like to print a copy from the acctual website. Boy that wording is slick! They just slip in “change the endometrium” like it’s no big deal. I may do a search for other birth control pill brand names so I can show objectively that all pills have abortifacient properties in their own (slippery) words. I could even try Planned Parenthood if I really wanted to avoid the “Catholic propaganda” label, but I’m not sure how long I could stay on their website or in one of their offices.

 

[1ke]

If you go to the yasmin-us.com website, click on the Physician’s Prescribing Info in the upper right corner. You will get a PDF File. On the bottom of the left-hand column, in the paragraph entitled PHARMACODYNAMICS, you will find this:

Combination oral contraceptives (COCs) act by suppression of
gonadotropins. Although the primary mechanism of this action
is inhibition of ovulation, other alterations include changes in
the cervical mucus (which increases the difficulty of sperm entry
into the uterus) and the endometrium (which reduces the likelihood of implantation).

 

[Good_Daughter]

Thanks, I found it easily and now I can print it out.

 

[David_Zampino]

Thanks, I found it easily and now I can print it out.

I’ve written an article on the links between the Pill, abortion and breast cancer, which actually appeared in our local newspaper!

If you’re interested, please PM me.

Blessings,

 

[Em_in_FL]

Here’s a good Wikipedia link on the progesteron-only “mini-pill”….

Note this wording as well…

In anovulatory cycles using progestogen-only contraceptives, the endometrium is thin and atrophic. If the endometrium was also thin and atrophic during an ovulatory cycle, this could theoretically interfere with implantation of a blastocyst (embryo).

 

[astegallrnc]

progestin-only “minipill” and I suspect my doctor may have been refering to that. (To be honest, I wasn’t paying much attention to her, only listening to be polite as I knew I wouldn’t be taking the prescription.)

The progestin-only pill, such as Micronor, suppresses ovulation in only half on the cycles.

I may do a search for other birth control pill brand names so I can show objectively that all pills have abortifacient properties in their own (slippery) words. I could even try Planned Parenthood if I really wanted to avoid the “Catholic propaganda” label, but I’m not sure how long I could stay on their website or in one of their offices.

Contraceptive Technology explains this action. Contraceptive Tech is a well-respected resource among family planning providers. Clinical Gynecology Endocrinology & Infertility, another well-respected resource, also discusses the changes in the endometrium. I am sure you doc would recognize these names.

I visited Planned Parenthood:
The hormones in combination and progestin-only pills also thin the lining of the uterus. In theory, this could prevent pregnancy by interfering with implantation of a fertilized egg. But there is no scientific evidence that this occurs.
HTH!
Autumn

 

[yessisan]

I used to be pro-life pro-contraception because I didn’t know better. Now I am all pro-life 100% and using NFP!

 

[Good_Daughter]

The progestin-only pill, such as Micronor, suppresses ovulation in only half on the cycles.

Contraceptive Technology explains this action. Contraceptive Tech is a well-respected resource among family planning providers. Clinical Gynecology Endocrinology & Infertility, another well-respected resource, also discusses the changes in the endometrium. I am sure you doc would recognize these names.

I visited Planned Parenthood:
The hormones in combination and progestin-only pills also thin the lining of the uterus. In theory, this could prevent pregnancy by interfering with implantation of a fertilized egg. But there is no scientific evidence that this occurs.
HTH!
Autumn

Thanks for the Micronor link it was exactly the sort of thing I was looking for. As Em_in_FL pointed out, going to the source is probably the best, most objective way to illustrate all functions of the birth control pill. She also mentions the wording in this information. I find the Micronor wording as slick as any other source. It is stated that this pill, among other things, changes the endometrium. You could easily pass over that without thinking through to what it implies.

I’m going to take some time to look into both Contraceptive Technology and Clinical Gynecology Endocrinology & Infertility. I’m just going to Google these things, let me know if there’s something more specific I should be typing into my computer. It should be interesting to see if they provide a fuller description of the pill’s function.

 

[Good_Daughter]

I visited Planned Parenthood:
The hormones in combination and progestin-only pills also thin the lining of the uterus. In theory, this could prevent pregnancy by interfering with implantation of a fertilized egg. But there is no scientific evidence that this occurs.
HTH!
Autumn

Sorry, I forgot to comment on this part of your post. I saw this at the Planned Parenthood site as well. It’s frustrating to read. Do you think it is just plain untrue? How in the world could you counter that claim? Provide scientific evidence that it does occur, I guess. That would take some searching.

 

[Em_in_FL]

More links…

familydoctor.org/online/famdocen/home/women/contraceptive/632.html

This contraceptive does three things. First, like regular birth control pills, the progestin-only pill makes your body “think” that you are pregnant and stops your ovary from releasing an egg. Second, the mini-pill causes changes in your uterus (where a baby grows) that makes your uterus is less likely to let a pregnancy get started even if an egg is released. And third, the progestin-only pill thickens the mucus between your uterus and your vagina. (The vagina is the passageway from the uterus to the outside of the body.) Sperm have a hard time getting through the thick mucus to reach the egg.

health.yahoo.com/topic/birthcontrol/medications/article/healthwise/te7775

How It Works
Progestin-only birth control methods, including pills (called “mini-pills”) and shots, prevent the ovaries from releasing an egg (ovulation), thicken mucus at the cervix so sperm cannot enter the uterus, and in rare cases, prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus.

rxlist.com/cgi/generic/norethin_cp.htm

MODE OF ACTION​

ORTHO MICRONOR progestin-only oral contraceptives prevent conception by suppressing ovulation in approximately half of users, thickening the cervical mucus to inhibit sperm penetration, lowering the midcycle LH and FSH peaks, slowing the movement of the ovum through the fallopian tubes, and altering the endometrium.

 

[astegallrnc]

Contraceptive Technology and Clinical Gynecology Endocrinology & Infertility.

These are texts, so I am not sure how much you will find online.

Do you think it is just plain untrue? How in the world could you counter that claim? Provide scientific evidence that it does occur, I guess. That would take some searching

The statement from Planned Parenthood is true. There is no scientific proof that the alteration in the endometrium prevents implantation. The changes in the endometrium as a result of the suppression on gonadotropins are well-documented, but what happens to the endometrium in ovulatory pill cycles? Keep in mind there has never been a study designed to collect direct evidence. IMO, there is strong indirect evidence. Here are some links
polycarp.org/how_does_the_pill_work.htm
aaplog.org/collition.htm
archfami.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/9/2/126?ijkey=83c024b5b94fd072b4edeed3770d5c0e90a539df

 

[Bobby_Jim]

Sorry, I forgot to comment on this part of your post. I saw this at the Planned Parenthood site as well. It’s frustrating to read. Do you think it is just plain untrue? How in the world could you counter that claim? Provide scientific evidence that it does occur, I guess. That would take some searching.

It wouldn’t surprise me that there have been no controlled scientific studies. It would involve tracking a large group of women taking this pill, confirming ovulation (perhaps by ultrasound) and fertilization, and then determining whether the fertilized egg does not implant. This is tricky because I think the standard hormone-based pregnancy test measures a hormone released after implantation. I don’t know if there is a reliable way to detect whether fertilization has occurred prior to implantation. Anyway, you would also have to demonstrate that conception without implantation happens more frequently in the women taking the pill than in women taking a placebo (because non-implantation of a fertilized egg may happen naturally on occasion). And the women involved in this very invasive study wouldn’t know whether they were taking the pill or a placebo, which from a pro-chemical-family-planning point of view would be unacceptable.

Another way to look at it is… who’s going to fund such a difficult study? It would have to be a sufficiently long-term study with enough women that they observe sufficient conception events in the group taking the pill to observe what may be an infrequent occurrence, with monthly office visits and ultrasound & blood tests to detect ovulation and pregnancy. Costs to administer something like this would be in the millions. A pro-life organization wouldn’t fund a study that involves half the group using contraception. A pro-chemical-contraception organization wouldn’t want a study to definitively prove a point that may dissuade people from using chemical contraception, because for 95% of people it’s sufficient to say “in theory… but this has never been scientifically proven.” I don’t think the federal government (NIH) is interested in such matters either.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

My apologies if I’ve posted this on the wrong forum.

I understand the birth control pill has abortifacient properties and I base this understanding on the information supplied by the Couple to Couple League which I believe to be reliable.

I would like to share this information with those I meet who are pro-life but also pro-contraception. Some of these people are Catholic, but some are not. Can anyone provide a reputable, preferably secular source for such information. The insert I checked in a friend’s prescription, surprisingly, contained no such information.

I would also like to provide my (pro-choice) doctor with a source to inform her how birth control pills really work. She assured me the new pills work only by suppressing ovulation which I know is untrue.

The key is to show your doctor data not opinions, do you have such data?

 

[astegallrnc]

This is a good explanation about the lack of direct evidence from the article Birth Control Pill: Abortifacient and Contraceptive:

The authors repeatedly state that no scientific proof has appeared in the medical literature demonstrating that the pill is abortifacient. They are correct. The reason is that such proof would require collecting, fixing, staining, and serially sectioning all vaginal contents from mid-cycle through menstruation and demonstrating the presence of an early embryo. No one has the time, money or motivation for such an undertaking. In addition, would such a study be morally permissible? We think not. Attempting to prove that any mechanism causes the death of an innocent human individual is an assault on the fifth commandment

.

 

[Good_Daughter]

The key is to show your doctor data not opinions, do you have such data?

I agree with you wholeheartedly. Thanks to a couple posters in this thread, I think I’ve got the data I need.

 

[Good_Daughter]

These are texts, so I am not sure how much you will find online.

The statement from Planned Parenthood is true. There is no scientific proof that the alteration in the endometrium prevents implantation. The changes in the endometrium as a result of the suppression on gonadotropins are well-documented, but what happens to the endometrium in ovulatory pill cycles? Keep in mind there has never been a study designed to collect direct evidence. IMO, there is strong indirect evidence. Here are some links
polycarp.org/how_does_the_pill_work.htm
aaplog.org/collition.htm
archfami.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/9/2/126?ijkey=83c024b5b94fd072b4edeed3770d5c0e90a539df

Thanks for saving me a futile on-line search! I really appreciate all the information you’ve supplied as well as the many links form Em_in_FL. You guys are incredibly helpful.

Personally, while I’m glad to know about the lack of scientific evidence for the pill ever having acted as an abortifacient, I’m content with its potential to do so ruling it out as a good tool for family planning. I continue to struggle with the way many Christians are willing to take such chances with regards to innocent human life. All I ask of my doctor is that she respect my reluctance to use a method of family planning that could conflict with my belief in right-to-life of innocent, preborn humans.

Thanks to all who responded.