Abortifacient Birth Control Pills and Gynecologists Opine

William F. Colliton, Jr., M.D., FACOG
Clinical Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology George Washington University Medical Center writes a very Scientific and Scholarly article on Birth Control Pills entitled "Birth Control Pill: Abortifacient and Contraceptive" found at the website American Association of Pro Life Obstettricians and Gynecologists.  Here are salient excerpts:

• We recognize our own sinful natures and are not insensitive to the real difficulty of admitting that one might possibly be wrong. One of us (WFC., Jr.) was for several years convinced that labeling birth control pills as abortifacient was the work of an extremist right wing medical conspiracy. Only on entering into a serious study of the matter did he become convinced of the error of his ways. We also believe that we have a God whose love for all of us is immeasurable, unqualified, and unchanging. If you are good enough for Him, you surely must qualify for our love.

• We also desire to contribute to the debate and witness to the medical and scientific facts that demonstrate the abortifacient nature of the hormonal contraceptives. The signatories are all specialists in obstetrics and gynecology, many with sub-specialty interests. Many are or have been on the faculties of teaching institutions.

• simple logic demands that those who respect the sanctity of human life from fertilization until natural death should also respect those actions which give rise to that life. They were designed by the same Creator who infuses the soul into each and every new conceptus.

• As 1 Samuel 2:6 informs us; "The Lord puts to death and gives life."

• First, it is important to realize that there exists a large cohort of physicians currently leading our profession in the big lie. These doctors are writing and speaking across the whole nation, selling the idea that the BCP, the IUD, the "morning after pills", so-called "emergency contraception", are not abortifacient.

• "Most (virtually all) literature dealing with hormonal contraception ascribes a three-fold action to these agents. 1. inhibition of ovulation, 2. inhibition of sperm transport, and 3. production of a "hostile endometrium", which presumably prevents or disrupts implantation of the developing baby if the first two mechanisms fail. The first two mechanisms are true contraception. The third proposed mechanism, IF it in fact occurs, would be abortifacient.

• "What is the precise language appearing in the Physician's Desk Reference (PDR) with regard to these agents? "Ortho-Novum: …a progestational effect on the endometrium, interfering with implantation." "Norinyl: …alterations in …the endometrium (which reduce the likelihood of implantation)." The authors follow with a long harangue against the drug manufacturers use of the term "hostile endometrium". Perhaps they should be calling them to task, rather than the right-to-life community.  

• ....Representative of Ortho-McNeil. "On March 24, 1997, I had a lengthy and enlightening talk with Richard Hill, a pharmacist who works for Ortho-McNeil's product information department. (Ortho-McNeil is one of the largest Pill Manufacturers.) I took detailed notes.... 

• "I asked him, 'Does the Pill sometimes fail to prevent ovulation?' He said 'yes'. I asked, 'What happens then?' He said, 'The cervical mucus slows down the sperm. And if that doesn't work, if you end up with a fertilized egg, it won't implant and grow because of the less hospitable endometrium.'

   

• "I then asked Hill if he was certain the pill made implantation less likely. 'Oh yes,' he replied. I said, ' So you don't think this is just a theoretical effect of the Pill?' He said the following, which I draw directly from my extensive notes of our conversation.

  "Oh, no, it's not theoretical. It's observable. We know what an endometrium looks like when it's rich and most receptive to the fertilized egg. When the woman is taking the Pill, you can clearly see the difference, based both on gross appearance - as seen with the naked eye - and under a microscope. At the time when the endometrium would normally accept a fertilized egg, if a woman is taking the Pill it is much less likely to do so." 

   

• 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.  

• "Is there actual clinical evidence of early miscarriage in pill users? They note that the typical clinical picture of spontaneous abortion (heavy bleeding, severe cramping, passage of tissue) is rarely, if ever seen by practicing physicians caring for patients on the pill. They seem to overlook the facts that the abortions caused by the BCP occur when the baby is 5 to 14-16 days old and that the lining of the uterus is "less vascular, less glandular, thinner" than normal as they described it. From the clinical perspective, one would anticipate, just as in over 60% of ectopic pregnancies, a non-event. From the moral perspective, however, it is quite another story. What we are witnessing here is a tragic loss of God's children, totally innocent and made in His image. It is well to also remember that, from the moral perspective, the numbers don't matter. If one child is lost, the tragedy isn't lessened. Following this, the authors ask;... 

   

• Mother Teresa (Lord, rest her) addressed the National Prayer Breakfast in 1994. At one point she stated; "But I feel the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because Jesus said, 'If you receive a little child , you receive me.' So every abortion is the denial of receiving Jesus, the neglect of receiving Jesus." Peggy Noonan reported in CRISIS, Feb. 1998, pp. 12-17, the following. "Well, silence. Cool deep silence in the cool round cavern for just about 1.3 seconds. And then applause started on the right hand side of the room, and spread, and deepened, and now the room was swept with people applauding, and they would not stop for what I believe was five or six minutes. As they clapped they began to stand, in another wave from right of the room to the center and the left."  

• Chris Kahlenborn, M.D., a young internist from Kettering, OH. Dr. Kahlenborn is currently on sabbatical and writing a book entitled Understanding the Link Between Abortion, Breast Cancer and the Pill. One of his references clearly indicates that even the pro-abortionists recognize that the pill is abortifacient.    

• The New York Times of Thursday, April 27, 1989 carried a transcript of the oral arguments in the Supreme Court case of Webster v. Reproductive Health Services. On pB13 the following dialogue between Frank Susman, lawyer for the Missouri abortion clinics and Justice Scalia appears: "Mr. Susman …For better or worse, there no longer exists any bright line between the fundamental right that was established in Griswold and the fundamental right of abortion that was established in Roe. These two rights, because of advances in medicine and science, now overlap. They coalesce and merge and they are not distinct. Justice Scalia Excuse me, you find it hard to draw a line between those two but easy to draw a line between (the) first, second and third trimester. Mr. Susman I do not find it difficult --- Justice Scalia I don't see why a court that can draw that line can't separate abortion from birth control quite readily. Mr. Susman If I may suggest the reasons in response to your question, Justice Scalia. The most common forms of what we most generally in common parlance call contraception today, IUD's, low-dose birth control pills, which are the safest type of birth control pills available, act as abortifacients. They are correctly labeled as both. 

• Here is the entire article for you own edification http://www.aaplog.org/collition.htm

 

---

Don't pick lemons.
See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos.