The Chicago Tribune ran a story on June 20 focused on the incredibly important point: How does the morning after pill work, i.e., is it an abortifacient?
The story had many refreshingly correct components, properly laying out the science of the debate. I was particularly pleased when it pointed out that pro-abortion medical organizations like the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists say pregnancy does not begin until implantation, which completely undermines their assertion that the morning after pill does not kill a baby.
The Trib just couldn’t resist advancing its liberal agenda, however, which was to thrust that some scientists believe the morning after pill does not stop a 5-9 day old embryo from implanting in the uterus. This was evidenced by the headlines used. The front page headline was….
Pharmacists for Life’s “Kemical Killing” links to numerous studies of the modes of action of the morning after pill.
“‘Morning-after pill’ not abortion, scientists say.”
Compare that headline to Billings Gazette’s, which posted the same story the next day: “‘Morning-after pill’ debate lies in details.” Much fairer.
Further, the subtitle on the Tribune’s second page of the story was, “FDA adviser changed mind on ‘Plan B’,” which completely misrepresented the facts:
Some doctors opposed to Plan B on moral grounds now concede that it appears to work primarily by stopping ovulation.
One of them is Dr. W. David Hager, a Bush appointee to an FDA advisory council who played a role last year in blocking the approval of Plan B for over-the-counter sales.
Hager said his opposition stemmed from concerns about its health effects on young women and girls, not about any potential to harm embryos.
“My feeling is that the principal method of action is to prevent ovulation,” said Hager, an abortion foe and professor of gynecology and obstetrics at the University of Kentucky. But Hager said it’s still possible that Plan B sometimes prevents an embryo from gaining a foothold.
Dr. Hager “changed his mind”? About what?