Pro-aborts stumble into sinking sand while seeking "common ground"

In June 2009 the Ted Turner funded pro-abortion website RH Reality Check launched "On Common Ground," an attempt to bridge the abortion divide.

Its impetus, penned by then editor Scott Swenson, speaks of a naive time that seems so long ago and far away, although it was only last year:

obama hope and change logo.jpg

In so many ways, the election of President Obama is viewed through a lens of its healing potential....

President Obama is asking Americans to seek common ground on one of the most controversial issues of our time, abortion....

Is it possible that in President Obama's election, Americans have a chance to heal the body politic from the divisiveness the abortion issue has caused for a generation or more?...

We believe RH Reality Check is well positioned to expand this dialog to be more inclusive while holding to our progressive roots and respecting those who believe differently but genuinely seek common ground....

It turned out that for all of Obama's schtick, he actually had a radical pro-abort agenda planned, which pro-lifers anticipated, which has only turned those in the middle off and our way, which pro-lifers didn't necessarily anticipate.

Add to that the "groundswell" of pro-life laws being passed on the state level, and the pro-abort call for "common ground" is almost laughable in retrospect.

It was all a PR ploy anyway, to appear reasonable while advancing the pro-abort agenda. RH Reality Check invited pro-life and pro-abortion thinkers to explore areas where they thought the 2 sides could work together.

But of 15 contributors, only 2 had pro-life credentials - Kristen Day of Democrats for Life and Serrin Foster of Feminists for Life (who each only submitted 1 post over the course of 9 months, here and here).

obama notre dame abortion irreconcilable.jpgI don't fault well-intentioned people for seeking common ground on a multitude of issues.

The problem with abortion and all its tentacles is the divide is ideological, and so, as Obama admitted in his Notre Dame speech, the divide is "irreconcilable." This, it seems to me, makes "common ground" impossible.

So, no real surprise, Rh Reality Check aborted the "On Common Ground" project in March, 9 months after its inception, coincidentally.

The problem with a pro-abort site attempting to moderate what "common ground" connotates was apparent in moderator Christina Page's farewell:

[W]e heard from many pro-lifers in favor of contraception and willing to break with the right wing anti-abortion, anti-contraception establishment in favor of a sensible approach to prevention....

[M]any pro-lifers in this forum questioned the Republican grip on the pro-life establishment and it's opposition to progressive policies, like universal health insurance....

It' pretty bad when the pro-abort moderator of a "common ground" site can't even recognize her own inflammatory verbiage. And when the only "common ground" concepts allowed are those pro-aborts condone but 90% of pro-lifers oppose - more money to Planned Parenthood to push the failed contraception mentality, for instance, or Obamacare, it's no wonder the attempt failed.

But we shall see. Page announced a new site, CommonGroundwork.com, to be co-moderated by a to-be-named pro-lifer, would "go live this Spring, a fitting time for its rebirth." I just checked, and the site is not yet live, although summer doesn't commence for another 2 weeks. It will be interesting, if and when it does, to see who the pro-lifer is.

common groundwork.png


Comments:

I could be wrong, but my guess is that it's Steve Wagner of Justice For All.

Steve takes a very serious approach to establishing common ground in a fair manner.

His excellent book "Common Ground Without Compromise" brings up many solid thought provoking questions that work towards a serious dialogue. The end result is to exhibit and explore behaviors and convey understandings that are founded on solid evidence.

Should be interesting.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at June 7, 2010 9:59 AM


Well...good luck with that, I always say. But for "common ground" to work, both sides have to agree on Common Definition of terms first.

basing on past and current play of words, I don't think the "other" side will want to use the true meaning of terms.

Posted by: RSD at June 7, 2010 11:17 AM


There is no common ground or negotiating with those who murder babies.

Period.

Posted by: David at June 7, 2010 11:40 AM


I think Josh Brahm is another very realistic possibility.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at June 7, 2010 11:47 AM


The common ground aspect is what one can start with in a discussion with a pro-abort. The discussion progresses in a hopefully logical fashion until they often will admit that they are more pro-life than they thought. It's not an argument that compromises the pro-life view and agrees in the pro-aborts idea that it's OK to kill an unborn baby.

Posted by: Monte at June 7, 2010 12:54 PM


People who are "pro-life" as I am are not all a bunch of uber conservative republicans (I'm a registered Democrat) marching in some kind of step! We don't break with this or break with that. Such a concept is wishful thinking on the part of pro-aborts. They think if they play with language enough, they will sway more people. I doubt it. Now that families are sharing their ultra-sound pictures with each other (even on facebook) and naming children earlier during pregnancy because the sex can be determined (a name is very humanizing!) abortions days are numbered. Maybe it will take a long time to heal the mindset of people who think you can justify child murder, but life will triumph.

Posted by: ninek at June 7, 2010 1:09 PM


Jill, I think it's great that you've addressed this. I've read many of the articles that Page has written. She says that "prevention" will be a key aspect of her "common ground" approach, so the pro-life side of commongroundwork.com will presumably come out in support of it.

There is a problem with this, though. The birth control pill and abortion are effectively the same thing. Page basically makes a living off of trying to trick pro-lifers into supporting the birth control pill. How do you suggest we deal with the popular misconception that there's a difference between the birth control pill and abortion? We need to, badly.

The medical community changed the definitions of the words "pregnancy," "conception," and "abortion" right around the time that the birth control pill was released. I don't think we should call the birth control pill "abortion," because they'll just say we're not using the medical definition, and that argument will just be a big waste of time. I think we should make a point of saying that the birth control pill is not substantially different from abortion with respect to its lethality.

Another problem emerges. The birth control is more popular than abortion, so it is actually the most popular method of killing - abortion comes in second place. As radical as this sounds, I think we need to stop talking about "abortion." We need a new term that encompasses all four methods of killing, including the birth control pill, stem cell research, and IVF. Whenever we describe ourselves as being "opposed to abortion," we're just further ingraining the popular misconception that abortion is the only or most popular method of killing. It is not, the birth control pill is, and our discourse needs to reflect this.

Basically, I think we need to stop talking about "abortion" and do everything we can to raise awareness of the fact that not only is the birth control pill no different from abortion, it probably kills more. It is certainly the more common and preferred method of killing.

This is a popular pro-life blog. Seeing as you also write for WND, you should use both to write about the similarity between the birth control pill and abortion.

Ultimately, though, you have a much, much larger audience thatn I do, so it's really up to you. How do you think we should address this popular misconception?

Posted by: Austin Nedved at June 7, 2010 1:21 PM


Well, folks, I for one am going to take a look at the website, and give it a chance . . .

Posted by: phillymiss at June 7, 2010 1:44 PM


Yes, we should give it a chance and all that, but the second they start advocating hormonal contraception to "reduce abortion," we run.

Posted by: Austin Nedved at June 7, 2010 1:52 PM


Austin, FYI I write on that topic quite often: http://www.jillstanek.com/contraception/. Thanks for commenting. Hope you stick around!

Posted by: Jill Stanek Author Profile Page at June 7, 2010 2:12 PM


The "morning-after pill" can defintely act as an abortifacient; its manufacturers admit it. But as to the regular pill, the evidence is inconsistent. http://www.aaplog.org/?page_id=226

And of course, non-hormonal contraception like condoms has no potential to cause an abortion, so that's a possible common ground area.

Posted by: Kelsey at June 7, 2010 2:18 PM


Jill, I contributed regular columns to On Common Ground, and I have PLENTY of prolife credentials. So, why do i not count as prolife when I have the following:

--Working for almost 25 years in various capacities--advocacy, clinical social work, nonprofit board membership--to ensure that women and children have other and better avenues open to them instead of abortion; most recently as co-founder of All Our Lives, www.allourlives.org

--Co-editing the book ProLife Feminism Yesterday & Today and researching early feminism on abortion and genuine reproductive rights

--Most of all, going through the unplanned pregnancy from hell and raising my learning disabled kid to adulthood; helping her before, during, and ever after the birth of her own child...but I suppose none of that counts, does it?!

Posted by: Mary Krane Derr at June 7, 2010 3:17 PM


Oh, and giving my grandbaby's parents daily respites when he spent months in the ICU for treatment of a congenital disability...I suppose that doesn't count as prolife, either.

My On Common Ground posts are here:
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2765

Posted by: Mary Krane Derr at June 7, 2010 3:27 PM


Mary Krane Derr, you absolutely ARE pro-life. Perhaps that's why RH Reality Check doesn't have your profile listed! The fifteen names that Jill was working with are:
1) Sarah Brown
2) Kristen Day
3) Serrin Foster
4) David P. Gushee
5) Debra W. Haffner
6) Taylor Hirth
7) Chris Korzen
8) Rachel Laser
9) Corinna Lohser
10) Cristina Page
11) Jane Roberts
12) Stephen F. Schneck
13) Raymond A. Schroth
14) Sarah Stoetz
15) Steven Waldman

From that list, Jill had no way of knowing that you were a contributor. Please don't take it personally. I love your work, and I'll bet I'm not the only one! :)

Posted by: Kelsey at June 7, 2010 3:37 PM


Nothing to see here. "...what fellowhip can light have with darkness?" 2 Corinthians 6:14 Nope. Nothing to see here.

Posted by: Jody Ward at June 7, 2010 3:52 PM


Kelsey: you've got it backwards. The morning after pill probably doesn't prevent implantation. The birth control pill, on the other hand, very likely does.

I looked at the pro-contraception research on the AAPLOG website. Quoting that research:

In order to classify COCs as an abortifacient, several things must exist:

1) Conceptions must occur.
2) The abortive effect must be present with proper use as prescribed. [emphasis mine]
3) Loss of these conceptions must exceed the base-line loss for populations not using this substance, or be shown to occur due solely to the medication itself, and not other known factors.
4) The abortive effect should be consistent and reproducible by multiple independent observers.

[...]

Decision making on the part of a physician prescribing a medicine assumes that the patient will be compliant with the prescribing orders. In our discussion on hormonal contraceptives, patient compliance will be assumed.

They're assuming perfect use, and excluding any research that takes imperfect use into consideration. This is very suspicious. (Also, they're assuming that the anti-contraception side must prove that the birth control pill is lethal in order for it to be classified as an abortifacient.)

There is a difference between perfect and imperfect use, though. From the research published by the AMA:

It seems likely that for perfect use of COCs, postfertilization mechanisms would be likely to have a small but not negligible role. For POPs, COCs with lower doses of estrogen, and imperfect use of any OCs, postfertilization effects are likely to have an increased role.

The evidence is inconclusive for perfect use, but for imperfect use, it is likely to be lethal.

Your point is interesting because it reflects a widespread and extremely dangerous misconception among pro-lifers and the general public. Many people think that the morning after pill is lethal, whereas the birth control pill is not; in reality, it's the other way around. There are several reasons why this misconception exists.

Politically, the morning after pill is an easier target. Fewer people use it. Also, it's new, and it hasn't been accepted in the way that the birth control pill has, so it's an easier target still. But there is one more reason that people are willing to believe this: they want to.

People don't want to believe that the birth control pill is lethal, for obvious reasons, so as soon as they hear "it's the morning after pill that's deadly, not the birth control pill," they believe it. This tendency among pro-lifers is disheartening, to say the least.

It needs to change. This widespread false belief needs to be addressed. This brings me back to a point I made in my earlier comment about the "common groundwork" website. Our opponents are going to try as hard as they possibly can to ingrain this misconception, because for them, it's extremely convenient. If they can fool the public into believing that the birth control pill is different from abortion, they've got bipartisan support for contraception. If they can't fool the public, and the truth comes to light, the birth control pill will be threatened in the way that abortion is now.

They don't want the truth to be known. We do, and that obviously gives us an advantage. You have a much wider audience, assuming that you actually blog for secularprolife.org as your URL suggests. A post detailing the deception and attacking the popular misconceptions surrounding the birth control pill, abortion, and the morning after pill would be extremely helpful in this regard.

Posted by: Austin Nedved at June 7, 2010 4:05 PM


Mary Krane Derr, you absolutely ARE pro-life. Perhaps that's why RH Reality Check doesn't have your profile listed!

I don't mean to be rude, but she really isn't. Quoting one of Derr's common ground posts:

Why don't these avowedly neutral organizations instead develop pregnancy prevention strategies that truly represent the full range of prolife views on prevention, including those of the pro-birth control majority? Why don't such groups at the very least strongly assert women's human right to freedom of conscience in pregnancy prevention?

Derr supports hormonal contraception. That is incompatible with the pro-life position. Since this is filed under "common ground" at RH Reality Check, and Page's new website is going to be affiliated with RH Reality Check, it's a safe bet that she will present pro-lifers as supporting the birth control pill. In other words, commongroundwork.com will be a pro-choice site with pro-life puppets. It will be an intellectually dishonest propaganda campaign.

Posted by: Austin Nedved at June 7, 2010 4:17 PM


Sorry Austin, but I have a hard time taking seriously someone who finds the factual statement that life begins at conception "absurd."

Posted by: Kelsey at June 7, 2010 4:17 PM


Sorry Austin, but I have a hard time taking seriously someone who finds the factual statement that life begins at conception "absurd."

What do you mean?

Posted by: Austin Nedved at June 7, 2010 4:21 PM


The link you provided on the morning-after pill. The author of the article says that the idea that life begins at fertilization is "absurd."

Posted by: Kelsey at June 7, 2010 4:26 PM


The link you provided on the morning-after pill. The author of the article says that the idea that life begins at fertilization is "absurd."

My point is, the evidence is inconclusive. We don't know one way or another. It is more likely that the birth control pill works that way. In any case, the morning after pill hasn't been conclusively proven to be safe according to the same standards we would use to judge any other drug, so it's something we're going to oppose.

But we need to focus a great deal of attention on the birth control pill. Since the medical community doesn't define it as abortion, we need to change the discourse and stop talking about "abortion." The current "abortion" discourse is far too limited; the treshold for the term is far too low. Foucault would be dissapointed in us for trying to frame our position the way we do. We need to get to work.

Posted by: Austin Nedved at June 7, 2010 4:47 PM


Hi Mary,

Sorry, as Kelsey noted, you may have contributed to "On Common Ground" but were not listed as a contributor.

That said, I've perused some of your work and thinking, and much of it sounds great. But some of it makes me uncomfortable, such as your promotion of The Global MOMS Act (http://www.allourlives.org/node/28), introduced by pro-abort Rep. Lois Capps, who has a 100% approval rating from NARAL, and cosponsored by a potpourri of renown Democrat pro-aborts such as Rosa DeLauro, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Jan Schakowsky, and John Conyers.

Mary, are you pegged to be the pro-life cosponsor of the new CommonGroundwork.com website? Also, do you work or have you worked with any mainstream pro-life groups?

Thanks.

Posted by: Jill Stanek Author Profile Page at June 7, 2010 4:56 PM


Austin, you do not simply sound rude--you *are* rude, to say I'm not prolife. How dare you say that to someone who went through everything I did to give my child life. Shame on you.

Posted by: Mary Krane Derr at June 7, 2010 5:17 PM


Austin, you do not simply sound rude--you *are* rude, to say I'm not prolife. How dare you say that to someone who went through everything I did to give my child life. Shame on you.

I'm impressed with both the personal sacrifices you've made and the work you've done for other people. Very few people choose to carry a disabled baby to term. But the problem is, you support the birth control pill. You support expanding access to drugs that kill unborn children. I'm sorry, but no amount of personal sacrifice can change that.

Posted by: Austin Nedved at June 7, 2010 5:22 PM


--I don't mean to be rude, but she really isn't.--

Austin, I *am*, and you *are* being rude.

How dare you say a woman who has been through what i have to give life to my own child and grandchild, and who is so committed to creating alternatives to abortion, for so many years, is not prolife!

When you have gone and done the same, maybe then *you* will be qualified to determine whether I am prolife or not!!

Posted by: Mary Krane Derr at June 7, 2010 5:22 PM


Jill writes:

--I've perused some of your work and thinking, and much of it sounds great. But some of it makes me uncomfortable, such as your promotion of The Global MOMS Act (http://www.allourlives.org/node/28), introduced by pro-abort Rep. Lois Capps, who has a 100% approval rating from NARAL, and cosponsored by a potpourri of renown Democrat pro-aborts such as Rosa DeLauro, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Jan Schakowsky, and John Conyers.

Mary, are you pegged to be the pro-life cosponsor of the new CommonGroundwork.com website? Also, do you work or have you worked with any mainstream pro-life groups?

Thanks.--

What do you mean by "mainstream"?

I am glad that you like a lot of what I am trying to say.

As for the Global MOMS Act and other common ground legislation--well, I look at this way. I am a pacifist, and not happy about the institutions of the military and war. But I do know that there are in fact people within the military who, even as they consider war an option, would prefer to avert it.

So, if they have some good ideas for preventing war, I am willing to listen, and even join them in carrying out some proposal. Even as I disagree with them about the rest.

I look upon many prochoice people in the same way. And that's why I doon't call them pro aborts, because they really do believe in abortion as a choice among many.

Me, I can't look upon prenatal lifetaking in that way...humans have no right to take life at any stage. but i understand that this is their motivation, as they see it--regardless of whether i agree.

Posted by: Mary Krane Derr at June 7, 2010 5:33 PM


--I'm impressed with both the personal sacrifices you've made and the work you've done for other people. Very few people choose to carry a disabled baby to term. But the problem is, you support the birth control pill. You support expanding access to drugs that kill unborn children. I'm sorry, but no amount of personal sacrifice can change that.--

Oh, those personal sacrifices of mine have merely saved and improved some precious lives--how trivial, how dismissable!! Maybe to you, but not to me and not to the human beings I have done my best to help.

I have a life science/health care background. I have carefully evaluated the evidence on hormonal contraception and find it highly, highly unlikely that it acts after fertilization.

And I have to wonder why people whose knickers get all twisted over the pill are often so indifferent or even hostile to opposing environmental toxins with very clear mechanisms of action that hurt and kill unborn children, already-born children, and women...maybe it is because women are not using said compounds to enjoy sex while significantly reducing their chances of conception?

I became infertile in my 20s because of endometriosis, clearly linked to the pollutant dioxin. Luckily I didn't have any miscarriages from it, but a lot of women do. Where are all the pill denouncers when *those* women and babies need them?

Posted by: Mary Krane Derr at June 7, 2010 5:45 PM


For the record, I'm not the pro-lifer who's been invited to co-moderate the common ground website, but I would have been honored to be asked. (And I'm grateful that I was mentioned as a possibility in the comments.)

I think there needs to be more discussion in the pro-life community about what common ground means. I've seen some pro-life bloggers write that common ground on abortion is impossible, but I think that they mean something different when they say "common ground" than Steve Wagner does in his book.

Posted by: Josh Brahm at June 7, 2010 5:45 PM


For what it's worth, based on the research I've seen, Austin is correct that regular birth control pills are more likely to be abortifacient than the morning after pill.

I also think it's an overstatement to say that birth control pills are definitely abortifacients, because that research is still inconclusive. (As much as I respect Randy Alcorn.) It's a strong possibility, but it's not a for sure thing.

Doesn't mean we should take the pills. (Since they might cause abortions, better safe than sorry.) I'm just advising us not to overstate our case, and then possibly look like idiots if research is done that once and for all proves that birth control pills never did cause early abortions. And if the research is done that proves birth control pills do cause abortions, I'll be glad to talk about it.

Posted by: Josh Brahm at June 7, 2010 5:51 PM


I would have loved had Josh been invited to host the new CommonGroundwork.com website!

Mary, by "mainstream" I meant such groups as National Right to Life, Americans United for Life, American Life League, Priests for Life, etc.

So Mary, are you planned to be the pro-life moderator on the new site?

Posted by: Jill Stanek Author Profile Page at June 7, 2010 5:54 PM


Mary, about the Global MOMS Act, the sponsor and cosponsors - and missing cosponsors - really tells us what we need to know. This is no "common ground" legislation. I can assure you without even knowing anything about the bill that there is a hidden agenda, such as plans to funnel money to abortion groups like Planned Parenthood.

Posted by: Jill Stanek Author Profile Page at June 7, 2010 6:01 PM


I'm just advising us not to overstate our case, and then possibly look like idiots if research is done that once and for all proves that birth control pills never did cause early abortions.

As far as looking foolish, I'm more concerned with referring to those deaths caused by the pill as "abortions." The medical community redefined the term "abortion" when the pill was released so that the deaths it caused would not be called abortions. This is frusturating, but we need to go along with this. We look foolish calling it "abortion" when the medical community no longer uses that term to describe it. Pro-choicers will just respond to our claim that hormonal contraception is abortion by saying "that's not how the medical community defines the term," and then our claim will look pseudoscientific, even though it's not.

And if the research is done that proves birth control pills do cause abortions, I'll be glad to talk about it.

It probably is lethal. We need to raise awareness of this! I would never claim with certainty that it is, but that's not the point. The point is that OCPs are a drug that are in all likelihood killing a massive number of innocent people every year. We are pro life. We need to be loud about this.

Posted by: Austin Nedved at June 7, 2010 6:16 PM


Out of curiosity, I double checked my sex psychology textbook on birth control thing. It outright says, with reference to any birth control pills that contain progestin, "Progestin also causes changes in the lining of the uterus, making it less receptive to implantation by a fertilized egg."* So, yeah. I think that pretty much says it.


* This is page 311 of the 9th edition to Our Sexuality by Robert Crooks and Karla Baur, if anyone's curious.

Posted by: Keli Hu at June 7, 2010 6:23 PM


I have a life science/health care background. I have carefully evaluated the evidence on hormonal contraception and find it highly, highly unlikely that it acts after fertilization.

What evidence do you have to back this statement up? What sort of research have you done? Are you assuming perfect use?

maybe it is because women are not using said compounds to enjoy sex while significantly reducing their chances of conception?

Yep, she's a liberal feminist masquerading as a pro-lifer. What did I tell you?

Posted by: Austin Nedved at June 7, 2010 6:23 PM


--Mary, by "mainstream" I meant such groups as National Right to Life, Americans United for Life, American Life League, Priests for Life, etc.--

These are mainstream? it's not mainstream to oppose contraception ot the point of interfering with other people's right to use it, or to not have a large platform of measures to alleviate the root causes of abortion.

--So Mary, are you planned to be the pro-life moderator on the new site?--

I cannot say who the new moderator will be.

--Mary, about the Global MOMS Act, the sponsor and cosponsors - and missing cosponsors - really tells us what we need to know. This is no "common ground" legislation. I can assure you without even knowing anything about the bill that there is a hidden agenda, such as plans to funnel money to abortion groups like Planned Parenthood.--

I'm no fool. And I support this bill.

if it designates money that Planned Parenthood can *only* use for contraceptives, for example--then OK.

How many abortions will be caused by DENYING such funding? Probably a lot.

I mena, I'd prefer that prolife groups be providing the contraception. Just like I'd prefer that peace groups be providing all the humanitarian aid in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Haiti--not the military.

But as long as the military is up to something life saving and life affirming--then the important thing, especially in very resource limited materially poor settings--is that the work is getting done.

Posted by: Mary Krane Derr at June 7, 2010 6:37 PM


The new Common Ground site sounds like the same kind of sham that the "bipartisan" health care summit was. I do not believe for a moment that a progressive group like RHRC is starting a site to seek common ground. As progressives, they are likely to be more interested in reshaping the public debate and public policy than they are in finding common ground with prolifers. It's hard for me to imagine that the site is intended for anything except to further the progressive political agenda in some way.

Posted by: Fed Up at June 7, 2010 6:43 PM


The birth control pill does change the lining of the uterus to PREVENT implantation. (Plus, I believe life begins at the very instance of conception, the very moment the sperm and the egg join together thus beginning the developmental process of a new baby) implantation is one part of the development, but it occurs AFTER conception. So life has already begun. So in that respect, yes, birth control pills act as an agent of abortion.

Dr. Chris Kahlenborn, MD has many articles out regarding the effect of the birth control pill (and abortion) on breast cancer (one such pamphlet is available here: http://omsoul.com/catalog/breast-cancer-abortion-and-the-pill-booklet-p315.html ). (Articles available: http://www.lifeissues.net/writer.php?writerID=013 --I haven't read all the doctor's articles, but I've read some of them and Dr. Kahlenborn has said there is a connection).

I know a lady who used to take the birth control pill and it affected her moods, emotions, et cetera. When she got off the pill I heard she became happier.

Posted by: Mother In Texas at June 7, 2010 6:57 PM


Ok, just a question for someone who can actually articulate exactly how the birth control pill "is not substantially different from abortion with respect to its lethality." Please do not say it "kills unborn children." Something that has not yet been conceived (and I'm talking egg meets sperm), cannot be killed, it does not exist yet. I'm pro-life, but phrases such as "killing unborn" in reference to the pill is illogical and is exactly why opponents use language as tactical ammo against us. Any takers?

Posted by: leslie at June 7, 2010 7:52 PM


Posted that a bit too quick, I meant to include that SOME, not all, and I believe a minority of birth control pills are effective because they affect the lining of the uterus and prevent implantation. MOST work by making it so that an egg is not released from the ovary, and thickening the mucus in the cervix so that sperm may not pass as easily. Just to clarify because Mother In Texas presents this issue only stating one component, of some kinds of birth controls.

Posted by: leslie at June 7, 2010 7:56 PM


---Yep, she's a liberal feminist masquerading as a pro-lifer. What did I tell you?

Posted by: Austin Nedved at June 7, 2010 6:23 PM--

I will gladly state that I am a leftist, not simply liberal. And a feminist. No shame in either one of these.

But it's shameful that you cannot recognize that I am also a prolifer, and a very dedicated one at that.

When you insist on saying it's just a masquerade, you are only betraying your lack of knowledge of what my life is and has been all about.

And causing me to wonder: Have *you* carried a child in your womb nine months against all odds, gone through 52 hours of labor, and raised her against all odds to adulthood?

Have *you* dedicated most of your waking moments as an adult to abortion alternatives?

Then don't tell me all about what a fake I am.

Posted by: Mary Krane Derr at June 7, 2010 7:58 PM


Leslie,

Mother in Texas directly above your post actually answers your question- specifically her first paragraph. Hope that makes sense.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at June 7, 2010 8:01 PM


Jill Stanek, you are doing yourself a disservice with remarks like this: I can assure you without even knowing anything about the bill that there is a hidden agenda, such as plans to funnel money to abortion groups like Planned Parenthood."
You know nothing of it, but assure someone there is a hidden agenda. Don't be another propagandist. Do the research, make the statement. And Austin, my goodness please do the same. "It probably is lethal. We need to raise awareness of this! I would never claim with certainty that it is, but that's not the point. The point is that OCPs are a drug that are in all likelihood killing a massive number of innocent people every year." You wouldn't claim with certainty, but thats not the point. Actually being able to be certain is irrelevant? It's not. Pro-aborts spew crap like "abortions probably don't have an affect on future pregnancies, but we cannot say with any certainty." Now, of course we are going to scrutinize that claim and point to the fact that they don't know, just as any common sense person would what you said. Let's smarten up guys.

Posted by: prolifeadvocate at June 7, 2010 8:03 PM


@bobby
Bobby, I read the post, and am asking for an answer in reference to when the pills are effective because they prevent an egg from being released. In cases such as that, when conception has not occurred, then what is the argument for how that is not substantially different from an abortion? Thanks.

Posted by: leslie at June 7, 2010 8:07 PM


Mary said, "I'm no fool. And I support this bill.
if it designates money that Planned Parenthood can *only* use for contraceptives, for example--then OK." No, it's not ok, Mary, on several counts.

Prolifeadvocate: You know a bill by its friends. If a supposed pro-life bill is supported by hardcore pro-aborts and no pro-lifers, I know there's something(s) wrong with it, even without reading it. I just read a list of organizations endorsing it (http://www.planetwire.org/), which include Guttmacher Institute... Ipas (which pushes the "menstrual extractor")... Marie Stopes International... Americans for UNFPA... and Planned Parenthood Federation of America. It's a bad bill with a hidden agenda. If it goes anywhere in Congress we'll learn more.

Posted by: Jill Stanek Author Profile Page at June 7, 2010 9:22 PM


Jill wrote, "It will be interesting, if and when it does, to see who the pro-lifer is."

Wanna bet they make their selection based on Alinsky Rule #13 in an effort to polarize the prolife movement?

In October 2009, Ms Page wrote, "President Obama’s still-to-be released common ground agenda in the abortion conflict is already having a profound and largely overlooked effect: it has exposed deep fault lines in the pro-life movement." My takeaway from her article is that "common ground" means fomenting division among prolife groups and fostering "a nascent pragmatic and moderate pro-life movement." Sounds like basic Saul Alinsky to me.

Jill also wrote, "It' pretty bad when the pro-abort moderator of a "common ground" site can't even recognize her own inflammatory verbiage."

I suspect she recognizes it, especially if her goal is to exploit differences among prolifers in effort to erode support from the movement as a whole.

Posted by: Fed Up at June 7, 2010 10:06 PM


And Austin, my goodness please do the same. "It probably is lethal. We need to raise awareness of this! I would never claim with certainty that it is, but that's not the point. The point is that OCPs are a drug that are in all likelihood killing a massive number of innocent people every year." You wouldn't claim with certainty, but thats not the point. Actually being able to be certain is irrelevant? It's not.

Of course it's irrelevant, at least to our position on the birth control pill. If we can't prove that OCPs aren't lethal by the same standards that we prove that drugs we use aren't lethal to us, we oppose it every bit as much as we oppose abortion. Quit making stupid excuses for yourself.

When you insist on saying it's just a masquerade, you are only betraying your lack of knowledge of what my life is and has been all about.

And causing me to wonder: Have *you* carried a child in your womb nine months against all odds, gone through 52 hours of labor, and raised her against all odds to adulthood?

Have *you* dedicated most of your waking moments as an adult to abortion alternatives?

Then don't tell me all about what a fake I am.

I'm talking about your politics, not what you've done as a person. I think what you've done as an individual is great, but you are trying to expand access to a drug that may very well be killing an absolutely massive number of innocent people every year. I'm not interested in labels here. Suffice it to say that you and I are not on the same side.

Posted by: Austin Nedved at June 7, 2010 10:34 PM


Mary Krane Derr
God bless you and your daughter.

Posted by: myrtle miller at June 8, 2010 7:03 AM


Dangit,

We the people have found common ground. Restrict, Restrict, Restrict. Every dad gum survey shows only some 20% support the current totally unrestricted norm. We want late term severely restricted. We want teens to have parental consent. Etc. Etc.

However the gov't and abortion provider lobby groups don't want any restrictions whatever.

So Obama just is saying blah, blah, blah. He is not a liberal. Face it. He is a special interest bought and sold politician. He says he will close Gitmo but doesn't. All these people like Helen Thomas and Obama are not liberals. They are all just in it to enrich themselves by selling out to the highest bidder.

Bush=Obama

In fact, Bush in some ways was actually more liberal than Obama.
Bush was more open to opposing views and working with the opposition than Obama.

Posted by: hippie at June 8, 2010 8:47 AM


Jill writes:

--You know a bill by its friends.--

Well, then, show me the Global MOMS bill that is endorsed by all the prolife groups. There isn't one.

Because the prolife movement as such is quite narrowly focused on making abortion illegal, rather than doing its damnedest, in deed as well as word, to make it feel a whole lot less like the only "choice" for women in many grave circumstances--which, if women were treated as fully equal human beings rather than secondary appendages to their unborn children, would be at the very center of the organized prolife movement.

yes, I know, there are CPCs, i've worked for some.

but private charitable efforts while needed take care of only a small part of the need. and cpcs rely heavily on public commitments to resources like medicaid and wic.

Posted by: Mary Krane Derr at June 8, 2010 12:48 PM


"if women were treated as fully equal human beings"

Legalized abortion promised this! What happened?!! Hasn't enough time passed yet?

None of us will be treated as fully equal humans beings until ALL of us are treated as fully equal human beings.

Mary, sorry but you've been duped.

Posted by: Praxedes at June 8, 2010 1:00 PM


Austin writes:

--I'm talking about your politics, not what you've done as a person.--

My politics are *inseparable* from "what I've done as a person." This *is* a personal integrity matter.

I have many faults, to be sure. But dishnoesty and fakery and submission to the puppetry of others are hardly among them, and as long as that's so, I am going to call you on it, or anyone else who suggests it.


--I think what you've done as an individual is great, but you are trying to expand access to a drug that may very well be killing an absolutely massive number of innocent people every year. I'm not interested in labels here. Suffice it to say that you and I are not on the same side.--

You do sound awfully interested in labels--Haha, told ya so, she's really one of those *liberal feminists*, QED a "pro abort"!!

If your side is the side that dictates, on such insubstantial evidence, to women that we cannot follow our own consciences in pregnancy prevention--whether it is natural family planning or the pill--then you are right, we are not on the same side.

Which is too bad, because women's freedom of choice in family planning saves a lot of unborn kids from abortion.

Posted by: Mary Krane Derr at June 8, 2010 1:01 PM


Praxedes writes:

--if women were treated as fully equal human beings"

Legalized abortion promised this! What happened?!! Hasn't enough time passed yet?

None of us will be treated as fully equal humans beings until ALL of us are treated as fully equal human beings.

Mary, sorry but you've been duped.--

Can a woman who finds fault with the organized prolife movement as such *not possibly* be up to her own critical thinking?

Or can I only go in lockstep with either of the two "sides" in the abortion-debate-as-usual? No thank you. I'm no one's "good, obedient little girl" who only does as she is told, because that's the cover under which human rights abuses flourish.

I refuse the severing of woman-with-child into woman versus fetus, in a battle to the bloody death.

Did I say anything about abortion as a benefit to women's equality? No.

Did I imply that some prolifers do not treat *women* as equal human beings, even as they talk of treating unborn children as fully human? Yes.

And because more prolifers do not treat women as fully human, they are unable to be real allies in women's struggles to voluntarily prevent difficult pregnancies, and get through and beyond such pregnancies if/when they occur.

None of us will be treated as fully human till we *all* are, indeed. Prolifers don't have any problem asserting this for unborn children.

So why is it such a big deal when someone like me asserts that *women* need to be treated as fully human?

Shouldn't be any problem, if one already accepts the premise that all human lives are radically equal.

Especially if we're talking about the very people--women--who live in closest proximity to unborn children threatened by abortion, whose bodies and lives and fates are so interconnected with theirs!

Posted by: Mary Krane Derr at June 8, 2010 1:25 PM


I'm the one who wrote the blog post at All Our Lives in favor of the Global MOMS Act. And I can't remotely take seriously the criticisms of someone who outright refuses to read the bill.

Like Mary said -- where's the bill promoting maternal and infant health that's proposed by pro-lifers? There isn't one. That's a pro-life failure. Women and children in the developing world can't wait for anti-abortion politicians in the United States to do something.

Posted by: Jen R at June 8, 2010 4:20 PM


By the way, here's the evidence that hormonal contraceptives--and IUDs, by the way--are not abortifacients.

http://www.fhi.org/en/rh/pubs/booksreports/methodaction.htm

Now one might quarrel with the definition here of pregnancy as beginning at implantation rather than fertilization.

Even so, all the methods described appear to work pre-conception.

But still,

Posted by: Mary Krane Derr at June 8, 2010 6:24 PM


Jen R: "where's the bill promoting maternal and infant health that's proposed by pro-lifers? There isn't one."

"The bill" is not out there because a bill is not needed. 1. health care is the domain of the states, not the fed govt. 2. most states already have programs, including medicaid programs as well as others, to provide health care for the pregnancy and the baby once it is born, depending upon the mother's income level.

3. there are a lot of pro-life people, including me, who do things to aid women who are in tough circumstances when they get pregnant. to make a statement like you make requires some level of education on what help is already out there. You don't have that level of education. You might want to contact a local crisis pregancy center and ask if they can fill you in, or give you a tour.

Posted by: Row1 at June 8, 2010 6:26 PM


Jen Roth is quite well informed about available reproductive care for women, within the US and globally! So am I.

Existing programs like CPCs and Medicaid are essential, but they are *not enough.* I've been on the front lines of crisis pregnancy center care, and have spent most of my life in a low income community of color. So many crying needs are going unmet, here in one of the world's wealthiest countries.

And what about all the poorer countries in the world, too? We are responsible to share what we have. That's what the Global MOMS bill is trying to do.

Posted by: Mary Krane Derr at June 8, 2010 6:33 PM


Row1, please don't be patronizing. The bill we're talking about is to provide services to women in the developing world. Your comment isn't relevant to that.

Posted by: Jen R at June 8, 2010 6:51 PM


I've read the Global MOMS bill. Can anyone show me where it prohibits funding for abortions in countries where abortion is legal? Or show me a provision that prohibits use of funds to facilitate or incentivize legalization where abortion is currently outlawed?

Posted by: Fed Up at June 9, 2010 7:10 AM


I've read it too. Can you show me where it authorizes funding for abortion?

Perhaps you should write to your Congresspeople and ask them to support the bill, while proposing an amendment to prohibit abortion funding.

Posted by: Jen R at June 9, 2010 10:07 AM


if pro-abortion-as-the-only choice advocates really want common ground, then why do they hate Crisis Pregnancy centers so much? Is it because they don't hand out BC pills like its candy? Is it because they are not-for-profit? is it the free baby clothes, free strollers, parenting classes and other support?


if they really want common ground, then they have to stop freaking out about crisis pregnancy centers, even those who emphasis abstinence, especially if its encouraged for a new mom who just chose life for her baby.

Posted by: LizFromNebraska at June 9, 2010 10:12 AM


Leslie, in those instances that the pill works by preventing conception (not later by preventing implantation), then it is not acting in an abortifacient way.

The problem is that it isn't as if you can program the pill to only work in that way. It also works by inhibiting implantation. When someone takes the pill, they have no way of knowing how many conceptions are prevented... and how many are conceived but are not implanted. For those of us who are pro-life, that is a problem.

Posted by: Elisabeth at June 9, 2010 10:57 AM


Laws are a necessity when one is making a claim against the private property (money) of other individuals.

Pro-lifers assist those in need by donating to crisis pregnancy centers, giving formula and diapers, working at food banks, giving individually of their OWN time, money and talents.

We don't require laws to do that.

Posted by: Elisabeth at June 9, 2010 11:02 AM


Jen R and Mary Krane,

Your compassion is noteworthy, but I'm just wondering how far in debt both of you personally are or what kind of surplus in wealth you have. (Rhetorical question.) The U.S. is in debt up to its ears and the foreign aid you propose will be on the your backs, the backs of children, grandchildren, rich and POOR until the end of time. The first rule in smart economics is that you can't spend more money than you have. How is it that we have a responsibility to care for the world when our economy is on the brink of disaster? We should be decreasing the deficit, not increasing it. Some experts say we are headed for the same catastrophe as Greece and other Eastern European countries.
Bill Gates' Foundation could probably provide all the funding the world needs, why can't he give more? We can't depend on the "government" to do everything. Think about it, "government" is you and me, not some money-making machine in Washington.

Posted by: Janet at June 9, 2010 11:52 AM


I am getting really tired of prolifers judging others and acting "holier than thou!" I had the pleasure of meeting Mary when I was involved in Feminists For Life, many years ago. She is very sincere in her pro-life convictions and I am shocked and upset that people here are questioning her prolife convictions.

Posted by: phillymiss at June 9, 2010 12:38 PM


Janet,

Children who die in infancy can't grow up to contribute to their societies. Women who die or are permanently injured in childbirth can't support and educate their families. Improving maternal and child health is vital for the continued development of much of the world. Money spent in this way is an investment; it's not going down the toilet. Not to mention the fact that it's saving lives.

(Where were all the deficit hawks when we spent three-quarters of a trillion dollars killing people in Iraq?)


Elisabeth,

As far as I'm aware, there's no evidence that the uterine lining is anything but normal in those cases in which women ovulate while on the Pill. Measurements of the uterine lining taken during anovulatory cycles (which are, of course, the vast majority of Pill cycles) don't tell us anything about ovulatory cycles, since ovulation is what triggers the uterus to prepare for implantation.

Posted by: Jen R at June 9, 2010 1:02 PM


Can you show me where it authorizes funding for abortion?
Posted by: Jen R at June 9, 2010 10:07 AM

Nice non-answer. Reducing the number of deaths due to "unsafe abortion" is a stated goal of the bill, correct? "Unsafe abortion" is not a medical term that conveys a precise meaning, yet the bill fails to define it. Is "unsafe abortion" an abortion performed by an unskilled provider in a country where it's legal? Is it a self-abortion performed in a country where it's legal? Is it any abortion performed in a country whose laws are considered too restrictive? Whose definition applies? The UN's, WHO's? Seems to me the bill gives the president latitude to define it any way he sees fit.

Sec 104D(b)(1)(F) reads: postabortion care, including— (i) emergency treatment of complications of unsafe abortion; (ii) family planning counseling and services; and (iii) linkages to other reproductive health services; Postabortion care is not limited to care after an "unsafe abortion," therefore can we not infer that it is intended that care also be provided where abortion is "safe" (i.e., legal)?

Notice too, that "reproductive health services" are not defined by the bill. However use of the adjective "other" in (iii) indicates that abortion is considered one type of reproductive health service. As such, it would qualify as a supported activity under Sec. 104D(b)(14)(D). If you don't infer it from the language of the bill, you can certainly infer it from the positions of the bill's sponsors and endorsers who consider abortion an essential aspect of "reproductive health."

In addition, Sec 104D (c) (1) states that to the maximum extent possible, the activities funded by the bill will be executed by groups committed to improving "rights." Not just committed to improving access to care or the quality of care, but "improving rights." Do some of the endorsing organizations not support abortion as a right? Do you see anything in the bill prohibiting them from using funds to advance abortion "rights?"

Perhaps you should write to your Congresspeople and ask them to support the bill, while proposing an amendment to prohibit abortion funding. Posted by: Jen R at June 9, 2010 10:07 AM

Why would I waste my time when there aren't votes to pass an amendment? I consider this Congress too corrupt to suggest it do anything except pack up when voted out of office. If the health care of US citizens can wait until 2014, why can't this bill wait until a new Congress is seated? Could it be that a new Congress won't dole out political paybacks to proabort groups? I believe that it is possible to support maternal-child health initiatives, but see no reason to believe the current Congress or administration will do so without simultaneously exporting abortion.

Posted by: Fed Up at June 9, 2010 2:06 PM


I think that you are really stretching in your reading of the bill.

However use of the adjective "other" in (iii) indicates that abortion is considered one type of reproductive health service.

No, it is referring to other reproductive health services besides the ones mentioned in (i) and (ii): treatment of abortion complications and provision of family planning.

As such, it would qualify as a supported activity under Sec. 104D(b)(14)(D).

Sec. 104D(b)(14)(D) is talking about existing services, not the ones that are funded by the bill.

Do you see anything in the bill prohibiting them from using funds to advance abortion "rights?"

Yes, the fact that the bill spells out what programs are to be supported and advocating for abortion is not among them.

I believe that it is possible to support maternal-child health initiatives, but see no reason to believe the current Congress or administration will do so without simultaneously exporting abortion.

And I believe that this bill does not export abortion, and that a Republican Congress or administration would not have these issues as a priority.

Posted by: Jen R at June 9, 2010 2:47 PM


Janet writes:
--I'm just wondering how far in debt both of you personally are or what kind of surplus in wealth you have. (Rhetorical question.) The U.S. is in debt up to its ears and the foreign aid you propose will be on the your backs, the backs of children, grandchildren, rich and POOR until the end of time. The first rule in smart economics is that you can't spend more money than you have. How is it that we have a responsibility to care for the world when our economy is on the brink of disaster? We should be decreasing the deficit, not increasing it.--

Janet, I am multiply disabled and have lived at or near working poor levels almost my whole life. Even though I got scholarships, I had to go into debt with student loans that took 25 years to pay off, just to get an education. till, I had to do it, our family would have been worse off if I hadn't gone to school, especially when my spouse went through his own training n a service profession.

My family strives to live a nonconsumeristic lifetsyle with as little ecological impact as possible, carefully thiking about the smallest purchases (http://www.nonviolentchoice.info/ecolife.html). Our definition of the necessaries of life is set far below where many Americans would set it. But still, US poor are very privileged compared to the global poor. I have been to the townships of South Africa and seen this. Every bit of time or treasure our family can spare goes into activism and charitable efforts. Even if we had more money, we would still live like this, we'd just have more to spare.

Americans as individuals and as a country generally consume far more than our fair share of the world's resources. We have wealth and with wealth comes inescapable responsibilities towards those who don't have it.

Our overconsumption is obscene while other human beings die for lack of food, clean water, essential medicines. There's enough to go around, but not yet the political will to ensure that it goes around.

The US government was running in the black until the war in Iraq, which has needlessly taken and damaged hundreds and thousands of lives. That's why we have such a deficit.

It's not because of foreign aid. And if we would only learn to invest in life instead of death, we could meet human needs and abolish the deficit, too.

Posted by: Mary Krane Derr at June 9, 2010 3:32 PM


I believe that this bill does not export abortion Posted by: Jen R at June 9, 2010 2:47 PM

I respect your right to an opinion, however I disagree. Failure to define 'unsafe abortion' and other terms used in the bill is a fatal flaw as far as I'm concerned. Another is the funding of proabort groups. We all know that money is fungible and I object to my tax dollars being channeled to proaborts.

Posted by: Fed Up at June 9, 2010 3:33 PM


The US government was running in the black until the war in Iraq ... That's why we have such a deficit. Posted by: Mary Krane Derr at June 9, 2010 3:32 PM

Here's a little deficit graph for you, Mary.
http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/obama_budget_deficit.jpg

What happened to make the war massively more expensive after Obama took office?

Posted by: Fed Up at June 9, 2010 4:10 PM


I respect your right to an opinion, however I disagree.

Right back atcha. :)

Posted by: Jen R at June 9, 2010 10:30 PM


Our "overconsumption" has very little to do with the fact that there are societies that have far less. Much of this is due to the fact that the political power in THEIR countries refuses to allow the vast amount of aid that the very, very generous American citizenry (in addition to those in Canada and Europe) send to actually get to the people who need it!

Soon, however, as our government continues to increase confiscatory policies, the American people will no longer have surplus wealth to send.

The answer to world poverty is not to enact measures or laws that increase poverty in the United States. Other countries do not have more simply because we have less. Rather, encourage laws that increase industry and the ability to increase wealth so that we might continue to send it to others and work to reform governments in those areas to do the same.

Posted by: Elisabeth at June 10, 2010 8:51 AM


Elisabeth, richer countries certainly do have more because poorer countries have less. The whole point of colonialism was to enrich some countries at the expense of others, and its effects didn't end when the colonial powers formally withdrew.

You have a point about aid not getting to people due to corrupt or just ineffective governments. The old model of just giving aid to governments to distribute is outdated, and is being replaced by an approach that emphasizes empowerment of individuals and communities.

Posted by: Jen R at June 10, 2010 9:26 AM


Mary Krane Derr:

"Should fertilization occur, the chances for establishing a pregnancy likely decrease as the fertilized egg approaches the uterine cavity. Thus, the IUD appears to work at a much earlier stage of human reproduction than was previously thought; prevention of fertilization seems to be the dominant mode of action."

Your article outright admits, here, that the IUD does prevent implantation. Its argument seems to be that the prevention of implantation is not the main method by which IUDs work. Okay, granted.

It is full of ridiculous semantic somersaults.

It refers to rates of ectopic pregnancy, saying they are lowered in IUD users, so it must work by preventing all pregnancies.

But the relevant information is not whether ectopic pregnancies occur, but what the ratio of normal to ectopic pregnancies are.

Wikipedia lists IUD use as a risk factor for ectopic pregnancy. This site (http://www.healthcentral.com/ency/408/000895.html) specifically lists rates--progesterone-bearing IUDs 15% rise in ectopics, copper IUDs 5% rise, morning after pill 10% rise, progesterone-only pill 5fold rise. And it is postulated that excessive estrogen and progesterone increase the risk (hmm... those things are in hormonal contraceptives!) (Apparently now the prevailing view is that these hormones may slow the egg's journey in the fallopian tube.)

Also found these gems: "If you become pregnant with an IUD in place and the IUD is not removed, the chances of miscarriage are about 55%. If the
IUD is removed after conception the incidence of miscarriage is reduced to about 20%."
"The Implanon Physician Insert states:

'Be alert to the possibility of an ectopic pregnancy among patients using Implanon who become pregnant or complain of lower abdominal pain. Although ectopic pregnancies should be uncommon, a pregnancy that occurs in a patient using Implanon may be more likely to be ectopic than a pregnancy occurring in a patient using no contraception.'"

Anywhere you see the effects of contraceptives described, the effect on the uterine lining is mentioned. Even in your article, where they say that the chance of conception is negligible--negligible times millions of women times 10 or 20 years could be many thousands.

My statement has always been this:
If hormonal contraceptives do not affect implantation, one would expect to see the same rate of ectopic pregnancies in hormonal-contraceptive users as among non-contraceptive users. Instead, there are higher rates of ectopic pregnancies among users of hormonal contraceptives. (That means that while for every 100 pregnancies among women not using contraceptives, there might be 1 ectopic pregnancy; whereas for every 100 women using, say, a progesterone-only-pill, there might be 5.) If the pill worked solely by preventing fertilization, those rates should be exactly the same. But if those rates are accurate, either the hormonal contraceptives are causing ectopic pregnancies or they are causing the deaths of very young children. It appears some scientists are now thinking it may be the former, which seemed unlikely to me; in that case, only 4 out of every 100 children conceived on the pill die due to it. If the other case is true--for every 100 children conceived on the pill that implant, 400 do not, placing the death rate at 80/100 children conceived (because if 1/100 pregnancies are ectopic, then 5/500 are; so 5 ectopic pregnancies indicate there were about 500 total pregnancies; so 400 of those pregnancies resulted in the very early deaths of embryos).

Perhaps both factors are at work, meaning that between 4/100 and 80/100 children conceived on the pill die due to the pill.

Either way, it's too many.

(Yes, I did use the stats for the progesterone-only pill and not the combination pills. I was not able to find rates separately for those--either saying that the ectopic rate was the same or different on combination pills. So it may be it does not increase the rate, and the data I have seen before always included the progesterone-only-pills. But if you are championing progesterone-only pills and IUDs, while you are indeed an ally in preventing abortion of children who have implanted, you are misguided in those areas still.)

Posted by: ycw at June 12, 2010 7:06 AM