New Stanek WND.com column, "On the path to over-the-counter abortions"

WND%20logo.gif

On June 17, the FDA's Advisory Committee for Reproductive Health will hold a public hearing to begin the approval process of a new abortion pill, Ulipristal acetate, to be marketed by the brand names ella® or ellaOne®.

ellaone abortion.jpg

ellaOne can be taken up to 5 days after unprotected sex, as opposed to emergency contraception, which can be taken up to 3 days after unprotected sex....

ellaOne has been marketed in the United Kingdom since September 2009 as an emergency contraceptive, but it does not chemically work the same in a woman's body as an EC....

In fact, ellaOne works the same as mifepristone, or RU486, also known as the abortion pill, which can be taken up to 49 days after the first day of a woman's last period.

A "fact sheet" by the Reproductive Health Technologies Project, which is pushing FDA approval of ellaOne, confirms "mifepristone [RU486] and ulipristal acetate [ellaOne] are both selective progesterone modulators."...

ellaOne is an abortion pill. Backers want it considered an EC to make it available first by prescription and then over-the-counter, as was the EC.

If the FDA approves ellaOne as an EC, the day draws closer when abortion proponents push to make RU486 available first by prescription and then over-the-counter....

Continue reading my column today, "On the path to over-the-counter abortions," at WorldNetDaily.com.


Comments:

What is the difference between an EC and the abortion pill? I thought that was the point of an EC.

Posted by: ArkCatholicGirl at May 26, 2010 10:17 AM


ArkCatholicGirl,

EC works by either stopping ovulation or preventing implantation.

The abortion pill kills the child after implantation.

Posted by: Lauren at May 26, 2010 10:31 AM


liberalism is the orthodoxy 
feminism is the religion 
abortion is the sacrament 
feminized males are the true enablers


how to dispose 
of the fingers and toes... 
 

Posted by: jw5745 at May 26, 2010 11:23 AM


With Obama in office, this pill will be pushed through at warp speed.

Posted by: phillymiss at May 26, 2010 11:28 AM


why don't we work on the reasons for abortion like social economical instead of pushing MORE ways to abort that will just be as dangerous?

And lets also do away with television shows and movies that promote a promiscuous lifestyle and irresponsibility.

Posted by: LizFromNebraska at May 26, 2010 11:36 AM


Thanks, Lauren.

It seems to be that the difference between the EC and the abortion pill is where the event occurs before implantation. If a child is a human from the moment of conception, then prevention of implantation is also abortion; therefore, part of how an EC works is to cause an abortion, just earlier than the abortion pill.

Posted by: ArkCatholicGirl at May 26, 2010 11:50 AM


Pregnancy starts before implantation. Anyone who struggles to get pregnant knows this. It's those who want to delude themselves to justify getting rid of a pregnancy, or the pro-aborts in medical schools, who perpetuate the myth that pregnancy begins at implantation. These pill manufacturers are full of mullarkey.

Posted by: Janet at May 26, 2010 12:01 PM


If the FDA approves ellaOne as an EC, the day draws closer when abortion proponents ...

... succeed in forcing Catholic ERs to dispense a known abortifacient in order to comply with laws related to EC.

Posted by: Fed Up at May 26, 2010 12:02 PM


Fed Up @ 12:02 PM,
Do you think there will be any Catholic hospitals or doctors left?
Unfortunately, I'm not so sure.

Posted by: Janet at May 26, 2010 12:14 PM


ArkCatholicGirl, I definitely agree. I guess the difference is that we know the abortion pill will act as an abortificient 100% of the time, where as the EC only has to potential to be abortificient and there's no way to know if it actually was in any given case.

I still think it should be labeled as a potential abortificient agent and women should be told very clearly that it can have post-fertilization effects. I actually took it many years ago when I was pro-choice. Even then, I would have never had an abortion and I had no idea that it could act to prevent implantation. Had I known, I never would have taken it. People definitely deserve to be told exactly how EC works, especially this new form which seems even more likely to act as an abortificient and not a contraceptive.

Posted by: Lauren at May 26, 2010 12:30 PM


There are Catholic doctors left, a bunch go to my church. However, one's a cardiologist, one's a gerontologist, one's a podiatrist, family practitioner, etc. Perhaps those who are prolife are afraid of going into ob/gyn for fear of not being allowed to practice according to their faith. All of my doctor friends ARE prolife. Many of them practice at the same Catholic hospital, but it is now part of a larger system, so who knows how long they will remain "Catholic."

Posted by: Robin at May 26, 2010 4:17 PM


I think Catholic hospitals are protected under the conscience clause but I read Obama is planning on doing away with that too. Hopefully the pro-life movement has lobbyists as well.

Posted by: myrtle miller at May 26, 2010 5:30 PM


JW,

And the liberal holy trinity is "Me, Myself, and I."

Sooo, where will the proaborts be when women are dying in the comforts of their own home from complications? Ah, right, same place they are when women suffer and die after more 'traditional' forms of abortion-nowhere to be found, or calling them liars. Because its safe legal and rare...

Posted by: Jill Guidry at May 26, 2010 7:50 PM


Maybe this is a dumb questions, but....
How does one measure the efficacy of a pill to prevent pregnancy when it is too early in the pregnancy for a pregnancy test? One can't assume that a given woman being tested would become pregnant as a result of intercourse....

It appears that 45 Planned Parenthood Clinics were part of a "trial". I don't have access to the full article. Do the results (based on the abstract) signify that the ACOOG is supporting the pill's approval?
/journals.lww.com/greenjournal/Abstract/2010/02000/Ulipristal_Acetate_Taken_48_120_Hours_After.9.aspx

Posted by: Janet at May 26, 2010 9:39 PM


Beautiful...The best part of this is that big Pharma will NOT be stopped by the religious right or the anti-abortion activists. There is too much money involved. I work in this industry, and it is beautiful to watch the technology of abortion shift towards empowering women.

Posted by: Jake at May 26, 2010 10:34 PM


Jake,

Abortion doesn't empower women. It kills babies - babies who will some day grow up and be customers for BIG Pharma. How about that?

Perhaps you should advise the big wigs in Big Pharma that pregnancy starts at fertilization, not implantation, and that they are misleading, not empowering women by arbitrarily re-defining pregnancy that way.

Posted by: Janet at May 26, 2010 10:48 PM


I think Catholic hospitals are protected under the conscience clause ...
Posted by: myrtle miller at May 26, 2010 5:30 PM

Nope, some states require all ERs to dispense EC, even though it is available over the counter.

Posted by: Fed Up at May 26, 2010 11:00 PM


It makes me sad that my daughter's beautiful name will become synonomous with abortion. It's hideous, Jake. Beautiful is a child with tiny fingers and toes, soft skin, and sweet baby breath. Abortion is destructive and tragic. Anything but beautiful. I feel sorry for you and others like you.

Posted by: Becca at May 26, 2010 11:16 PM


Lauren: Agreed--and I think all forms of hormonal birth control, and the IUD, should carry the same warning, and pharmacists and doctors should be required to tell that to women.

No one told me, and that's not very pro-choice, is it? Oh, except that pro-choice doesn't necessarily mean pro-informed-choice. There's nothing wrong with deceiving people into killing their children, 'cuz after all, then we get better statistics (like 90+% of women being on the birth control pill at some point--including those who stopped when they found out the truth of what it did, and those who stopped due to side effects....).

And killing babies is always the right choice--the pro-choice choice, one person here who was pro-choice on baby dismemberment said--so there's no problem if one didn't get consent, or didn't present all the facts, or presented lies instead of facts. All of that pales next to the importance of the woman performing the child sacrifice rite of feminism and making sure there aren't more children running around.

Posted by: ycw at May 27, 2010 5:05 AM


"I work in this industry, and it is beautiful to watch the technology of abortion shift towards empowering women."

You can be assured that Jake is not about empowering women.

Posted by: Praxedes at May 27, 2010 5:46 AM


ArkCatholicGirl - If you read my column, and I admit I think it got a little complicated, it explains that the EC and ellaOne both can either stop ovulation, make it difficult for sperm to meet egg, or (by different means) make it impossible an embryo to attach to the uterus.

ellaOne, however, works the same as RU486. It is my understanding that the only thing keeping it from working beyond 5 days after unprotected sex is the dosage. Even then, 20% of mothers found to be pregnant after taking ellaOne went on to miscarry.

ellaOne could be considered a bridge drug between EC and RU486.

Hope this helps.

Posted by: Jill Stanek Author Profile Page at May 27, 2010 8:43 AM


Tis is absolutely ludicrous.There's no such thing as a pill that causes an abortion and "kills" a child.
An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy by removing a partially formed fetus. A cell,or two or three of them,is not a "child", or a "baby".
This kind of emontion-laden language which anti-choicers so foolishly use in an attempt to justify making something illegal which has PREVENTED countless surgical abortions illegal is unbelievable. Such inflammatory and irresponsible use of language merely inflames many people and goads some of them into doing awful things like murdering doctors and bombing clinics which provide abortions.

Posted by: Robert Berger at May 27, 2010 9:57 AM


"Tis is absolutely ludicrous.There's no such thing as a pill that causes an abortion and "kills" a child. "

Child: "a. An unborn infant; a fetus"

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

The language is accurate.

Posted by: Lauren at May 27, 2010 10:01 AM


"A cell,or two or three of them,is not a "child", or a "baby"."

Right! A cell, 40 or 50 trillion of them, is not a "child" or a "baby" either.

So honestly Robert, how many cells does an organism need to be comprised of in order for it to have dignity and moral worth? One or two cells are worthless but 1 trillion of them are not? How many cells does an organism need in order to be worthy of life and why should I believe it?

And by the way, the organism that is prevented from implanting is scientifically called a blastocyst, and it has far more cells than 1 or 2...if it had a 100 cells would you deem it worthy of life?

Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at May 27, 2010 10:12 AM


So you want to make birth controil pills illegal because a cell or a couple of them is "worthy of life", thus causing an enormous increase in surgical abortions because women would not have access to something which would prevent abortions? Your logic escapes me altogether.
This makes absolutely no sense to me.
You anti-choicers have preposterously unrealistic goals and expectations.
By the way,the first word should read this not tis. Slip of the finger. I'm a world class klutz.

Posted by: Robert Berger at May 27, 2010 10:37 AM


I would think that 20% miscarriage rate is enough to carry a label, especially if they persist in claiming that preventing implantation is not the same as abortion. Something like that taking it may increase the chance of miscarriage if pregnancy does occur.

Robert, even if you don't think several dozen or hundred cells can comprise a human being worthy of life (no drug or procedure I know of is likely to kill the zygote, morula, or blastocyst in its natural environment prior to implantation), your disrespect for women in not wanting them to have accurate information is deplorable. Regardless of your opinion on the humanity or worthiness of the blastocyst, you need to recognize that some women do not want to risk their children dying as blastocysts, including some woman who don't necessarily want to get pregnant. To claim that wanting this information available would cause more abortions is ludicrous--I suspect anyone who would abort their child at 8 or 10 or 20 weeks would have no problem with the prevention of implantation.

It's not "trusting women" to lie to them or deny them information in hopes they make the decision you want them to. Like all pro-fetal-dismemberment men, you just want the world to be a comfortable place for yourself, and so you oppress those of us who have a uterus by demanding we suppress our fertility and kill our children, all the while lying about it.

Leave my clumps of cells alone.

Posted by: ycw at May 27, 2010 11:00 AM


Wow, when did I say anything about anything being made illegal? All I asked was how many cells makes an organism worthy of life. I simply asked a question, yet I receive this bizarre response about how my logic escapes you when I haven't even proposed anything.

For the millionth time, I simply do not know how to reason with you, Robert. Yes, I know I know "you can't reason with an anti-choicer!"

Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at May 27, 2010 11:18 AM


Biology lesson: the flame of life is lit at conception. Since statistically most pregnancies will continue without a problem, these dangerous drugs represent a lethal interference with the progression of a healthy pregnancy. It's murder. These drugs are immensely dangerous, they are dangerous to the children they seek to kill and dangerous to the women who may or may not actually be pregnant when they take them. Howe many women will and do die alone after taking these 'convenient' drugs? Even one dead woman is a tragedy.

And how about the danger to the environment when these drugs get into our water tables?? All of the pills described in the article are abominations.

Posted by: ninek at May 27, 2010 1:19 PM


I'm "oppressing" those with a uterus? Really now.I'm not trying to force women to use these pills.I just believe that they should be available,unlike some people who believe that they should be illegal.And yes,they do exist,and they are idiots.
What I meant was, that if contraceptives were made illegal, it would cause a marked increase in the number of surgical abortions.
I repeat,to call using birth control pills "Murder" is ludicrous. This makes about as much sense as saying some one is guilty of murder merely by making death threats.
And you're wildly exaggerating the dangers of these pills.Yes, there's some risk with them,but this is true of many pills which people take for many different things.
In fact,there are probably other legal prescription pills for other ailments and other things which are much riskier than birth control pills.
And countless women have used them in the past 50 years with absolutely no ill effects.
Yes. They have prevented countless surgical abortions.Do you have a problem with that?

Posted by: Robert Berger at May 27, 2010 3:22 PM


"And countless women have used them in the past 50 years with absolutely no ill effects."

If you can use ridiculous hyperbole, so can I.

Posted by: ycw at May 27, 2010 3:32 PM


Murder is murder. Using faulty logic and badly conceived metaphors will not change that. The contraceptive mentality has indeed lead to a catastophic increase in abortions over the last century. Humans are mammals: sex is how new humans are made. Expecting sex NOT to lead to pregnancy is the lie that leads to the idea of 'contraceptive failure' which leads to abortion, which is murder. Killing children inside their mothers' bodies is murder.

Posted by: ninek at May 27, 2010 3:47 PM


Hey Jill and mods would you guys please re-post the quotes that Joe Schiedler gave from the abortionists (I think it was 3 different abortionists) that said something like "I get paid to murder". Please give Robert Berger the direct quotes from the mouths of the "murderers" themselves about what they do. He can deny it all he wants but the quotes are all the proof we need.

Posted by: Prolifer L at May 27, 2010 9:35 PM