Woman uses emergency contraceptive to kill wrongly implanted babies

NBC reported June 28:

embryo nbc.jpg

A woman who sought help from a prominent CT fertility center last year received embryos, but they belonged to another woman with the same last name.

The mistake happened in April 2009 at the Center for Advanced Reproductive Services at the University of CT Health Center, which will pay a $3k fine.

A lab technician only checked the last name on the container with the embryos and pulled the wrong ones from frozen storage, according to the state Dept. of Public Health. Procedure is to check the medical record number and last 4 digits of the Social Security number.

That patient who received the embryos was informed of the error within an hour and decided to take the "morning after" pill to prevent the pregnancy, according to state records....

The woman who owned the embryos had not been in treatment since 2006, but had continued to store them at the center and was also informed of the error.

So a mother carrying multiple embryos aborted her pregnancy by taking an emergency contraceptive.

(As an aside I find it interesting that NBC called it "the 'morning after' pill" and not the more common term, "emergency contraceptive.")

As this tragedy demonstrates, every now and then truth eclipses the Big Lie, which is that emergency contraceptives (and hormonal contraceptives) do not kill children already conceived.

Liberals say that since pregnancy doesn't commence until an embryo implants, ECs can't interrupt pregnancies. For instance, the most popular EC on the market, Plan B, states at least 4 different places on its website (click to enlarge):

plan be is and isnt 2.png

Yet Plan B's pharmacology packaging states (click to enlarge):

plan b pharmacology.png

"[I]nhibit implantation" of what? A newly conceived baby.

Obviously these verbal gymnastics are an attempt to keep mothers ignorant of the fact that emergency contraceptives (and hormonal birth control pills) may kill their children.

Yet a woman impregnated with someone else's children sadly demonstrated that it does.

[HT: Susan B. Anthony List on Twitter; photo via NBC]


Comments:

Is the FDA responsible for addressing and fixing these errors and inconsistencies in packaging information?

Posted by: Janet at June 29, 2010 3:32 PM


UGH! Does the other woman now see why its wrong to store your children like frozen chicken cutlets? I understand the desire for children but treating children like objects to be "obtained" and bought and stored and all that is WRONG!!!!

Posted by: Sydney M. at June 29, 2010 4:34 PM


There is no reason, scientifically or using common sense, to think that these cancer causing steroids can't disrupt and end an early implantation either. I ex gf had a horrible reaction to this crap, and had a very unpleasant period EARLY (not late like it says will happen).

This stuff stays in your system for weeks. Imagine what it does to the developing embryo even if the little fighter manages to hold on..

Posted by: Sean at June 29, 2010 5:34 PM


There is so much to this story that it's hard to find a place to begin.

First, there is the driving philosophical shift that now views children as a right of possession rather than a gift from God to a married couple. That 'right of possession' mentality leads to what Sydney has perfectly described as storing one's children like frozen chicken cutlets.

Second, precisely because of IVF, the term pregnancy can no longer be applied to the reality that, prior to 1978, a pregnancy commenced with the fertilization of egg by sperm. What are we to say now? The mother is pregnant before transfer of the embryos from the petri dish? Just one more derivative evil from IVF.

Next, the new nomenclature issue from IVF over what constitutes 'pregnancy' has opened the door to the redefinition that favors morning after pill verbal sloganeering and sales.

Then there is the very idea that before THOSE embryos got to be stored like so many frozen chicken cutlets, a couple of dozen siblings were in all likelihood winnowed as not viable, or low probability of being viable embryos and simply discarded.

Finally, there was the realization in this mother that these were someone else's babies, and that they deserved death as the only viable option. Not exactly a maternal heart that would:

1. Have her embryos sorted and graded like cuts of beef.

2. Consent to killing the 'runts of the embryonic litter'.

3. Freezing the bulk of her new offspring.

Given that she could consent to treating her own babies that way, it's small wonder that she killed someone else's babies.

We don't accessorize our lives with 'keepers'. We accept whatever condition the child arrives in and love them into as much wholeness as we can. I doubt that narcissists such as this mother will ever grasp the magnitude of this evil.

Posted by: Gerard Nadal at June 30, 2010 12:55 AM


Posted by: Gerard Nadal at June 30, 2010 12:55 AM
------

Eventually this all leads to a market in people - a form of slavery, because people are effectively purchased using 3rd party technologies.

What of those whose child was killed? I imagine there was some sort of contractual liability waiver they had to sign squelching any recourse for wrongful death of their child.


Posted by: Chris Arsenault at June 30, 2010 6:55 AM


Chris,

The usual procedure is the woman either aborts, or gives the baby to the other couple when it's born.

Posted by: Gerard Nadal at June 30, 2010 7:02 AM


We don't accessorize our lives with 'keepers'. We accept whatever condition the child arrives in and love them into as much wholeness as we can. I doubt that narcissists such as this mother will ever grasp the magnitude of this evil.
Posted by: Gerard Nadal at June 30, 2010 12:55 AM


ain't that the truth.

Posted by: angel at June 30, 2010 9:15 AM



Post a comment:




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)

Please enter the letter "u" in the field below: