Losing the MAP battle: crippled over contraceptives
NARAL used this article in an email alert yesterday to attempt to pressure Wal-Mart to always have a pharmacist on duty to dispense Plan B, the morning after pill.
While the FDA agreed last August, under pressure from libereal feminists, to make Plan B available without a prescription to any adult woman or man over 18, pharmacies still stock it behind the counter, like cigarettes, so as to check ID.
But since the MAP can abort a preborn baby in his or her first week of life, some pharmacists won’t dispense it on moral grounds.
Here’s where we’ve crippled ourselves, and the other side knows it. Birth conrol pills contain the same hormones as MAPs and can also abort in the first 5-9 days of life. Yet many pro-life organizations refuse to “go there,” as do many pro-lifers. Here’s how NARAL pounced on that point in its recommended sample email to Wal-Mart’s CEO….
The vast majority of Americans, including those who oppose legal abortion, support birth control. Additionally, polling shows that 80 percent of Americans think it’s wrong for pharmacists to refuse to fill women’s prescriptions for birth control based on their personal views.
We can either lose this battle or pounce on it ourselves to educate women that birth control pills and MAPs may abort. The other side is certainly hiding this point. Here is how one liberal webside described how BCs can work:
Most birth control pills are “combination pills” containing a combination of the hormones estrogen and progesterone to prevent ovulation (the release of an egg during the monthly cycle). A woman cannot get pregnant if she doesn’t ovulate because there is no egg to be fertilized. The Pill also works by thickening the mucus around the cervix, which makes it difficult for sperm to enter the uterus and reach any eggs that may have been released. The hormones in the Pill can also sometimes affect the lining of the uterus, making it difficult for an egg to attach to the wall of the uterus.
Can you decipher that BCs may cause abortions? Clearly the other side is dishonest on this point. Why should we enable them – and fail women – by remaining silent?
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Hi Jill,
I strongly believe that we pro-lifers will lose this battle, but because we believe and support the notion that basically hormones are ‘safe’. These chemicals act much like smoking (appeasing an immediate ‘gain’). But long term … increased heart disease; increased cancer; etc. …. and that have absolutely unknown consequences for the next generation – especially re. fertility. Would you willingly take hormones … if they will sterilized your grandchildren?
When we (rightly) promote women, do we exclude their health prospects? Artificial hormones = dead women = artificial people … do we need this, for increased spontaneity? We ofter talk about the ‘self-empowerment’ that is a big part of abstinence education, is being anti-hormone (aside from the very few who need hormone-support as a part of their medication) a bad thing?
John, when I use the word “steroids” in place of hormones, it makes a big impact. What we’re talking about here are female steroids. Taking male steroids is such a big deal. Why not female steroids?
right you are Jill,
we gotta get out of this crazy idea that these are female-candies … instead of female-steroids. Then who will be the good-source when asked for direction concerning female health but pro-life advocates?
It would be lunacy for pro-aborts like PP even try alignment with La Leche League but a logical progression for pro-life.
Here’s where we’ve crippled ourselves, and the other side knows it.
Jill,
You’ve hit the nail on the head. The silence on the part of so many pro-lifers on the issue of contraception is indeed a grave scandal.
During the Walk for Life West Coast, held two days before the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, a spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood Golden Gate reported that in lieu of a counter-demonstration, PPGG was hosting a health fair promoting the HPV vaccine and talking up how PP has always been about “prevention”. (See, for example, here.)
Hello? The country’s leading abortion provider doesn’t even bother staging a counter-demonstration on the anniversary of the Supreme Court decisions granting a “right” to abortion on demand, but instead focuses on contraception and “safe sex” — or, rather, “safer sex”.
We as pro-lifers can think a lot of things about pro-aborts, but one thing they’re not is stupid.
They can read public opinion polls just like the rest of us. They know they’re up against the ropes in the arena of public opinion when it comes to abortion, but they think they have the moral high ground on contraception.
And when pro-lifers remain silent on contraception, we — as you point out, Jill — play right into their hands.
Jill:
You are spot on with this issue, which we at PFLI have been banging the drum for, virtually as a solo act, since 1984.
These are high powered steroids and should be called what they are….they are also abortifacient 75-89% of the time.
NARAL used your column for a fund raiser and well, gee, guess it’s only right to ask them to finish their thought and support FREEDOM of CHOICE for ALL PHARMACISTS to follow their sincerely held religious, moral and ethical beliefs in a nation which gives much lip service to the 1st amendment and workers’ [i.e. employee pharmacists] rights, as well as minority [pro-life pharmacist] rights!
God bless!
THANK YOU, Jill!!
One thing that irritates me is that prolifers are using hormonal birth control like it’s candy. They refuse to see the abortifacient qualities of the pill, the ring, the patch, etc. And pro-aborts are right to use that argument.
I’m surrounded by “Biblical scholars” who claim that children are not for them. So they pump themselves full of hormones. In the same breath they proclaim abortion as wrong (after all what self respecting Christian wouldn’t?). You can’t be pro-life and anti-child. I know, it’s a strong statement. But really, if I were on the other side of the issue, I would certainly see them as hypocrites.
I’m just a SAHM Mom to four kids. I am not an intellectual, but I can read…I know that the pill causes abortions…plain and simple. Are there documented studies? None that are really recognized. But as a prolifer I am not willing to take that chance with life.
It’s too bad that more churches aren’t taking this on. Right now, my highly educated Christian family thinks I’m a baby popping idiot. Shame on them. And shame on the evangelical churches for not presenting this very issue.
We can counter the pro-aborts by e-mailing Walmart about this situation and telling them to keep letting their pharmacists choose wheather to provide them or not. I already did.
Hi Jill! I’ll be frank with you, I’m one of those crazy liberals! :) But I’m a Christian too so I enjoy hearing all sides of an issue from my more conservative counterparts. I’m here out of curiosity, not contempt and I hope I can get that across correctly without offending anyone.
One comment I have is that I don’t think people who support the MAP or oral contraceptives are trying to deceive women. They disagree that pregnancy begins at conception, so they are not hiding that birth control pills causes early abortions, they don’t believe it even happens. Also, contrary to what someone said above, I don’t think it’s actually known if birth control pills actually ever do affect implantation, it’s just a theoretical possibility was my understanding (and I understand that to many conservatives, this distinction doesn’t matter, but still throwing that out there). This is partly due to the fact they don’t have an accurate way to measure this, since the hormone that pregnancy tests detect doesn’t usually appear for 2 weeks, and implantation occurs after about 1 week. So if an egg was fertilized but didn’t implant, how could anyone know? You’re the RN, Jill, I’m sure you have much more medical knowledge on this than I so let me know if/how I’m wrong.
Also I have a question for you, and I’m not trying to be facetious. Do you feel that birth control pills and the morning after pill should be available to women at all? For instance, hypothetically, what if you could guarantee that no pharmacist was required to dispense a pill he was morally against, and that all women were informed about all the potential mechanisms of the birth control pill. Would this satisfy your concerns, or would it still bother you that women could still take the pill at all? Or do you think the pill should be banned? What is it precisely that you are objecting to is what I’m after. Do you see it as EXACTLY morally like abortion, or is there a difference to you? I know that’s a lot of questions, I hope you don’t mind me asking them here.
Bo, can you say where you got the stat that the Pill acts as an abortifacient 75-89% of the time?
Ashlee, first, sorry, I think I accidentally deleted your post, and I’ve reposted it this morning.
I disagree with you that liberals aren’t trying to deceive women on the actions of MAPs/BCs. If not, they wouldn’t use such convoluted language to say MAPs/BCs may stop a 5-9 day old embryo from implanting in the wall of the uterus.
Second, liberals can believe or not, but the MAP/BC packaging lists, however coded, the fact that the MAP/BC may abort a young embryo. Just believing something does not make it true.
The American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists also acknowledges, also coded:
“Birth control pills are made of hormones that prevent ovulation. The hormones in the pill cause changes in the cervical mucus and the lining of the uterus. The cervical mucus thickens, which blocks the sperm from entering the cervix. The lining of the uterus thins, making it less likely that a fertilized egg can attach to it. Together, these events make it very unlikely that someone taking the pill will become pregnant.”
But suppose, as you say, the the abortifacient quality of MAPs/BCs is only a “theoretical possibility.” Then we’re certainly playing Russian Roulette to know that and continue taking them.
As to whether MAPs/BCs should be banned, there are two issues: moral and legal.
On the legal issue, call me skeptical or lacking faith, but I don’t think the Supreme Court’s 1965 Griswold v. Connecticut “right to privacy” decision will ever be reversed.
Morally reversed? That is possible, although the contraception mentality is so deeply engrained in the American psyche now after almost 80 years of progressively liberal teaching, that, too, seems almost insurmountable.
Yet, the contraceptive mentality has proven catastrophic, not just in terms of foregone babies but in terms of physical and moral health. So if America continues on this course, it will contribute to America’s demise.
As for whether I consider MAPs/BCs morally equivalent to abortion, there are again two issues.
In purely physical terms, MAPs/BCs can and do kill preborn children, so they are the equivalent to abortion.
In moral terms, I think the contraceptive mentality is the precursor to the abortion mentality. So, yes, I think pro-lifers need to address the thinking behind contraception, which is the identical thinking behind abortion.
Karen Malec was on a program in regards to this issue. She brought up so much information which is being hidden from the public. I learned so much from the show and would advise people to listen to it. It’s the second post on this thread…
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=78841
Here’s another excellent resource on birth control, std’s and chastity.
http://www.pureloveclub.com/chastity/index.php?id=7&cat=Birth%20Control
Mike
Here’s a direct link the the Karen Malec interview. Go to 1-20-06.
http://www2.catholic.com/radio/calendar.php?type=month&calendar=1&category=0&month=01&year=2006
Mike