Breaking: FDA approves abortion drug as emergency contraceptive
UPDATE 8/14, 12:17p: The American Associate of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists has released additional helpful information important to understanding how ella works:
Here is what the FDA approved drug literature says: “How does ella work? ella is thought to work for emergency contraception primarily by stopping or delaying the release of an egg from the ovary. It is possible that ella may also work by preventing attachment (implantation) to the uterus. “…
Don’t miss this important fact: Ella only delays ovulation if taken in the day or so before ovulation happens. After ovulation, if the egg is fertilized, it works as a progesterone-blocking abortifacient….
The egg must be fertilized on the day of ovulation. And why does ella work for 5 days after ovulation? Because it is on about the 5th day after fertilization that the new baby begins to implant – but can’t, because the uterine lining is disabled by ella. That is abortifacient action.
The FDA literature hints at this… but does not use the “A” word. We find this very deceptive for the women considering using ella who would not otherwise even think of having an abortion.
8/13, 5:40p: It’s odd that the Bush administration’s FDA was accused of trumping political ideology over science by slowing approval of the emergency contraceptive Plan B.
Yet the Obama administration’s FDA is not being accused of the same for swift passage and misleading labeling of ella as an “emergency contraceptive,” when it is clearly so much more. As the Family Research Council wrote this afternoon (also see its fact sheet on ella):
The FDA opted against including the critical fact that Ella can cause an abortion on a baby already implanted in its mother’s womb in the drug labeling information. This decision flies in the face of the Obama Administration’s promise to transparency and a commitment to science. The difference between preventing and destroying life is enormous, and women have the right to know how this drug will act on their bodies and on their babies.
Actually, the spin is all too typical.
The Washington Post has a somewhat decent article on what happened today. But following is clearer information, from a DC source:
Today the FDA approved the application for a new abortion drug, ulipristal acetate, under the label ella.
Ella is the first selective progesterone receptor modulator (SPRM) available in the US for the indication of “emergency contraception.” According to the European Medicines Agency, SPRMs block progesterone which is necessary to maintain a pregnancy. This effectively deprives the unborn child in the womb of the nutrients s/he needs to live.
Today’s approval labeling ella as emergency contraception is deceptive and dangerous to women and their unborn children. Women deserve to know that ella can cause an abortion and the FDA is deliberately misleading women by mislabeling ella as contraception and not an abortion drug.
Until today, the only SPRM approved in the US is the medical abortion drug, mifepristone (RU-486), which is approved for use to induce an abortion through Day 49 of pregnancy.
Prior to today’s decision, FDA approved “emergency contraception” available in the US (Plan B & Next Choice) prevents ovulation, fertilization and implantation. Many pro-life Americans oppose emergency contraception because it can kill an embryo by preventing implantation in the womb. Ella also prevents ovulation, fertilization and implantation. However, ella’s strong similarity to mifepristone indicates it could also cause an abortion after implantation days, weeks or months into pregnancy.
On August 2, Congressman Joe Pitts (R-PA) sent a letter signed by 90 Members of Congress to FDA Commissioner Hamburg regarding the application for this new abortion drug.
The letter raises concerns regarding the similar chemical makeup of ella to RU-486, the absence of research to demonstrate that the drug does not cause abortion, the failure to address the dangers of off-label use, and the lack of information about health risks for a woman or her unborn child.
Pro-life leaders are also concerned that approval of this new abortion drug could result in taxpayer subsidies for abortion. Approved as an emergency contraceptive, ella could be purchased using taxpayer funds through Medicaid, Title X, and international family planning programs.
In addition, it would be eligible for funds appropriated in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and insurance companies could be forced to cover ella under its requirements. Pro-life groups are concerned this approval creates a loophole to existing prohibitions on abortion funding since ella can cause abortions when used off-label or when prescribed to women who are not yet aware that they are pregnant.
This could also pose significant conscience concerns as pharmacists would not be protected from being forced to dispense this new abortion drug.

This makes me beyond furious. When I was a teenager I took Plan B. NO ONE told me that it had the potential to act as an abortificient. Now they’re pushing a pill that is chemically identical to RU 486, and they’re pushing it as contraception. How many young women will take this drug, thinking it is merely contraception, only to find out later that they may have killed their child?
Even one is too many. Shame of the FDA.
Human Pesticide!
‘Don’t pay any attention to the man behind the curtains, BIG SISTER has everything under control.’
This sounds and looks like one of those futuristic sci-fi flicks.
‘It’s OK because the government says so.’
When in doubt, just think of the Mexican-American border.
Progressive/liberal/humanists hate the idea of more people, but they are NOT willing to eliminate themselves in order to reach a number they consider sustainable.
Well they are willing to eliminate their own children and their elderly parents.
Leslie Hanks,
If there were a pro-life award for distilling the pro-choice arguments into one easy sound-bite that says it all, you would get it for:
Human Pesticide
Nothing describes chemical abortifacients more accurately and succinctly. May I quote you in the future?
Gerard,
Keli Hue also deserves credit for:
“My choice, my body” means “Your responsibility and your money.” [Not ours]
Chalk up another win for the Pro-choice movement… you guys have only been at this for what 40 years…. don’t worry I’m sure your day is coming lol
You know with these types of pills becoming more effective and accepted you guys should be happy; those awful pictures you hold up will be a thing of the past. As time goes on it will become easier and easier to abort a pregnancy long before any type of real growth can happen. There will be no more aborting fetuses that in any way resemble a human shape. Heck they won’t even be fetuses since they will not be allowed to implant into the uterus. Just a small clump of cells in the beginnings of division…
It’s a sad day.
I hate the name “ella” — it means “she,” as if this were something all women approved. (Plus it was my great-grandmother’s name, and she certainly would NOT have approved!)
Just a question:
… if it’s being used as a CONTRAceptive, why is there all this outrage that it prevents an egg from remaining implanted?
… it’s still preventing the end result, which is the baby.
The semantics on this one are making my head hurt. If you don’t want a baby, stop having sex. Otherwise, accept the side effects of the chosen “magic fix” for your mistake. End result? You’re not pregnant / aren’t pregnant anymore.
[ And before you say “it’s alive the moment the sperm/egg meet”, think about it this way: Can it survive on it’s own? No. Is it taking resources from the mother to survive? Yes. Isn’t it more of a growth? Congniscient thought doesn’t begin in the womb until much later, due to the development of the neural pathways and nervous system.]
Did I miss something (o_O) ?
[…and since when did people need the fine print read clearly to them? If they choose not to read the fine print of a chemical they’re introducing to their body, aren’t they really the ones at fault? america is turning into a handout-society.]
… if it’s being used as a CONTRAceptive, why is there all this outrage that it prevents an egg from remaining implanted?
… it’s still preventing the end result, which is the baby.
The semantics on this one are making my head hurt. If you don’t want a baby, stop having sex. Otherwise, accept the side effects of the chosen “magic fix” for your mistake. End result? You’re not pregnant / aren’t pregnant anymore.
[ And before you say “it’s alive the moment the sperm/egg meet”, think about it this way: Can it survive on it’s own? No. Is it taking resources from the mother to survive? Yes. Isn’t it more of a growth? Congniscient thought doesn’t begin in the womb until much later, due to the development of the neural pathways and nervous system.]
Did I miss something (o_O) ?
Yes, Ron, I believe you missed biology class. At amphimixis, the joining of egg and sperm, a new human life with its own unique DNA is formed. If it does not implant in the uterus, that life is flushed out of the system and dies. “Congniscient” isn’t a word. Are you trying to say “conscious” or “sentient?” Yeah, there’s a slippery slope. We do not define who is human based on whether or not they are conscious or sentient. We define who is human based on the fact that they have human DNA.
One of the trolls wrote:
“”You know with these types of pills becoming more effective and accepted you guys should be happy; those awful pictures you hold up will be a thing of the past. As time goes on it will become easier and easier to abort a pregnancy long before any type of real growth can happen. There will be no more aborting fetuses that in any way resemble a human shape.””
The only people who would be “”Happy”” with these pills are pro-choice trolls. I am not against abortion because the photos of aborted fetuses are ugly. It’s murder. I’m against capital punishment and i didn’t suddenly change my mind when they started using chemicals for that instead of the electric chair. The biological fact is: when the sperm fertilizes the egg, immediately a chain of events is set in motion that will continue until the human is in their full adulthood: it’s called growth and development. The amazing and beautiful fact of life is that a fully grown human develops out of such tiny and humble beginnings. Killing a child when it’s only a few days old, before implantation in the womb, is still murder. It’s so simple.
What worries me is how many mothers of pregnant teens, how many angry boyfriends and husbands, how many people will slip these drugs to pregnant women or women they suspect are pregnant in order to kill their babies as soon as possible. I have already seen news stories of this happening. Not to mention, these drugs are toxic, poisonous, bad for all humans, and bad for the environment!
“Progressive/liberals/humanists hate the idea of more people”.
Straw man. Pro-choice people are not opposed to children being born.
They just don’t want the government ot try to force women to bear children even if they are too poor to provide for them or a pregnancy would kill them or ruin their health.
The pro-choicers are the ones who REALLY care about children;anti-choicers concern for the unborn ends at birth. And please don’t give all that self-serving and disingenuous nonsense about conservatives contributing more to charities than liberals. Charities cannot even come remotely close to providing all the care that poor children need.
Ashley, in your ignorance you are too easy a target.
Sperm has the DNA of the FATHER. The egg has the DNA of the MOTHER.
When sperm and egg join, a new entity is formed that was not there before, with its own unique DNA that is different from that of either of the parents. The DNA of a unique new individual.
The sperm and egg are specific cells of the parents’ body with specific functions. The newly formed individual life that comes from union of sperm and egg is not a cell with one specific function, but the origin of all the cells of a unique individual, something which neither egg nor sperm by themselves can provide.
In other words, it is human, because it is not just a cell from someone’s body with that individual’s DNA, but a new individual.
You could find that out quite easily from any biology textbook.
(by the way, I’m sure the mods must have really worked hard to edit whatever you originally wrote for “mental belches”).
Robert, if we pro-lifers don’t care so much about children after birth, then why are we the ones who run crisis pregnancy centers, which give mothers baby clothes, toys, baby items, maternal clothes, education, job training, housing, etc. before and after the birth of the children? We also offer adoption services, counseling, and classes on NFP. There are NO “pro-choice” clinics that help women who choose to give the gift of life to their babies! Planned Parenthood offers adoption services to less than 2% of their clients! And that’s only after they request it! Otherwise, they pressure them to abort, because that’s what PP makes money on.
So, tell me again, who is against children being born? Which group is it that takes care of children after they’re born? Oh, that’s right. PRO-LIFE!!!
Robert,
Yeah…we don’t care about the babies after their born. That’s why a pro-life couple I know fostered, then adopted kids that were already born (over the age of 5 on all 3 accounts). That’s why 3 of my cousins are adopted. That’s why I have an older brother and sister who are adopted (when they weren’t babies, too, by the way). That’s why at least one of my God-sisters is adopted. That’s why a friend of mine and her husband are both adopted…because pro-lifers don’t care about the babies after their born. As far as I know every single instance a pro-lifer adopted those kids (the two I don’t know for sure about, but I’m guessing they’re pro-life based on what I know about the parents).
That’s why pro-life people/parents I know are so anxious to help little ones who are already born. That’s why we give to charities and vulunteer our time, information, prayers, services. Because we just don’t care about people after their born.
You really don’t know pro-lifers very well, do you? We DO care about kids after they’re born. Unfortunately, there hasn’t been an end to poor, hungry or homeless people, but it isn’t for the lack of care on the part of pro-lifers. And each small step is a small step in the right direction toward helping people…even if it’s just that a pro-lifer can only afford to give 5-10 dollars at any given time, that’s 5-10 dollars more for helping people than was there before.
Hahaha! That’s funny, coming from you Robert Berger, champion of the “straw man.”
Eh, coding issues. The last paragraph in the above post is my thoughts.
Mods, the edit feature isn’t working, when I try to save, it says “Save Failed”
Also, the Salon article you linked to is full of ancedotes and claims of legal action, but fails to provide any substantial proof or evidence of said complaints or legal claims, not very convicing if you ask me.
The Talk2Action story you provided (while I give you kudos for actually providing proof for you claims for once) is the same story which I linked to above and addressed.
Also, the New York Times article cites the Alan Guttamacher Institute as its source for it’s claim for the adoption rate. The AGI is the outreach arm of abortion rights political activism organizations such as Planned Parenthood and so it shouldn’t be considered as an objective source or a sole source of information on adoption rates.
Ashley, I won’t allow this site to be used to bash adoption. Rachael, she’s using pro-abortion/anti-adoption propaganda. Comments being removed.