LifeSiteNews.com

Plan B Manufacturer Admits Morning After Pill Can Cause Death of an Embryo

LifeSiteNews.com
LifeSiteNews.com

Special to LifeSiteNews.com by Prof. Richard Stith, PhD

Recent publicity concerning Plan B has been seriously misleading. The Plan B morning-after pill has been referred to as “contraception,” even though it may act after fertilization to cause the death of a human embryo. This is an important mistake because, whatever one’s judgment on abortion may be, I think we all agree that no woman should be misled into doing what she would consider to be taking a life without realizing that she is doing so.

  There has been a shameful disinformation campaign on Plan B for years, and the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has failed to demand candor. Perhaps the simplest way to discern the truth is to look very carefully at the manufacturer’s own “information” for consumers, found on its website at http://www.go2planb.com/section/about/index.html:

How does Plan B work (mechanism of action)?
  Plan B is believed to act as an emergency contraceptive principally by preventing ovulation or fertilization (by altering tubal transport of sperm and/or ova). In addition, it may inhibit implantation by altering the endometrium. Plan B is not effective if a woman is pregnant. Plan B is a contraceptive and cannot terminate an established pregnancy.

Will Plan B harm an unborn fetus?
  There is no evidence that Plan B would harm a pregnant woman or a developing fetus if the product were accidentally taken during early pregnancy…. Plan B is not an abortifacient. It is an emergency contraceptive and should not be confused with RU486 or any other abortifacient.


  Note that the manufacturer claims that Plan B is “contraceptive”, “not effective if a woman is pregnant”, will not “harm an unborn fetus,” and “is not an abortifacient.” Sure sounds like it doesn’t destroy an unborn human life, and that’s the message swallowed and spread by the media.

  However, note also that the drug maker admits that Plan B “may inhibit implantation by altering the endometrium [i.e. the lining of the womb].” In other words, Plan B may cause a newly-conceived embryo to die (and be expelled) because it cannot implant itself in the lining of the womb. For this reason, some South American courts have found the Plan B drug to violate an unborn child’s constitutionally-guaranteed right to life.

  In light of the manufacturer’s own admission, its other statements above may at first seem to be flat-out lies. But careful analysis reveals them to be deeply misleading rather than flatly false. Although many people (e.g. the legal philosopher Ronald Dworkin) use the word “fetus” to refer to an unborn child at any stage of development, in medicine a developing human life is usually called an “embryo” rather than a “fetus” prior to implantation in the mother’s womb. The statement that Plan B does not “harm an unborn fetus” is true if we use this technical medical definition of “fetus,” even though it may be misleading for those of us who don’t distinguish fetuses from embryos.

  But if Plan B may work post-fertilization, may cause the death of a newly-conceived human embryo, how can the drug maker say that the pill is only a “contraceptive,” is “not effective if a woman is pregnant,” and “is not an abortifacient”? The short answer is that the manufacturer appears to rely on recent (and perhaps politically motivated) redefinitions of conception, pregnancy, and abortion: According to the new definitions, “conception” and “pregnancy” begin at implantation rather than at fertilization, and “abortion” means the termination of a post-implantation “pregnancy.” The drug makers can claim, rightly, that their statements are true under these new definitions.

  One large problem is that the lay readers of the drug information packet are not told up front that these special new definitions are being used. Thus this “information” is quite unfair and misleading to average men and women who may remember from high school biology that fertilization and conception meant the same thing and that fertilization marked the beginning of pregnancy.

  Moreover, the drug maker’s insistence that Plan B does not terminate a pregnancy is a red herring to begin with. Nobody has any qualms about terminating pregnancies per se. After all, that’s what birth itself does! What pro-life women and men don’t want to do is to have an “abortion” in the ordinary sense of terminating LIFE. When the drug maker tells them not to worry because they are not terminating a pregnancy, they may conclude incorrectly that Plan B cannot cause the death of their unborn child. When they find out too late that they were misled and may have taken the lives of their own children, they may be devastated. And the drug maker, the media, and the FDA will be responsible.

  In making this potentially lethal pill more easily available, the FDA should at least have required the drug maker to come clean, to say prominently on its label something like “WARNING: THIS DRUG MAY CAUSE THE DEATH OF AN EMBRYO.” Its users would then be able to exercise informed consent about whether to take a chance on destroying a developing human life.

_______

  Richard Stith J.D.(Yale), Ph.D.(Yale) is a Professor of Law at Valparaiso University School of Law in Indiana


Advertisement
Featured Image
Hilary White Hilary White Follow Hilary

UK quietly opens the door to genetic engineering, ‘3-parent’ embryos

Hilary White Hilary White Follow Hilary
By Hilary White

Last month the UK’s Department of Health quietly redefined the term “genetic modification” to open the door to allow certain kinds of modification of human embryos – thus potentially making it the first country in the world to allow genetic engineering.

Scottish journalist Lori Anderson recently raised the alarm over the change in a column in the Scotsman, in which she alleged that the change is designed to “dupe” the British public into accepting “full-scale germline genetic engineering,” using human embryos as test subjects.

Anderson said that in July, the Department of Health “effectively re-wrote the definition of ‘genetic modification’ to specifically exclude the alteration of human mitochondrial genes or any other genetic material that exists outside the chromosomes in the nucleus of the cell.”

“The reason for doing this is that it believes it will be easier to sell such an advancement to the public if it can insist that the end result will not be a ‘GM baby’.”

This change follows a statement from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA), the government body that regulates experimental research on human embryos, approving the procedure to create an embryo from one couple’s gametes but with genetic material added from a third party donor, a procedure called in the press “three-parent embryos”.

Anderson quoted a statement from the Department of Health comparing this procedure to donating blood. The statement read, “There is no universally agreed definition of ‘genetic modification’ in humans – people who have organ transplants, blood donations, or even gene therapy are not generally regarded as being ‘genetically modified’. The Government has decided to adopt a working definition for the purpose of taking forward these regulations.”

This assertion was challenged by one of the UK’s leading fertility researchers, Lord Robert Winston, who told the Independent, “Of course mitochondrial transfer is genetic modification and this modification is handed down the generations. It is totally wrong to compare it with a blood transfusion.”

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

The HFEA, which throughout its history has been known as one of the world’s most permissive regulatory bodies, has been working steadily towards allowing genetically modified embryos to be implanted in women undergoing artificial procreation treatments. In a document issued to the government last year, they called the insertion of mitochondrial DNA (mDNA) into embryos “mitochondrial donation” or “mitochondrial replacement”. mDNA is the genetic material found in the cytoplasm outside a cell’s nucleus, problems with which can cause a host of currently incurable genetic illnesses.

In the statement issued in June, the HFEA said the technique of inserting “donated” mDNA into already existing in vitro embryos, “should be considered ‘not unsafe’ for the use on a ‘specific and defined group of patients.’”

“Mitochondria replacement (or mitochondrial donation) describes two medical techniques, currently being worked on by UK researchers, which could allow women to avoid passing on genetically inherited mitochondrial diseases to their children,” the statement said.

The HFEA admitted that the techniques are “at the cutting edge of both science and ethics” and said that the results of a “public consultation” in 2012/13 were being examined by the government, which is considering “draft regulations”.

In June, the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children echoed Lori Anderson’s concern, commenting that the HFEA is attempting to deceive the public. Paul Tully, SPUC’s general secretary, said, “Human gene manipulation is being sold to a gullible public on a promise of reducing suffering, the same old con-trick that the test-tube baby lobby has been using for decades.” 

Any manipulation of human genetics, always breaks “several important moral rules,” entailing the creation of “human guinea-pigs,” Tully said. “Human germ-line manipulation and cloning – changing the genetic inheritance of future generations - goes against internationally-agreed norms for ethical science.”

He quoted Professor Andy Greenfield, the chairman of the scientific review panel that approved the techniques, who said that there is no way of knowing what effect this would have on the children created until it is actually done.

“We have to subject children who have not consented and cannot consent to being test subjects,” Tully said.

Altering the mDNA of an embryo is what cloning scientists refer to as “germline” alteration, meaning that the changes will be carried on through the altered embryo’s own offspring, a longstanding goal of eugenicists.

In their 1999 book, “Human Molecular Genetics” Tom Strachan and Andrew Read warned that the use of mitochondrial alteration of embryos would cross serious ethical boundaries.

Having argued that germline therapy would be “pointless” from a therapeutic standpoint, the authors said, “There are serious concerns, therefore, that a hidden motive for germline gene therapy is to enable research to be done on germline manipulation with the ultimate aim of germline-based genetic enhancement.”

“The latter could result in positive eugenics programs, whereby planned genetic modification of the germline could involve artificial selection for genes that are thought to confer advantageous traits.”


Advertisement
Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben

,

Cable series portrays nun as back-alley abortionist

Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben
By Ben Johnson
Image
'To depict a nun who performs an abortion is a new low,' said Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights.

The Cinemax TV series The Knick portrayed a Roman Catholic nun as a back alley abortionist who tells a Catholic woman God will forgive her for going through with the procedure.

In its latest episode, which aired Friday night, the series showed Sister Harriet (an Irish nun played by Cara Seymour) telling a Catholic woman named Nora, “Your husband will know nothing of it. I promise.”

“Will God forgive me?” Nora asked, adding, “I don't want to go to Hell for killing a baby.”

“He knows that you suffered,” the sister replied, before performing the illegal abortion off-screen. “I believe the Lord's compassion will be yours.” 

The period medical drama is set at the Knickerbocker Hospital (“The Knick”) in New York City around the turn of the 20th century, when abortion was against both civil and ecclesiastical law.

“It is no secret that Hollywood is a big pro-abortion town, but to depict a nun who performs an abortion is a new low,” Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, said. “The only saving grace in this episode is the real-life recognition of the woman who is about to have the abortion: she admits that her baby is going to be killed.”

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

The series is directed by Steven Soderbergh, known for such films as Erin Brockovich, the Oceans Eleven franchise, and Sex, Lies, and Videotape. More recently he directed The Girlfriend Experience, a film about prostitution starring pornographic actress Sasha Grey.

Critics have hailed his decision to include a black surgeon in circa 1900 America. But after last week's episode, the New York Times stated that The Knick has chosen to “demonstrate concern for other kinds of progress,” citing the depiction of the abortion. 


Advertisement
Balcony of the Grandmaster Palace - Valletta
Balcony of the Grandmaster Palace in Valletta, which houses the Maltese Parliament. Shutterstock
Hilary White Hilary White Follow Hilary

,

Catholic Malta enacts ‘transgender’ employment discrimination law

Hilary White Hilary White Follow Hilary
By Hilary White

An amendment to Malta’s Employment and Industrial Relations Act means that employment “discrimination” against “transsexuals” is now officially prohibited in the Catholic country. The provision, which was quietly passed in May, came into effect on August 12th.

The law allows those who believe they have a complaint to make a case with the National Commission for the Promotion of Equality, with an industrial tribunal or the courts. A government spokesman told local  media, “Employees do not need to prove that their employer has discriminated against them.”

“They only need to provide enough evidence pointing to a likely case of discrimination. The employer will then need to prove that discrimination has not taken place.”

The amendment defines illegal discrimination against “transgendered” people as, “in so far as the ground of sex is concerned, any less favourable treatment of a person who underwent or is undergoing gender reassignment, which, for the purpose of those regulations shall mean, where a person is considering or intends to undergo, or is undergoing, a process, or part of a process, for the purposes of reassigning the person’s sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex.” 

Silvan Agius, Human Rights policy coordinator with the Ministry for Social Dialogue, Consumer Affairs and Civil Liberties, told Malta Today newspaper that the new amendment brings Maltese law into harmony with EU law.

“This amendment is continuing the government’s equality mainstreaming exercise. The inclusion of gender reassignment in the Act also brings it in line with the anti-discrimination articles found in both Malta’s Constitution and the Equality for Men and Woman Act,” Agius said.

Click "like" if you support TRADITIONAL marriage.

Agius is a key member of the homosexual activist apparatus in Malta’s government working to entrench the ideology of gender in law in Malta and elsewhere. In June, he was a featured speaker, with the notorious British anti-Catholic campaigner Peter Tatchell, at a Glasgow conference organised by the Edinburgh-based Equality Network, a group that helps organise and train homosexualist campaign groups.

The amendment to the law follows promises made recently by the country’s equalities minister, Helena Dalli, to a “transgender” congress in Hungary in May. Dalli, who brought forward Malta’s recently passed same-sex civil unions bill, told a meeting of gender activists in Budapest that while her government’s focus had been mainly on homosexuals, that she would shortly be turning her attention to “trans” people.

“The next step now is a Bill towards the enactment of a Gender Identity law. A draft bill has been prepared and it has now been passed to the LGBTI Consultative Council for its vetting and amendment as necessary,” Dalli said.

“Some of you may be thinking that we are moving forward quickly. I have a different perspective though. We are doing what is right, what should have been done a long time ago,” she added.

Since the legalisation of divorce in 2011, Malta has been remarkable for its rapid adoption of the gender ideology’s agenda. In 2013, Malta was named the “fastest climber” on the Rainbow Europe Index, a survey organised annually by ILGA Europe, the leading homosexualist lobby group funded directly by the European Union.

The ILGA Europe report notes (p. 114) that Helena Dalli Helena “was one of 11 EU Member States’ equality ministers to co-sign a call for the European Commission to work on a comprehensive EU policy for LGBT equality.” The report also noted that although the new Labour government has proved cooperative, the Christian Democrat Nationalist Party has “progressively proved more receptive to LGBTI issues, including same-sex unions.”


Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook