On June 5, 2012, New York Times writer Pam Belluck wrote an article called “Abortion Qualms on Morning-After Pill May Be Unfounded.” In her article, Belluck mistakenly lumps Plan B and Ella—two very different drugs—together, ignorantly proclaims that these drugs do not prevent implantation, and does not account for Ella’s abortion-inducing actions. Unsurprisingly, Belluck claims that the pro-life view of morning-after pills “is probably rooted in outdated or incorrect scientific guesses about how [they] work.” As she presents her empty argument, Belluck argues that no studies have confirmed “that emergency contraceptive pills prevent fertilized eggs from implanting in the womb” and that these pills only “delay ovulation.” She heavily refers to a New York Times review, along with “scientists” and “experts” she forgets to cite, to support her view that Plan B does not prevent implantation and that “the one-shot dose in morning-after pills does not have time to affect the uterine lining.”
Disheartened by Belluck’s reporting? Luckily, several renowned pro-life advocates have written articles against Belluck’s dishonest claims:
Donna Harrison, The Times’s Convolution of Facts on Abortifacients
Gerard Nadal, Responding to the New York Times on ‘Morning After’ Pills: A Factual Recalibration (Part I)
Jeanne Monahan, Emergency Contraception: We need an unbiased review of the facts
Richard Doerflinger, Letter in Response to NY Times Article of June 6, 2012
Marie T. Hilliard, Are Journalists Now Scientists? A Reporter Loses Sight of Data on Plan B
Reprinted with permission from FRC Blog.