Contributed by Dr. Dana Stone, MD
Many people who agree with anti-choice advocates in the abortion debate may not be so comfortable with the more radical subgroup whose goal is abolishing access to birth control. The American Life League (ALL) plans to commemorate June 7th, the 33rd anniversary of the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) ruling establishing the right of married couples to make the personal decision to use birth control, as "Protest the Pill Day."
As a practicing doctor, and an OB/GYN, I'd like to point out that the primary claims on ALL's "The Pill Kills" Web site -- that birth control pills are a form of "chemical abortion" able to "kill innocent preborn children" -- are 100% medically inaccurate. And most of the others have been cherry picked from the drug insert the FDA requires with the pill, then spun in a way that is purposely misleading. (More about that later.)
That's because ALL's work has absolutely nothing to do with medical accuracy or maternal or fetal health. What we're seeing here is just the latest round in a grudge match that's been going on since 1965, the year that SCOTUS decided Griswold v. Connecticut.
This landmark case established the constitutional right to privacy as the basis for striking down a Connecticut law that prohibited the use of contraceptives. Eight years later, in 1973, it underpinned the SCOTUS decision in Roe v. Wade, which held that most laws against abortion in the United States violated a constitutional right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
And that's what's really bugging ALL.
We now face fringe movements trying to turn a woman's egg into a baby, birth control pills into a form of abortion, and all forms of contraception into murder. Call it nostalgia for the good old days, when men were men, sex was unspeakable, and women lived in fear of unintended pregnancies.
Let's get the medical facts straight. Birth control pills use two different mechanisms to prevent the release of an egg each month. Other effects of the pill can either reduce sperm motility or thin the uterine lining -- all simply to keep a fertilized egg from implanting if ovulation does occur.
There. That's it. That's the basis of ALL's claim that the pill is equivalent to "chemical abortion": more colorfully, that hundreds of millions of such losses have occurred within a 30-year span.
But that number, like the myth of "chemical abortion," is a complete fabrication: 30-60% of all pregnancies are spontaneously and naturally lost in the first three months -- half of them so early that they are unrecognizable as pregnancies. So there's no way that ALL can possibly quantify how often it allegedly occurs due to the use of birth control pills.
Equally sketchy is ALL's claim that birth control pills are "absolutely" dangerous to women's health. Yes, pills can have some dangerous side effects. That's why women are required to visit a doctor before getting a prescription, and encouraged to make follow-up visits. But ALL -- this time conveniently skirting the information on the FDA insert -- doesn't mention that women ages 15-39 have up to 20 times higher risk of death from pregnancy than from using birth control pills.
Or that the medical benefits of being on the pill are proven. Studies have shown that the pill can reduce uterine and ovarian cancer risks by 50%. It also protects against tubal pregnancy, pelvic infections, anemia, endometriosis, and other gynecological problems. By contrast, the federal government's Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System (PRAMS) data showed that 12% of pregnant women required a hospital stay unrelated to their delivery of at least one day during their pregnancies.
Let's stick with the facts. Women's and children's health improve when a woman has the freedom to plan the number and timing of her children. All birth control methods have consistently been shown to be safer for a woman than pregnancy; meanwhile, multiple, fast-paced pregnancies run demonstrably high risks for pregnancy loss, fetal growth restriction, and infant mortality.
Pro-choice and pro-life advocates alike should understand that the best way to decrease the number of abortions is to make effective contraception available for couples.
Dr. Dana Stone, MD, is a board-certified OB/GYN who practices in Oklahoma City. She works actively in her specialty and state medical organizations to promote women's health issues.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: No, Virginia, the Pill does NOT "Kill": How the Latest Anti-Roe Strategy Misleads Women.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/7560
Weekly Feministing Newsletter
Feministing RSS Feed
Dr Stone,
Wonderful entry! Thank you so much. This is what I've been trying to tell people for years, but it seems that so many people prefer to read ALL's propaganda instead.
I've been keeping an eye on this "The Pill Kills" web site. Watching their YouTube vid nearly made me cry with hopeless anger, because I know that their misleading information is really going to sink in to some uneducated young woman... and possibly damage her future forever.
It's terrible how after all these years people can still try to make these un-scientific accusations about birth control.
great post...had never heard of ALL before, at least not in this context.
This is a great post. I would only tweak the last sentence a bit. You say, "Pro-choice and pro-life advocates alike should understand that the best way to decrease the number of abortions is to make effective contraception available for couples." It in fact needs to be available for all persons regardless of their relationship status. Limiting a person's access to contraception based on their relationship status is only one more obstacle for women who should be able to freely choose when and with whom (or without whom) to have a child. Furthermore, it's only fuel for the anti-choice movements fire. Give them an inch and they'll take a mile.
Stupid proposals like this have to get more media attention and analysis. This is absolutely idiotic, and I believe that the mass majority of the public is vehemently against it. There has to be more education about reproduction and how it ties into womens lives and everyday social control. We have to elaborate on the real issues of why these anti-reproductive control advocates are so opposed to birth control. It has NOTHING to do with what they state it does, but about keeping women down. I mean, its pretty hard to have a job (nonetheless a career) while working on your 20th pregnancy.
"All simply to keep a fertilized egg from implanting if ovulation does occur. "
This is exactly what pro-lifers are claiming. Conception is the beginning of a new human life, and though ideologies differ to the significance of this event, it is undisputed that there is a difference between an unfertilized egg and one that has been fertilitzed.
Women should at least be given the information that the pill can interfer with implantation so they can make their own decision.
Eisenstadt v. Baird was the ruling (1972) that extended Griswold v. Conn's ruling to unmarried persons. Under the equal protection clause those single could not be treated differently than those married under the "right to privacy" that Griswold cited. I guess since Griswold was THE ruling that made contraception in general legal it is cited more but Eisenstadt has equal holding in law. At least I'd like to hope so...
Anyone care to join me in a rousing chorus of 'Every Sperm is Sacred'?
If we ban abortion AND birth control what choice does that leave us (Anyone who says abstinence shall be ignored as we are hard wired with a sex drive)?
Shall we take Swift's ideas then?
"Women should at least be given the information that the pill can interfer with implantation so they can make their own decision."
Women are given this information. It's part of the pharmaceutical information that everyone gets with a prescription for hormonal birth control. It's also information that a responsible doctor will provide to a patient; I know my doctor did, when I was exploring birth control options.
Also, it's not clear how much the thinning of the uterine lining contributes to the effectiveness of the pill. I've talked to a number of doctors about it and the evidence is very ambiguous. It's quite possible that the rate of implantation in the case that fertilization does take place while on the pill is negligibly lower than the rate of implantation in other cases.
Hi Dana! Keep up the good work -- and how wonderful to see you on one of my favorite blogs! -- Jodie
Ok I'm not sure why it didn't post this before.
Anyway who's up for a jolly chorus of Every Sperm is Sacred?
If they get rid of abortion and birth control what choice do we have left? Pushing abstinence has NEVER worked amongst populations and it isn't the government's business telling us how to run our sex lives.
Perhpas we can take the suggestions offered by Jonathan Swift?
Lauren, almost anything can interfere with implantation. Vitamin and mineral deficiencies can interfere with implantation. Stress can interfere with implantation. When the egg is fertilized can interfere with implantation. The rhythm method can interfere with implantation. Every birth control method that interferes with fertilization interferes with implanation. You can be a slave to your menstrual cycle all you want and walk on egg shells so that nothing interferes with your precious implantation. I prefer to have a life.
These whackos supposedly want to go back to a time when nobody used birth control. Unfortunately for them, that time never existed. Seriously, my grandparents were married for 55 years (1948-2003). They had two kids. If I thought for a second that my grandparents only had sex twice in 55 years, I'd be the biggest moron in the world. And my great aunt, who's 77, recently told me that she told off her priest after he said something about her using birth control with her own husband. Yeah, she rocks pretty hard.
"Lauren, almost anything can interfere with implantation. Vitamin and mineral deficiencies can interfere with implantation. Stress can interfere with implantation. When the egg is fertilized can interfere with implantation. The rhythm method can interfere with implantation."
...anmd don't forget the hormonal changes induced by breastfeeding a baby on demand.
"Every birth control method that interferes with fertilization interferes with implanation."
Do barrier methods (condoms, tubal ligations, vasectomies, etc.) count as methods that interfere with fertilization?
"Women should at least be given the information that the pill can interfer with implantation so they can make their own decision." - Lauren
Umm.. I dunno about the USA.. but here in Australia we have little information booklets that explain everything.. including links to websites for more information if we require it. Also generally if a girl bothers to go to the doctor to get a prescription and then goes to the pharmacy for the pill, and then consistently uses the pill, she's not going to know whether her egg was fertilised or not, and chances are that it's not that important to her. I, for example, can only know that I want to have sex with my boyfriend and not get pregnant. If I cared that much about whether my fertilised egg was "interfered with", then I wouldn't use any chemical birth control methods, would I?
BY the way, seeing as ALL believes that the "pill kills", I assume that they're wholly in favour of condom education in schools as an alternative to promoting this obviously-dangerous-and-life-threatening pill phenomena? /sarcasm
The key to this, of course, is education. What does that mean, though? What level of education are we talking? A 30-second TV spot? Or does it have to go deeper? Obviously there needs to be comprehensive sex ed that discusses not only forms of birth control, but exactly how human reproduction works (hence "comprehensive"). In the meantime, though, when there is so much restrictive legislation cropping up around the country, how do we quickly and effectively educate people?
Just so y'all know:
Planning is Power! silent demonstrations are planned for all three NYC clinics on June 7th. We also are in touch with a few other groups in other cities doing the same type of demonstration in support of family planning clinics and the patients that use them. Search for our Planning is Power group on Facebook for more information.
We are choosing to do a silent demonstration because we do not want to make things harder for the clinics or the patients by getting in a shouting match with the other side. And also, because our message stands alone and is the truly life-affirming one.
Standing on the side of truth, choice, and the non-crazy way!
Lets be clear--OCPs ABSOLUTELY interfere with implantation.
Thats what the pro-lifers are claiming when they say its an "abortion pill." Of course, they are using it in a purposefully inflammatory manner, but if you use the strict medical definition of abortion (e.g. any termination of a fertilized egg), then they are technically correct.
The feminist reponse to that should be "so what if it does cause abortion" not to obfuscate the facts and try to deny that it does interfere with implantation.
Its true that a myriad of things interfere with implantation, and OCPs are only one of them. But thats really obfuscating the issue because taking the pill is a conscious decision that women choose.
I believe OCPs should be available over the counter and widely available to all women, however we need to be clear as to what specifically happens when you take the pill. Women deserve to know that information and then make their own decision.
Every birth control method that interferes with fertilization interferes with implanation
Thats not true. Fertilization and implantation are two separate stages of the process. It just so happens that OCPs interfere with both stages.
Thank you for this entry. Something that concerns me about ALL's "pill kills" site is its youth focus -- drawing people in with YouTube videos & Facebook...
In response, our Planning is Power group will be at all 3 Planned Parenthood locations in NYC this Saturday (and hopefully others nationwide). We'll be a silent testimony of support for reproductive health services and choice.
Do barrier methods (condoms, tubal ligations, vasectomies, etc.) count as methods that interfere with fertilization?
Sure. And why not throw abstinence in there too. In fact, anything you do that allows you to have two periods in a row interferes with implantation.
all of you who are jumping of Lauren -
YES, actually, there are women, and even pro-choice feminists, who prefer to use only pre-fertilization methods of birth control. We can understand complex phenomena like spontaneous abortion and we actually WOULD nevertheless like to know about theoretical risks of interference with implantation. And we'd prefer to get it without being talked down to.
(note to my EX-obgyn: those questions I had about the pill that you freaked out about and told me were total lies? they weren't from Operation Rescue lit like you claimed. they were from my best friend's Northwestern med school text book)
harlemjd - of course there are women and feminists who prefer that. My point was simply that, here at least (Australia), anyone who buys the pill also buys a pamphlet explaining it, and would most likely already understand (thanks to our very comprehensive 7th through 10th grade sex education) exactly how the pill works.. so I think it's difficult to claim that the information isn't there. Generally speaking though, women who go on the pill will not be too concerned as to whether or not one of their eggs happen to fertilise or not, given that they have bought the pill in order to not conceive and most likely already understand how it works.
I agree that in some ways when this interference occurs, in very strict terms it could be called an abortion. But so what? We have a right to control our reproduction and we're doing it without putting ourselves in a surgery situation, which is much more advisable than waiting until we know we're pregnant and then paying hundreds of dollars to have a surgical abortion. Obviously ALL is spinning it in the worst possible way, but I agree with MedicalStudent29, we shouldn't shy away from these facts and we should instead focus, as most of us have been, on better education so that all women can have a real choice between pre-fertilisation and chemical contraception.
There is no medical definition of what BC methods interfere with implantation, but there are plenty of things that do interfere with implantation, including naturally occuring health problems (many women have problems carrying pregnancies to term - does ALL want to prosecute them for this?), body weight, stress, hormones, herbs, medications, and physical activity.
However, the pill has a three pronged approach: preventing ovulation, thinning the uterine lining so that if for some reason an egg is released and fertilized, it's chances of implantation are much lower, and thickening the mucus in the cervix to make it more difficult for sperm to fertilize any eggs, if there are any.
Plenty of women suffer spontaneous fetal demise all the time, it's very common. That's why most doctors advise pregnant women to wait until after the first trimester to announce their pregnancies, since there is such a high chance of miscarriage, especially for first pregnancies. By ALL's logic, women who have spontaneous miscarriages should be prosecuted for abortion.
Here is the thing: how on earth would they ever PROVE that a woman taking the pill, or another form of hormonal birth control, did in fact ovulate, and whether or not the egg was fertilized? For God's sake, exposure to mouse droppings can cause women to falsely test positive for pregnancy, so it's not as if pregnancy tests are bullet proof.
Medical Student29,
"but if you use the strict medical definition of abortion (e.g. any termination of a fertilized egg), then they are technically correct."
Medical or otherwise, strict or otherwise, the definition of abortion is the termination of pregnancy. The medical community considers the start of pregnancy to be the implantation of a fertilized egg: One cannot be considered pregnant unless implantation has occurred. It follows that abortion cannot happen unless implanation has occured. What kind of medical student are you?!
Mina: ...anmd don't forget the hormonal changes induced by breastfeeding a baby on demand.
You might want to forget that one... my sister in law is pregnant for the second time in a year 'cause of that theory.
I'm one of 3 women organizing the counter demonstration, Planning is Power, in NYC and around the country. We'll be at all three Planned Parenthood locations in NY starting at 8am on Saturday, June 7th. Please come out and support the efforts of family planning facilities and a woman's access to accurate information and basic health care. We can talk about the misinformation put out by ALL and groups like them all we want, but they are well organized and mobilized. We need to be as well. If you're not in NYC, head to your local Planned Parenthood with a positive message of choice.
"[b][i]Mina: ...anmd don't forget the hormonal changes induced by breastfeeding a baby on demand.[/i][/b]
"You might want to forget that one... my sister in law is pregnant for the second time in a year 'cause of that theory."
Yeah, I should have clarified that it's not 100% effective.
Oops, I used BBCode tags instead of HTML ones, sorry!
Lets be clear--OCPs ABSOLUTELY interfere with implantation.
The only other people I've heard who are willing to state that as an absolute are dogmatically anti-Pill. What's your evidence? Specifically, what's your evidence that the thinning of the uterine lining still occurs in cycles when ovulation occurs? Last I heard, there wasn't any, but that was a few years ago.
I've been lurking for months, but finally have to comment. I'll second Jen R. What is your evidence for this? Despite taking the pill for two weeks after she feared she might be pregnant, my daughter is now at 32 weeks. It seems many people can tell similar stories. If indeed the pill can prevent implantation, it would not appear to be particularly effective at it.
but if you use the strict medical definition of abortion (e.g. any termination of a fertilized egg), then they are technically correct
Sorry, but that isn't right.
The strict medical definition of pregnancy says that there is no pregnancy until implantation occurs (because there is zero chance of carrying to term without implantation). An abortion, spontaneous or otherwise, is the termination of a pregnancy not the termination of a fertilized egg. Expulsion of the fertilized egg (or whatever stage it's in) is a part of an abortion, but it's not the definition.
No implantation, no pregnancy. No pregnancy, no abortion. "They" are not correct in any way. It doesn't matter how it works, the pill is not an abortifacient.
I'm sorry SilentNoMore, but if your daughter took the pill AFTER she thought she was pregnant, of course it wouldn't work. As commenters have been saying, the pill PREVENTS pregnancy, it doesn't end it. For the pill to work, it has to be taken regularly before an incident where pregnancy could occur.
I didn't misunderstand what you meant, did I?
SilentNoMore - taking the pill does not harm an implanted egg. That is why it is not an abortion pill. It prevents ovulation and causes physical changes that prevent implantation (it doesn't end it once it has happened).
Sorry to be causing confusion with my very first post. My daughter was taking the pill as her regular birth control method, but had a funny feeling it had failed. She finished taking the rest of that month's pills anyway, didn't have her period like she should have and has been pregnant since. She apparently ovulated in spite of the pill, her egg was fertilized, and successfully implanted. Yes, this is anecdotal, but her story doesn't seem to be particularly uncommon, leading me to believe that the pill doesn't work very well at preventing implantation, if it does so at all.
Pannadol - Sure, a woman who understands exactly how the Pill works and chooses it as her preferred form of birth control probably doesn't care whether it's preventing ovulation, fertilization or implantation so long as it works, but that's a big assumption. I don't know what the public discourse is like in Australia, but in the U.S. it is very difficult to get OB/GYNs (or some people on this post) to discuss the fact that one of the ways the Pill may work is by preventing implantation. I've had personal experience with my own doctor telling me that is a lie. Not that it's untestable, but that it's definitely a lie.
And I have a real problem with that, because it's misinformation that prevents women from making a fully-informed choice about what birth control is best for them. For many women, the difference is irrelevant, but for some of us it matters.
I don't say this to argue that the Pill shouldn't be an option. It should. Denying women the Pill because of the theoretical chance that it might prevent implantation is damn near flat-out saying that women's lives are worthless outside of our reproductive capacity (cause we're so much less important than that hypothetical fertilized egg). But there's a difference between the government making that choice for me and me making it for myself.
I'm from Australia and I was told in high school sex-ed that the pill worked three ways; preventing ovulation, thickening mucus to block sperm and preventing implantation. This info is freely available here, it's just that no-one seems to care about the third possibility. Doctors are happy to discuss it.
And, let's not forget that most women who take no form of birth control will be passing fertilized eggs frequently. The doctor who wrote this article mentioned it, but a large % of fertilized eggs pass through, many without implanting, and most without ever becoming a viable pregnancy.
If the pill does prevent ovulation and deter sperm motility, then it should prevent these fertilized eggs from passing more than it causes it.
For the record, harlemjd, I don't know ANY pro choice feminists who draw the line at the pill because it prevents implantation. I choose not to use hormonal methods of birth control for other reasons (I love my copper T), but I think that is a rather bizarre statement, and I don't think you are speaking for the majority of women I know that self identify as prochoice feminists
And the medical definition of abortion generally refers to any known loss of pregnancy before 20 weeks. Since the vast majority of passed fertilized eggs would be not ever defined as pregnancy or symptomatic, I really don't think it qualifies as a pregnancy. Or a life, for that matter.
Also a med student, and future OB.