Misconception

One of the most amazing things about the stir caused by the recently leaked HHS proposal is how little, make that no, effort has been made to investigate whether the claim by the anti-abortion establishment about the mode of action of hormonal birth control is even true. In the thousands that have so far reported on the "Contraception is Abortion" proposal, not one news outlet has ventured to even ask this question: Can contraception prevent implantation?

Now, of course, for pro-choice people, this is a moot point. Even if hormonal birth control could prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the womb, that's not abortion because pregnancy doesn't begin until implantation. To enter into this discussion is to first set aside the medical and legal definition of pregnancy and indulge the extremists. That's why this discussion never really happens. But what would we find if we did indulge them?

According to the Code of Federal Regulations, The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the National Institutes of Health, pregnancy begins when a fertilized egg implants in the womb. Until it affixes to the woman's womb a fertilized egg can not receive nutrients from the woman's body, which is essential for it to grow. Implantation is also the only way in which a pregnancy can be determined, there is no test that can tell when an egg has been fertilized--there is no way of knowing whether or not this has happened. Implantation is what sets in motion all the signs that pregnancy has begun. On this one point, science, medicine and the law agree: implantation is the moment at which pregnancy starts. The only dissenting group is the "pro-life" movement, which dismisses this definition. It, instead, would like pregnancy to start at the unknowable moment the sperm fertilizes an egg. Once sperm meets egg, any effort to prevent the egg from implanting in the womb is considered an abortion by the "pro-life" movement. This is one of the arguments they offer up as justification for the campaigns to keep women from using birth control. Their claim is that most birth control methods prevent fertilized eggs from implanting in the womb, which to them, though not to science, is an abortion. But even that is not true. There is no evidence that birth control methods actually do what pro-life groups claim.

Prompted, in part, by the growing efforts of anti-abortion groups to define birth control as abortion, the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology reviewed the available research on "the mechanism of action" of the contraceptive methods that so dismay pro-lifers. The authors take up the pro-life concerns directly writing, "Recently, some special interest groups have claimed, without providing any scientific rationale, that some methods of contraception may have an abortifacient effect."

After reviewing the available literature, the authors conclude that hormonal contraceptive methods (oral contraceptives, the patch, the ring, the shot) cause a number of changes in a woman's body which prevent pregnancy. Primarily, what they do is simply prevent ovulation. In other words, take the pill and in almost all instances a woman won't release an egg. No egg, no chance of pregnancy. The secondary way these contraceptives function, the authors report, is by preventing fertilization. So, on the very slim chance that a woman using a hormonal method does produce an egg another mechanism of action kicks in. Hormonal contraceptives also thicken the mucus lining of women's reproductive organs which hamper the ability of the sperm to even get to the egg. And if a rogue sperm reaches the egg, hormonal contraceptives prevent it from penetrating the egg. Specifically, they stop the shell encasing the egg from disintegrating so a sperm can't actually do the deed of fertilization. This is what is known about how hormonal birth control works.

What gets pro-lifers so worked up is that they insist on believing that a fertilized egg can be stopped from implanting in the womb. First off, hormonal contraceptives stop fertilization. What if, through some extraordinary, unknown, and seemingly unknowable process, an egg got fertilized? The researchers consider the question and report , "No direct evidence exists showing that implantation is prevented by progestin-only methods" and "The evidence does not support the theory that the usual mechanism of action of IUDs is destruction of fertilized ova in the uterus," say the authors. After reviewing all the research available on the modes of action of all contraceptives in question the authors summarize their report by explaining that "Even though the precise mechanism of action of modern contraceptive is not yet fully known, scientific evidence suggests the main mechanisms of action for each method. Inhibition of ovulation and effects on the cervical mucus are the primary mechanisms of the contraceptive action of hormonal methods. Evidence indicates that the primary mechanism of action of IUDs is the prevention of fertilization."

"All of these methods, directly or indirectly, have effects on the endometrium [the lining of the uterus] that might prevent implantation of a fertilized ovum," the researchers acknowledge. But as they quickly point out, "So far, no scientific evidence has been published supporting this possibility." There's just no evidence that any birth control method prevents a fertilized egg from attaching to the womb, even though that's the basis for the pro-life claims.

What's most striking about all this, is that, really, it should be a relief to "pro-lifers." Birth control doesn't have any effect on the egg once fertilized. The primary and secondary ways in which these methods work should be completely acceptable by the anti-abortion movement. In fact, though, they've taken just the opposite stance. Their argument usually sounds like this: We can't really know for sure that in some cases, however rare, a fertilized egg isn't kept from fulfilling its God decreed destiny of implanting in the womb. And the dutiful scientist, limited by the research facts, must acknowledge that though there is no evidence to suggest that such a thing happens, it's impossible to rule it out. So there! Says the pro-lifer. It can't be ruled out. You can't prove a negative. It's a little bit like deriding gravity as a hypothesis. Yes, the last ten times you dropped that spoon, it crashed down on the table. But what about the eleventh time? Or the eleven hundredth? Or the eleven millionth?

There is also no way of knowing how breast feeding works as a means of birth control, which it does in the exact way hormonal methods mentioned above do, or whether fertilized eggs to breast feeding women are prevented from implanting. Applying the same exact standard here, pro-lifers would even be against the birth control method God designed. They propagate "education" campaigns, with great vehemence and assuredness, about the "abortifacient" method of birth control--all this, because while there is no evidence to show these methods actually prevent implantation of a fertilized egg, there is also no evidence to show they do not. "Insufficient evidence exists on whether cellular or biological changes in the endometrium could actually prevent implantation," say the authors. However, their point is that it doesn't matter. "The possibility of fertilization during combined oral contraceptive use is very small. Hence, endometrial changes are unlikely to play an important role, if any, in the observed contraceptive effectiveness of combined oral contraceptives." Thus "pro-life" campaigns against birth control are based not on scientific evidence, but rather on wishful thinking. Indeed, on a slim hypothetical chance, the anti-abortion movement has successfully opposed legislation that would have provided millions of women access to effective birth control methods. If the science isn't on your side, then, the "pro-life" side seems to believe, ignore it.

Even some "pro-life" physicians, sparked by the recurring actions by their movement as a whole against birth control, stepped in to offer their medical views on the concerns their fellow "pro-lifers" raise. In 1998, twenty-two "pro-life" Ob/Gyns published an analysis entitled "Birth Control Pills: Contraceptive or Abortifacients?" and four of these physicians followed up with a more detailed paper on hormonal contraceptives in general. The physicians open their statement boldly warning, "Currently the claim that hormonal contraceptives [birth control pills, implants (norplant), injectables (depoprovera)] include an abortifacient mechanism of action is being widely disseminated in the pro-life community. This theory is emerging with the assumed status of "scientific fact," and is causing significant confusion among both lay and medical pro-life people. With this confusion in the ranks comes a significant weakening of both our credibility with the general public and our effectiveness against the tide of elective abortion." The authors explain that any effects on the uterine lining that the "pro-life" movement uses to support the claim that fertilized eggs are being prevented from implanting would be insignificant and has no role in the ability for a fertilized egg to implant. Fertilized eggs are able to implant in much more hostile conditions than those resulting from the mode of action from the pill. They report "The presumption that implantation of a blastocyst is thwarted by "hostile endometrium" is contradicted by the "pill pregnancies" we as physicians see. Pill company literature estimates 3 to 5 pregnancies per l00 women per year for pill users. Many of these women take the "pill" an additional month or two before finding out they are pregnant. These pregnancies generally progress with no more difficulty than non-pill pregnancies. To our knowledge, there are no studies showing that the spontaneous abortion rate in these cases is any greater than in pregnancies with a "friendly endometrium." The "pro-life" physicians conclude that there is no evidence to support that the contraceptive methods in question act in the ways that would be unacceptable to the pro-life individual who believes life begins at fertilization. They state it as plainly as they can, "the 'hormonal contraception is abortifacient' theory is not established scientific fact. It is speculation, and the discussion presented here suggests it is error" and continue "if a family, weighing all the factors affecting their own circumstances, decides to use this modality, we are confident that they are not using an abortifacient."

Yet, the "anti-abortion" movement's campaigns against birth control continue today with more intensity than even before this intervention from the most expert on the "pro-life" side. Of course, arguing over inconvenient biological truths is, in many ways, besides the point when it comes to "pro-lifers'" disenchantment with birth control. Don't be misled. This fracas is not caused by a simple scientific misunderstanding. Otherwise, they'd rush to support birth control methods that don't 'cause abortions', even in their implausible view. Like the diaphragm, condom, cervical cap, and spermicides. But the "pro-life" forces aren't on record anywhere in favor of methods that keep sperm and egg apart. It appears impossible to find a single instance in which a anti-abortion group has anything good to say about any birth control method except natural family planning--a technique most notable for its high failure rate. Even the lowly condom disturbs them.

For breaking news on threats to birth control access and information visit birthcontrolwatch.org

Comments

[PioneerKing]

CRISTINA:

Why do the republicans ignore all of the frozen embryo that their family members abandon after invitro fertilization? Why do republicans ignore all of the abortions that their family members have when they get "selective reduction," done after invitro fertilization?
Cristina, just give it up the republicans are hypocrits and only care about reproduction and Choice because they would not have a base without these issues.

[curledup]

As it too often is, the nuanced arguments/facts/science hit a brick wall of black-and-white ideology that says "I believe /X/ is in the broadest (or most extremely reprehensible) sense morally wrong, ergo /X/ shall be legislated against." Anyone who thinks even occasionally in nuanced terms saw this nonsensical interaction of complexity vs. blowhard proclamations at the Rick Warren "faith" forum. Science and reason developed a lot later (if you believe the universe has been around for more than a few thousand years, anyway) than our emotional, instinctual brain bits, and anytime some sort of late-term horror can be conjured up, it's going to engender a recoil mechanism that, in many of those who believe abortion (or some fanciful contraception-is-abortion concept) should be made illegal once more, simply shuts down more thoughtful consideration. Maddening. Many thanks to Cristina Page for this thorough piece.

[noamjunior]

If Cons abandoned every position they had that was contradicted by scientific fact, expert opinion, or statistical analysis, they would be Democrats

[reader110]

I wonder how all these pro lifers would react if women simply turned to their own sex for their sexual gratification. Choose your poison, bible thumpers, abortion or homosexuality? It's your call.

[noamjunior]

google Salem Massachusetts

[mssisyphus]

It is so very difficult to me, someone who decided to have a child that I was destined to raise alone, and did, how Pro-Lifers (who are overwhelmingly Republicans) can reconcile having such a Anti-Abortian, anti-birthcontrol stance, yet, be so against any assistance once the child is born.

T'hey do not want to give any assistance for housing, day care, food, health care, or any other necessity needed to raise a child alone. Once I had my child, I walked four blocks in my office attire after getting a ride to day care, I walked back in the afternoon in the hot Florida sun and was given a ride by a good samaritian. Once Day care, rent and utilities were paid, I sometimes had on ly $20.00 left for food. for the week. There was no assistance available because, I chose to work, not live on welfare.

The very same people who want to insist you have a child, do not want to help that same woman out after the child is born,. Who is the sinner here? If they put as much into helping to lift single mothers, who decide to have their children up, then it may seem more credible. You can't have it both ways!

[reader110]

Because these are the same people who are so "pro-life" that they can't wait to engage in war. The same people who are so "pro-life" that they can't wait to "take an eye for an eye" and utlize the death penalty.

Every woman denied birth control needs to tell their husband/boyfriend that sex is out until they can access reasonable birth control

And every woman denied an abortion needs to have that baby and drop it on the steps of the White House, their nearest senator/congressperson or any other "pro-life" organization so that they can raise that child.

Maybe then people in this country would begin to see the light.

[athenasword]

good strategy!

[sdskelton03]

If someone wants to be against contraception, I say good for them. I disagree, but this is America. If a group is passionate that contraception is immoral and should be illegal, then it's their perogative to advocate that point of view within our government.

It is clear to all, including this pro-lifer, that monthly oral contraception is not an abortafacient.

These people should fight fair, call a spade a spade and try to win their argument rather than hide behind a different one.

[klmebane]

you can't legislate morality. many of these arguments are based in religion, which cannot be used to form a law of the land. we are a nation of many religions and to impose the rules of one on all is infringement on the right to freedom from religious persecution. the point is everyone should be free to believe whatever they believe and leave it at that. they have no right to force their beliefs on others. the fact that you wouldn't care if they did make birth control illegal speaks volumes. there are millions of women who would suffer from that legislation, and in extension born children would suffer because mothers wouldn't have the resources to care for all the kids they could have without access to contraception. even married women would have to just cut their husbands off to avoid becoming pregnant again. i wonder if women went on strike if men would notice?

[bander55]

It seems we have been wasting our time for the last 30 years. Why hasn't anyone dealt with this issue as a violation of the Separation of Church and State? Isn't a Theocracy simply a state whose laws reflect a specific religion and that the inforcement of those laws is essentially religious persectution?

When is a fetus a human being? Why shouldn't we teach Intellligence Design (Creationism)? We have scientific answers (which they are claiming is a religion, but it is my understanding scientists and research organizations have to pay taxes if they are profit driven, churches do not even tho they are profit driven) and we have religious answers to these questions. If churches want to ge involved in politics then they should be taxed. It is that simple.

Instead we have hung our heads in shame they we do not have "values." That our lives are not "purpose driven" as defined by religion. No one is willing to say, yes, I have beliefs and they are none of your business. What has happened to this country?

[slaxx]

and how do we decide whose religion we should enact into law and entertain? should we legalize honor killing?outlaw pork? give the scientoligists "conscience clauses" so they don't have to provide psychiatric meds?

freedom of religion includes freedom from religion. so what about my rights?

[deminmo]

This isn't about the rights of the unborn and it it's
not about childrens rights. This is about a political
faction controlling the private decisions of individuals.
If this legislation gets passed not just women will
lose rights, so will the boyfriends, husbands and
certainly the children will lose.

[slaxx]

right on.

[slaxx]

the pro-life movement is really based on the belief that women are stupid. as well as selfish, irresponsible, heartless, and immoral. women must be told what to do because they can't be trusted to make the "right" decision and they have no authority to make these decisions.

i can't wait for the day when girls' and women's bodies aren't viewed and treated as public property. if you believe that life begins at conception, then don't get an abortion. it's THAT simple.

[lisakaz2]

Indeed, there is disrespect that women are not individuals and therefore are incapable of decisions. They don't want to "compete" on the merits or capture "hearts and minds" so much as they want to force everyone to accept their view. They can mess up their own lives. Leave me to mess up my own.

[sdskelton03]

You are wrong slaxx.

In my 15 years of pro-life activity, I have never met a like-minded individual who felt that women are stupid, irresponsible, heartless or immoral.

You and I disagree on how the rights of a woman and an unborn child should be balanced. It doesn't mean you advocate the murder of children or that I hate and want to control women.

We can both be good people and just disagree.

[ScienceLady]

The problem that it is not just a matter of disagreeing. It is a matter of pro-life people imposing their ideology on my reproductive rights. I find that is oppressive to women's rights and it tramples the rights of religious freedom.

[athenasword]

Good points. However, there is a documented "theme" in religious circles that argues women are not responsible, smart or moral enough to make the choice on their own. Men claim those qualities... women are supposed to submit.

I know this often lives as an unspoken, as an attitue (so you might not have heard this). But, it is at the very least a strong underlying current.

[slaxx]

do you think that women should have any ounce of choice? such as only first term abortions and being able to end the pregnancy if the baby has a severe condition? what about emergency contraception?

it seems that many times when i hear pro-life rhetoric it's about second and third term abortions and botched abortions where the baby is alive. no women in her right mind would have a third term abortion if the baby was healthy and/or her health wasn't at risk. plus, this isn't this practice illegal? everyone who believes in choice prefers early abortions.

it just seems so odd to me how pro-lifers can have such compassion for a clump of cells. it seems like a part of this compassion is only brought about by the disdain for the woman who is aborting it; as if she's just lazy or just taking the easy way out of the situation, at the expense of this little thing. that without this, without HER, or without the (evil) doctor who is performing it, the compassion of these people would be greatly reduced or nonexistant. i think it's really the percpetion of the "preying" nature of abortion and discarding of embryos that bothers pro-life people.

think about it - how much do you morn the embryo during the event of a miscarriage? probably not much, you're main focus is probably on having compassion for the woman.

[Barticus]

The problem here is that contraception means prevention of conception, not prevention of implantation. If a drug or IUD prevents a fertilized egg from implanting, then the woman was not pregnant (according to definition), so it's not abortion (you can't terminate a pregnancy that doesn't begin), but it is also not contraception (since conception has occurred). Broadly it's birth control, but if you are looking for a narrower word we need a term for this action between contraception and abortion.

[slaxx]

umm..if there is no conception, there CAN'T be implantation. contraception refers to hormonal contraception, IUD's would fit under birth control not contraception, though they all fit undert the broad category of birth control. and no, we don't need more terms.

[clevelandchick]

Why would be preventing conception be a problem? The Pill prevents ovulation which means there is no egg released to be fertilized which means there is no egg to be implanted. What part of that do you not understand?

I don't know if you realize this but women release eggs monthly that are not fertilized or even may be fertilized (even if they are having sex and not on the pill) but are 'gasp' contracepted by nature.

There is no redefining abortion, Barticus. If no egg is released, no egg is fertilized and no fertilized egg is successfully implanted in the uterine lining of a woman's body there is no case for calling the birth control method said woman uses abortion. A certain group of people keep trying to move that goal post but there is no moral, scientific or ethical reason for doing so.

The only ones willing to promote this complete false line of thinking would be those who are trying to force unwanted pregnancy on women and blame women for pregnancies that do not result in successful births. I can only think of certain brutally oppressive societies that would impose such hell on their women. And the United States is not going to be one of them as long as I am alive.

[lisakaz2]

It counters (acts against) the event of conception, hence contra-ception. Makes perfect sense.

[athenasword]

Ah, but remember... that isn't really the pro-life argument. Their point isn't about when pregnancy begins. Their point is that LIFE begins when an egg is fertilized. They don't care where it is (in our female body... same folks don't give a darn if it's in a test tube and discarded later)

[MrsGreebers]

Medically, conception has historically meant the same thing as implantation.

[slaxx]

wrong.

[Wilburrr]

The so-called 'pro-life' movement is not about abortion; it is about controlling women. If men could get pregnant, abortions would be available at the local mini-mart.

LIfe should be defined the way we define death; either the initiation of brain activity or the presence of a heartbeat.

[bander55]

Fetus heart beat starts very early in pregnancy. The brain is also active fairly early on. The featus is defintely alive. The questions is, does it have the same rights as a breathing human being. The Bible uses the phrase for the entering of the soul "as the breath of Life," or when the baby takes it's first breath. I believe when a baby can support it self separate from the mother, breath on it's own, that is when it should no longer be considered a fetus, but a human being. I have not stayed up on the abortion rules, but it used to be none available after the first trimester, or within the first 90 days of pregnancy. Good rule to follow.

[mh01]

no, the bible says "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."
-- Genesis 2: 7 (KJV)

That doesn't really say that once a baby takes a breath on its, and not until, does man have the breath of life, i.e a soul.

But I could be wrong.

[klmebane]

more than 70% of all abortions are performed within the first 12 weeks (3 months, first trimester) later abortions are usually not performed on a whim, as it is much more invasive and expensive. it is used in cases of damage or injuries, miscarriage, serious illness, etc.

[MrsGreebers]

It's actually pretty late in gestation that a human baby can breathe on its own (i.e. without
help from the NICU). Generally the third trimester. Just FYI. And limiting abortion to the first trimester doesn't allow for prenatal testing. Some folks believe I should have to carry a severely disabled child to term, but I don't believe so.

If you assign human rights to the fetus it should mean the fetus and woman are EQUAL. But by taking away the woman's control of her body based on the viability of her fetus, you are putting her BELOW the fetus. In no other area of the law do we require one person to use her body for the benefit of a third party (the fetus) -- anymore. Slavery has been outlawed and being forced to continue a pregnancy would constitute slavery.

Regardless of the fetus's personhood, I decide who uses or lives in my body -- and the decision is subject to my CONTINUING consent. (Lest anyone suggest that consent to sex equals consent to carry a pregnancy to full term.) Among the reasons for this are the physical danger pregnancy poses, even in this country. "Life of the mother" exceptions are not enough because a) they presuppose that the woman will be able to get timely medical care if a crisis happens and b) there are nonmedical physical threats -- just ask Laci Peterson's family.

[guajiro]

Didn't read the whole article, but I'll follow the conservative Republican viewpoint on this one. If we are to believe, as the right does, that individuals are responsible for their actions, and they claim that a sperm and egg together constitute a life, hence a person, then why do they insist on getting the government to intercede on the sperm/egg's obvious individual's choice to exit the body in the presence of a contraceptive? What happened to individual responsibility? Also, Isn't that another conservative position; that we don't need no stinking government telling us what to do? If Libertarians and Republicans are so against the government being involved in our life why do they insist the government regulate the entire citizenry of this country on an issue to which there is obviously much disagreement over. Oh well, back to Lou Dobbs and race-baiting on TV. It's what passes for "news" nowadays.

[slaxx]

umm...yeah, i never understood how the party of small government and hands-off is so concerned with our private lives and bodies. it somehow ended up that fundamentalists just decided to latch onto this party and they went with it to get votes.

[LiberalDem]

The party of small government latched on to this because, deep, deep down, they do not believe that women are full human beings who are not solely defined by their biological ability to bear children.

[mbaty]

This is about sex, isn't it?

[clevelandchick]

You're warm, it's about making sex intolerable for women and breaking their spirit.

Men are stupid, Republicans make them look like freaking Einsteins. Why would anyone want to discourage women from enjoying sex and not having too many children than they can handle is beyond me.

[slaxx]

and prevent men from having sex as well. i don't want to be so low as to say that these anti-BC people must just be repressed, bad in bed, or can't get laid but it seems that way a lot ffo the time. let's all just live and enjoy ourselves. life is hard enough without having to put up with these people and their nonsense.

we also can't forget that none of their rules apply to them; their only pro-life when it comes to the actions of others; those rules don't apply to them and they can change on a whim. i think it just feeds their egos and scores them political points with people who like feel high and mighty.

[Hrothgar121]

hey...not all men are stupid...to generalize in that way marginalizes you in the same way that the crazy anti-abortion nuts are marginalized...watch you rhetoric...because its not far from all women are stupid...the only difference is that the prevailing "wisdom" (not which i, or any intelligent being supports,but still) has always been that women are less valuable than men...however, making the opposite claim does not strengthen your argument, but rather, it weakens it, for you show the same sort of bias (although in reverse) that has always been present.

the world is certainly imperfect...but by claiming all men are stupid, you just contribute to the problem, instead of seeking to solve it. i am a man that considers abortion to be a very important civil right(is that the correct term?)...and i obviously find the claim that all men are stupid to be quite offensive, as i think anyone with a BRAIN would, in the same manner that if I posted that all women were stupid, you'd all be trying to find my address to picket the front yard...

[MrsGreebers]

It IS about sex, but it's about sex as a method of implementing a certain neocon agenda. Women back to the second class, lots of cannon fodder, and a permanent underclass that is lulled to obedience by religion.

[MaryanneAZ]

Pro-life people are not actually pro-life at all. They are pro-birth. They believe that any woman who conceives should go forward with the pregnancy and give birth--no matter what the circumstances. If these folks were pro-life, then they would concern themselves with the life of the child once it is born. In their hypocrisy, however, they are against our Nation providing: healthcare, contraception, preschool, daycare, adequate schools, adequate housing, job training, jobs, unemployment benefits, social security disability benefits, non-academic school curriculum, etc. They easily walk over the homeless Vet or mentally ill person. They easily leave the bi-racial child languish in foster care and refuse to let a "gay" couple provide an adoptive home for it. I'm totally sick of the whole pro-birth movement and pray everyday for a true pro-life agenda to be promoted and enacted (and, no, I'm not a socialist). I believe that Barack Obama understands the distinction and will move the Country in a better direction. Obama '08

[Wilburrr]

nicely stated

[deminmo]

Apparently the child loses protected status after
birth. The parents, well they don't have status.
Keeping people poor and under control. Take
a look at Disaster Capitalism, this is a part of
the bigger picture.

[takingbkourcountry]

VERY nice and very appropriate....just look how much things have changed towards this the last 28 years

[Rockerbabe]

The more I deal with some of the anti-woman people the more I belief this is all about their power and wanting to make others do as they say. The respect for women in general is not with this group; they just can't see past their own beliefs or needs and further more, I really don't think they even care. This baby business is all about punishing women for having sex with men - inside or outside of marriage. Violence, genetic abnormalities, disablement or death do not seem to sway these folks. How sad they look down on pregnant woman with such a lack of trust and compassion; but as they say, what goes around, comes around.

[LanguagePolice]

"Implantation is also the only way in which a pregnancy can be determined, there is no test that can tell when an egg has been fertilized--there is no way of knowing whether or not this has happened."

Implantation is also the only way in which a pregnancy can be determined. [Period, capital letter] There is no test that can tell when an egg has been fertilized. (same) There is no way of knowing whether or not this has happened.

It really is absurd to think that there are people who want to deprive others of legitimate contraception. I think it hearkens back to the Middle Ages when the church needed to control everything. I would bet that it held some kind of economic advantage for the church.