So pro-life people should go ahead and provide them to their employees or themselves, because maybe they are, maybe they are not, abortifacients? We should give the benefit of the doubt to the “maybe not” hypothesis?

I know that medical sites that promoted “Ella” warned users not to use it if they might be pregnant. This was before the HHS brouhaha, though, and I have not looked lately to see if they
still do so.

AAPLOG physicians may argue among themselves all they want, but, on the PDR (Physicians Desk Reference) website you can get the facts. The following is in regards to only oral contraceptives:

The “Mechanism of Action” section of the “Concise Monograph” PDR page for Cyclessa (other brand names: Cesia, Velivet):

Estrogen/progestogen combination; acts by suppression of gonadotropins and inhibition of ovulation. Also inhibits ovulation and causes changes in cervical mucus (increasing difficulty of sperm entry into uterus) and changes in endometrium (reducing likelihood of implantation).

The “reducing likelihood of implantation” means that sometimes the brand new human being isn’t prevented from coming about; he or she does, but dies because the child can’t implant itself in the uterus due to the hostile environment created there by the oral contraceptive.

The “reducing likelihood of implantation” wording in the “Mechanism of Action” section for Cyclessa also appears for

- Ortho-Novum 7/7/7 (other brand name: Nortrel 7/7/7)

- Seasonique

- Zovia (other brand name: Kelnor)

- Lo Loestrin Fe

- Aviane (other brand name: Orysthia)

- Norinyl 1/50 (other brand name: Necon 1/50)

and probably any others that are also estrogen/progestogen oral contraceptives.

Many forms of contraception — even oral contraceptives — are abortifacient. Get used to it.

Anyone who claims to know with certainty that oral contraceptives or emergency contraceptives are “abortifacients” (have a post-fertilization effect) is making an unwarranted claim. The American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG) offers two position papers on oral contraception, and one says oral contraceptives are not abortifacients, while the other says they are. Finding solid, objective information on this topic by googling is next to impossible.

Hi, ParsonJody: As far as I know, there is no Catholic moral objection to using those drugs for those non-contraceptive purposes. I know several faithful Catholics who have been prescribed such medication to treat painful conditions, not to prevent conception, and they encountered no moral condemnation or objection. This was mostly back in high school in the 1970s, the girls were not sexually active, and we had lively (and humorous) discussions on the topic!

In the case of the HHS mandate, I do not know that Catholic employers/insurers have objected to the prescription of such drugs to treat illnesses or abnormal/painful conditions, either. It’s the pregnancy prevention purpose that is objectionable and they don’t want to pay for it.

Do you seriously expect me to take information from the Life Issues Institute seriously? …

Realizing that, I suggested you Google up the information yourself.

You might find this article on the Live Science web site helpful:

Why Mississippi’s ‘Personhood’ Law Could Outlaw Birth Control

Here is an excerpt:

But while the law is designed to challenge Roe v. Wade and outlaw abortion, doctors say that the wording is also likely to outlaw common methods of birth control, including the birth control pill.

That’s because some of those methods may work, in part at least, by making the uterus inhospitable to implantation by a fertilized egg …

Surely you can verify for yourself that abortion rights advocates opposing Personhood Amendment initiatives claim that such laws will outlaw some forms of contraception. They are right about that. Contraceptives are often abortifacients. They hate to admit that, but must do so when it comes to Personhood Amendment initiatives that look like they just might be successful. The rest of the time they take the position you are taking now, as it is better PR. The truth is not a particularly significant factor in their decisions about what spin to put on a given controversy: HHS mandate? “Contraception isn’t abortifacient!!!” Personhood Amendment? “Protecting fertilized eggs will outlaw contraception!!!” Nobody can lie for as long as they have been lying and not have it catch up with them eventually.

harry,

Do you seriously expect me to take information from the Life Issues Institute seriously? If I referred you to Planned Parenthood or NARAL on the topic of abortifacients, would you even bother to read what they had to say? You don’t got to advocacy organizations on either side of a hot-button issue for unbiased information.

What exactly is your point? If injustice isn’t met immediately, with full force and successfully, then one has no right to confront it at all?

Did I say that? I said this:

I think the Catholic Church is in a much weaker position than it might otherwise be if it had resisted state mandates more strongly going back ten years. It is a little late to say they will never comply when many organizations already have complied with similar mandates imposed by the states (particularly in California and New York).

And I said this:

It is very difficult to stand united and say, “We will never comply!” when some have already complied.

That is true no matter what your opinion on the mandate is.

I agree with you that they are generally not of the same seriousness, however, some of the drugs used primarily as contraceptives are used to treat other problems that are more serious than simply wishing to avoid children.

While the issue is related to seriousness, it is also related to public perceptions of morality. The great majority of people believe blood transfusions to be both necessary and not even morally ambiguous so the protests of religious folks who disagree is seen as more of a fringe belief. Currently contraception/sterilization and abortion are more controversial among religious folks. I am a member of a predominantly liberal denomination but these issues are far from broadly accepted among our folks–perhaps partially because of the region of the country we live in, but I prefer to think it’s because they have informed consciences and take ethical issues seriously.

All that is to say, most of these issues are controversial today *only* among religious folks, the secular majority having acquiesced to them long ago. As public perceptions of morality shift to make those values held by religious people seem more extreme, the seriousness of a particular treatment will matter less and less as those of us with reservations just seem more and more bizarre, so that the system will take our protests less seriously.

I don’t accept the argument about abortifacients.

Enlighten yourself here, for example:

http://www.lifeissues.org/abortifacients/index.html

Or quickly find a wealth of other material along the same lines by doing a little Googling.

Also, as I have said many times before, I find the campaign of resistance comes rather late, given the fact that some state mandates have been around for more than a decade. It is very difficult to stand united and say, “We will never comply!” when some have already complied.

Roe v Wade brought about quite a reaction even though abortion had already been legal for a while in a few states. There is, unsurprisingly, quite a reaction to the federal HHS mandate regardless of what has happened in some states that is similar to it. I suppose the federalization of an injustice will always bring about more intense resistance across the country than whatever happens in a few states.

What exactly is your point? If injustice isn’t met immediately, with full force and successfully, then one has no right to confront it at all? All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to depend on you for inspiration? What?

harry,

I understand. I just don’t feel the same way you and many others do, in part because I don’t agree even on some factual matters. I think Plan B, for example, has no post-fertilization effects, and I think there is reasonable certainty that ella does not either. So I don’t accept the argument about abortifacients. I don’t think contraception and even sterilization are necessarily evil, so while I understand that some Catholics don’t want to be linked to them, and I think forcing Catholics to use or pay for them would be a violation of religious liberty, I don’t feel as strongly about it as you do, and I also no doubt see a bigger difference than you do about actually being required to pay for them and having them come to some employees at no cost as a consequence providing those employees with insurance.

Also, as I have said many times before, I find the campaign of resistance comes rather late, given the fact that some state mandates have been around for more than a decade. It is very difficult to stand united and say, “We will never comply!” when some have already complied.

PastorJody, I know this was not your main concern, but I think it is worth noting that some of the limits placed on religious liberty in medical cases are explained by the seriousness of the condition. The person who needs a blood transfusion is in critical condition, either badly injured or gravely ill. They will probably die without the transfusion. They cannot do this themselves. They need treatment by trained medical personnel at a hospital. A choice to use contraception and a need for a blood transfusion do not compare.