AmericanPapist Comments
Well, after reading the statute, I don't understand why they didn't challenge it.
Its language essentially prohibits hospitals from providing the patient with an ovulation test in every case. Doesn't that interfere with a physician's ability to counsel the patient?
It seems to me that it would have been possible to fashion a challenge to the statute that might have worked. Why not try?
The bishop's line that "the Church does not teach that it is intrinsically evil to administer Plan B without first giving an ovulation test or that those who do so are committing an abortion" seems disingenous.
The Church rarely, IF EVER, descends to THAT degree of specific detail in moral teachings. For example, the Church has never said that "it is intrinsically evil to pollute amniotic fluid with highly concentrated saline or that those who do so are committing an abortion." Has she?
Instead, sound general moral theology (and basic logic) allows us to reach a conclusion about that specific practice, and conclude it to be immoral. That the Church has never weighed in a saline abortion per se does not mean that we are free to perform it.
I understand there are another couple of steps to be considered in the PlanB particular construct, but I am wary as soon as we see "the Church has never said specifically XY&Z" as the main premise to a liberty argument.
Or do I miss something here?
Agreed. I also think the precedent of giving "reluctant compliance" to intrusive laws is imprudent. Practically speaking, it is no different than full compliance.
I suspect a new era of persecution is coming. Catholic organizations will be forced to accept the unacceptable. They can cease to be Catholic or they can stop their activity.
This is happening at the individual level as well (remember the laws regarding pharmacists).
What we are seeing is an attack on our ability to put into practice what we believe without facing severe consequences at the hand of the state.
"reluctant compliance" - now that's funny!
Maybe instead they should try "compliant reluctance . . ."
Seriously, though, why not seek a declaratory judgment? Why not refuse compliance with the statute? What would be the consequences? Why wouldn't the Ct. Bishops have been willing to risk those consequences?
Is this the Church of St. John Fisher and St. Thomas More?
Is the view good from the cheap seats? We're not in the position of these bishops, even if it's fun to pretend to be. We also aren't responsible for caring for rape victims. "Reluctant compliance" is a hell of a lot different from "willing and eager compliance." It's not as if these bishops came to a hasty decision on this. It's clear they consulted with experts on the science of Plan B, and it's clear they made sure this wasn't a violation of Church law (Bishop Cote has a doctorate in Canon Law). These guys have done everything right procedurally, and they were even smarter in making sure this issue isn't closed.
Nathan, true, bishops have the responsibility and presumably expertise to address moral issues the Church faces. How I wish that would ensure correct judgment! But it often doesn't. Common sense however is available to all vocations and offices, and it would seem that common sense in this case cries out that one cannot merely hope that a contraceptive pill is not capable of aborting a newly conceived baby; nor can one merely hope that conception has not occurred, nor can one morally decide not to test to find out if conception has occurred before administering an possibly abortifacient pill. It is not as if contraceptives do not at times in fact act as abortifacients, a real possibility, to prevent which all reasonable measures must be taken.
Does the fact that "plan B" is a high dose of hormones that can be a serious threat to a woman's health not play into this equation?
Plan B is NOT medication - it does nothing to improve the health of the woman.
”Is the view good from the cheap seats? We're not in the position of these bishops, even if it's fun to pretend to be.”
As Catholics we don’t accept a bishop’s prudential decision just because he said it. We are encouraged, indeed, to examine the situation with reason. This isn’t magisterial teaching we are disagreeing with. This is a prudential matter, and there are many faithful Catholics calling into question the prudence of this statement.
“We also aren't responsible for caring for rape victims. "Reluctant compliance" is a hell of a lot different from "willing and eager compliance."
Notice that I said “practically speaking.” In practice, there is *no* difference as reluctant compliance = compliance. “Reluctant compliance” with abortion, for instance, is still… abortion. See?
“It's not as if these bishops came to a hasty decision on this.”
Well, considering the nature of the deadlines they were facing it would seem they did. And they also, I would argue, established some dangerous precedents in their statement. They also pulled the rug out from under many other conferences, hospitals and hospital employees that have been trying to defend their autonomy from state intrusion.
“It's clear they consulted with experts on the science of Plan B, and it's clear they made sure this wasn't a violation of Church law (Bishop Cote has a doctorate in Canon Law).”
What exactly do you mean here by “Church law”? You have an eminent canonist in this same thread disagreeing with some of this statement’s claims. And certainly Canon Law doesn’t speak about rape protocols in these specifics.
“These guys have done everything right procedurally, and they were even smarter in making sure this issue isn't closed.”
Well, it is closed in that they ARE complying with the law. But is that the right conclusion?
Nathan, you really need to practice reading. I was commenting on Bp. Lori's letter. Bp. Cote's impressive credentials are therefore completely irrelevant. I don't know what Lori did "procedurally" to write his letter, and I seriously doubt you do either. For the rest, AmPap has responded pretty well. I just get irked when posts like yours, implying that the truth is so obvious here that any moron should be able to recognize it, go up without reply. You seem quite unaware that major players in Church history, with equally impressive credentials, have disgareed over the centuries on major prudential decisions facing the Church. Debate clarifies, it does not undermine. Your "Father-knows-best" attitude is embarassing.
We should also keep in mind that particular conferences have been wrong before on prudential matters. For instance, the Texas bishops allowed Catholic hospitals to deny nutrition/hydration to PVS patients for a long time before John Paul II came out and said that one *must* provide it as ordinary care.
A citation for my claim:
Texas Conference of Catholic Bishops, “On Withdrawing Artificial Nutrition and Hydration” (May 7, 1990), in Origins: NC News Service 20 (1990) 53-55.
Wow. I don't know how my post was so incendiary as to deserve such a response, Eddie. Sure, debate clarifies, but debate among whom? The all-knowing laity? That works for Protestant sects, I guess. Archbishop Chaput has touched on the laity's input concerning his stance on illegal immigrants, in which one person wrote him, "Goddamn your soul to hell for protecting those lowlife filthy [illegal immigrant] vermin."* The knowledge of the laity is inspiring. Now illegal immigration isn't nearly as complex about the science of life. So the rest of us who work jobs that help the world move in addition to raising families are going to have the time to get informed so we can weigh in and tell the leaders of the Church how things regarding this matter really are? If so, I weep for the future of the Church.
Now I appreciate Thomas, who actually raised valid points in his critique of my comments in a respectful manner.
"This isn’t magisterial teaching we are disagreeing with. This is a prudential matter, and there are many faithful Catholics calling into question the prudence of this statement."
I don't see how disagreeing with the bishops is any less of a slippery slope than the dangerous precedent of allowing Plan B. You start disagreeing with bishops in Connecticut, why not disagree with the guys in Rome? I guess I'm not a big fan of challenging the authority of those appointed by Rome largely because I fear how it could expand. Now, as Eddie said, debate clarifies, not undermines. I agree with that. But, as I wrote above, I believe the debate should take place between those who know what's at stake. How much *direct* input did the laity get when Benedict mulled the Motu Proprio? I'm betting the farm that it wasn't very much. So where do you draw the line on where the laity can give input and where it should keep its mouth shut?
"Well, it is closed in that they ARE complying with the law. But is that the right conclusion?"
I don't know how it works in Connecticut, but in Kansas, if you're a Catholic school and you don't comply with state educational law, the small amount of state funding you get is pulled. Though I don't know the ramifications of not complying with Connecticut law, I would assume that a failure to do so, like in Kansas, would mean a loss of funding. So if this is the case (if this isn't the case, disregard all of this), I would argue they did reach the right conclusion. Either comply and have to resort to 75 agonizing cases per year or stand firm and deny thousands of quality health care. If I recall correctly, Catholic Charities in San Francisco shut down their adoption agency when they had to assist gay couples. Shutting down a portion of an organization is profoundly different than shutting down hospitals.
Now I find your additional post on the Pontifical Academy for Life to be compelling information. It would appear that the Connecticut bishops acted erroneously, but, in conclusion, I again s
Brassband is exactly right. The law is so badly written it is actually meaningless. The law prohibits any medical testing of sexual assault victims before emergency contraception/EC is given apart from a pregnancy test - so no blood pressure, no heart rate, if the victim may be bleeding internally too bad - gotta discuss EC first. Pregnancy tests mandate a 10+ day wait so I guess the hospitals have to send the vicitm home for 10 days before they can hand out EC. The law defines EC as a prescription drug - but Plan B is NOT a prescription drug - so the law actually does not allow us to give out Plan B either.
Good grief.
Nathan asks (rhetorically but sincerely, I presume): "You start disagreeing with bishops in Connecticut, why not disagree with the guys in Rome?"
His inability to answer that simple question is precisely why he is unable to contribute meaningfully to this discussion.
Nathan, you're pretty far off the reservation on this one. At least adopt a more professional tone and try to stay on one topic at a time.
I feel that Bp. Lori's statement is very inadequate. I am left more confused and scandalized than before.
Though Diogenes can be very harsh, he sums up my feelings well: "Last week the bishops said the state law imposed a morally unjustifiable obligation on hospitals. This week they say it doesn't. If you don't perceive a change in teaching, get yourself fitted for a miter."
Until the maker of the product and the FDA come out and say "Plan B doesn't cause abortions", it should not be administered in situations where it may cause abortions.
The logic in this situation, to me, borders on being self-evident. In normal situations I can understand how others arrive at their conclusions, but try as I might, I can not even fathom how Bp. Lori has arrived at his.
1) What Ed said
2) What Thomas said
3) What Thomas said x2
"Nathan asks (rhetorically but sincerely, I presume): 'You start disagreeing with bishops in Connecticut, why not disagree with the guys in Rome?'
His inability to answer that simple question is precisely why he is unable to contribute meaningfully to this discussion."
So challenge Church leaders on some matters but not on others? And we each get to decide for ourselves which issues to challenge? Got it.
Correct me if I am wrong, but didn’t St. Thomas More lose his head over refusing to give the "reluctant compliance" the rest of his fellow Englishmen did? Just asking.
Ed and Nathan, please stop. Look, Nathan, I know what you mean... where does one draw the line on self-determining morality and dogma and scriptural interpretation when we know that the Church teaches magisterially and what we follow must agree with what the Church teaches. But magisterial teaching is not determined by individual bishops or their conferences. Respectful consideration and an attitude of willingness to obey what our bishops pronounce is obligatory, but also obligatory is the use of our reason to determine if the bishops' pronouncements themselves are in accord with magisterial teaching. We are not to abandon our reason. Finally, we must listen to our own consciences, WHICH MUST BE FORMED CORRECTLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH MAGISTERIAL TEACHING with the help of study and sacraments. (please excuse the emphasis, but this is so very important) Examples of this use of reason to respectfully (and correctly) disagree with bishops' pronouncements are legion throughout Catholic history, the Arian heresy being one example (St Anthanasius dissented), Donatism another (St Augustine dissented). There is also St Thomas More, a layman, who unlike almost all the bishops of England, refused to allow that Henry VIII could usurp rule of the Church in England. One bishop who did dissent was St John Fisher. Many other cases are in the history books.
What to do? Study, pray, and trust that God will direct each one of us. Is this a Protestant approach? NO. Why? Because we study and pray with the Church, studying her teachings and praying her prayer, especially the Mass. God knows what we are able and not able to do, and He gives us wisdom and grace. In other words, bottom line is pray and study like a Catholic, and trust ultimately in God and His love for you Nathan.
God bless you, brother.
"From what I've read and some consultation, it seems fairly certain that Plan B and the "morning after pills" are extremely similar, if not identical treatments."
Thomas, I am very surprised at this. I am hardly an expert, but in five minutes of research it was plain as day to me that the term "morning after pill" is less precise and broader than Plan B. There are several types of morning after pills, and their mechanics of operation are not extremely similar. Indeed they differ in some potentially very important ways. I honestly think that some folks are so invested in their pre-conceived notions that they just can't have an open mind. Sad really.
"So challenge Church leaders on some matters but not on others? And we each get to decide for ourselves which issues to challenge? Got it."
This is isn't about challenging church authority this is about a bishop misrepresenting Church teaching. Stop attempting to hijack Nathan. This Bishop Lori is a neo-con. I think the K of C should dismiss him as their chaplain. I also find it hypocritical that he doesn't want to enact canon law 915! Is it a wonder why we have such a shortage in clergy? Hmmmmm..
This bishop is a protestant in disguise.
John14v15. Stop what, exactly?
I am one of the very few people here who regularly posts under my own name (instead of hiding behind pseudonyms, etc) and I am confident that my posts are topically on point. Though people may well differ in matters of rhetorical taste, I also beleive that my posts fall within the objective bounds of public dicourse such that I accept responsibility for them under my real name. If I am wrong about that, well, at least people can judge for themselves.
I do think it is generally people who hide their identities who are more likely to use anonymity as sheild against accepting full responsibility for what they say to, and about, others. fwiw.
If, however, the point of this exchange is that people who, like me, accept responsibility for their comments just should not get into combox debates with people who mask theirs, --especially when those people are so mistaken on the first principles of what is under discussion as to require inordinate efforts to set them straight-- well, I might agree with that.
God bless you too.
Mike, I could just as easily say the same of someone who claims that the contrary position is "as plain as day" and then provides absolutely no evidence in support.
Fair enough, Thomas. I admit that I don't have time to cut and paste the research into something coherent for this forum. But it is not my Blog, and I don't have to take any responsibility for your statements on it.
For starters though, you might research, progestin versus estrogen-progestin, Yuzpe regiment, Plan B, mifepristone (a/k/a Mifeprex and RU-486), all of which come under the rubric of "morning after pill, and all of which do not operate similarly; and then perhaps read the commentary from Mary and others in your own comboxes which referenced scientific studies post-dating the Pontifical Academy's summary statement regarding an undefined "morning after pill."
Just a suggestion -- up to you of course.
So are you claiming the PA was wrong in its condemnation of morning after pills (based on faulty science)? Or rather that it was right to condemn some morning after bills as abortifacient (science corroborates that some morning after pills are in fact abortifacient)? If Plan B is an abortifacient morning after pill, it would clearly fall under the PA's condemnation. The fact that Plan B is identified by many with morning after pills begs the question b/c many folks will take Plan B's acceptability as tacit acceptability of other morning after pills. If they are different, that needs to be clearly spelled-out, and I haven't found a source that does that yet. I've found plenty of sources that say they do essentially the same things, including making it difficult for implantation.
P.S. And could we also refrain from the snarky comments? Really, folks, you don't have to prove to me your cleverness with the use of sarcasm. Try providing information instead without an "attitude" attached. It would really make things move along more quickly and the truth more attainable.
I add this merely for them to whom it applies, and this thread isn't as bad as some others. I just find it very corrosive to the overall tone of the debate and I'm going to start having to delete comments if it keeps up.
Let's keep things courteous.
Fair enough, Thomas. If you are looking for a starting place for understanding the distinctions among various morning after pills, I would suggest you visit Wiki's entry on that subject. It includes a good supply of footnotes for further study.
As for your questions, it is important to understand that the term "morning after pill" originally described the abortifacient RU-486. Plan B was designed to act as a contraceptive only, and the venacular name was chosen to stand in deliberate contradistinction to the so-called morning after pill -- i.e., RU-486. It is plausible, therefore, that the PA statement was in reference to RU-486, but I don't know that and could not discern it from the PA statement.
In any case, the distinction is important for the reasons you suggest, and perhaps the CT Bishops would have been well-advised to clarify that their statement was regarding Plan B only, and not RU-486 or any other abortifacient.
The salient question, of course, is whether Plan B is an abortifacient. It is important to understand that Plan B's efficacy as a contraceptive is well-established, and there exists absolutely no evidence of abortifacient properties. The cause for concern is an hypothesis, which is serious and plausible, which suggests that Plan B could operate as an abortifacient is some cases. It is this hypothesis that caused pro-life groups to lobby the FDA for the warning label against the manufacturer's wishes. While the hypothesis is exceedingly difficult to test, several studies have been performed (which post-date the PA statement by the way) on primates and other animals. These studies indicate that any actual abortifacient side effect is either non-existent of too rare for statistical data to capture. It can only be presumed that it is these studies upon which the CT bishops relied.
The bottom line is that I don't think that it is fair to characterize the CT Bishops' statement as inconsistent with the PA statement if those statements are fairly read and properly understood.
Ed, Thanks for your comments. It is true I would rather publish under a pseudonymn for reasons of my own. Hiding? Yes, in a way. I agree. And I think those who publish in their own names are either braver or else more confident than I. I am content to merely state my opinions and let them be dealt with however people will.
I do think however that it is topical to address what people say in their comments. And there were a lot of questions raised about how we should respond to the bishops when they make a public pronouncement that doesn't seem quite right without our becoming protestant, schismatic, or heretical, or simply dis-obedient.
I was merely asking you two to stop being what seems angry and hasty with each other.
I would like to add:
It seems both prudent and important that additional studies be undertaken to more fully evaluate the existence of any abortifacient risks associated with Plan B. No doubt such studies will occur, and probably are in process. It is certainly fair to respectfully question the prudence of the CT bishops in reaching their decision in this less than certain environment. But in all fairness, the prudential calculus is not an easy one. While the risk of abortion is a serious one, it must be recognized that there is an important moral distinction between an abortion as an intended effect versus the risk of an abortion as an unintended side effect. The former is intrinsically wrong while the latter involves a prudential calculus, which in the case of a rape involves the harm to a woman of a conception resulting from a violently disordered non-marital and non-unitive act, a harm which is far more certain and also very serious (even if not as serious). But for the over-reaching state action, the Bishops supported the protocol of requiring an ovulation test in order to avoid using Plan B in those instances where the risk associated with the Plan B abortifacient hypothesis might apply. Given their legal inability to perform the test, the Bishops had to decide whether Plan B's use is morally justifiable without such a test. Their affirmative conclusion seems morally defensible given the science indicating no or remote risk of abortion (and no science substantiating the hypothetical risk), but I certainly understand that reasonable people could differ given the still uncertain science.
Mike,
Well - these are two studies that seem to indicate that Plan B/levonorgestrel does not have a huge effect on implantation. One of the studies was done on Cebus monkeys (sometimes called Capuchin monkeys - wonderful irony). The other on sterilized women. This is no where near a consensus - but I pray that is it true given the new popularity of this drug. I suggest we all pray that this is so - otherwise we really deserve to have our a*#ses kicked.
And - I do not use my full name because it is very similar to another well know blogger and people will get us confused....
Michaelus,
I largely agree with your post. The only quibble has to do with our a*#es. There is a risk of being wrong either way, and the consequences are potentially serious either way.
The real wrong here is CT's decision to eliminate the optimal prudential choice and thereby force Catholic hospitals -- i.e., the CT bishops -- into a Hobbson's choice. The bishops were right to forcefully oppose this. and we should direct our ire toward the legislators and regulators. This does not mean we can't disagree with the bishops prudential calculus -- while I think they probably got it right given what we know, I certainly think Catholics are entitled to disagree and express that disagreement. But our anger should not be directed toward the bishops, who seem to have acted responsibly and in good faith -- but to the politicians and regulators who seem to think they can substitute their moral calculus for that of the hospitals and bishops.
The first study came out in 2001 that showed that Plan B didn’t change the uterine lining. In 2004, the second study came out confirming the first.
http://www.lifeethics.org/www.li...and-
doesnt.html
The worst possible outcome when a woman is given Plan B is that a newly conceived baby can be killed. No outcome, for the woman, the hospitals, or the Church, of refusing to administer Plan B is as radical and irrevocable. By this reckoning it is not moral to agree to take the chance, ie to not test for ovulation first. The bishops were correct in their original opposition. I don't think anyone can interpose his moral calculus on them without the hospitals and bishops allowing him. The fault here lies with the bishops as much as with the legislators,if not moreso because of their office.
The studies are just that. Conclusions are often reversed with subsequent studies. It just doesn't seem right to depend on them when Plan B could operate as an abortifacient in some cases. As Mike said, this possibility "is exceedingly difficult to test... studies indicate that any actual abortifacient side effect is either non-existent of too rare for statistical data to capture." It is possible then that the abortifacient effect does happen, though very rarely. It only seems right then to insist on taking the conservative measure of testing for ovulation.
However studies are just that.Subsequent studies often show contradictory results. As Mike said, we are considering a hypothesis "which is serious and plausible, which suggests that Plan B could operate as an abortifacient is some cases... While the hypothesis is exceedingly difficult to test, several studies have been performed... These studies indicate that any actual abortifacient side effect is either non-existent or too rare for statistical data to capture." Which leaves us with the very real possibility that Plan B might act as an abortifacient, though rarely. But rarely is enough to morally necessitate an insistence on testing for ovulation before administering Plan B.
Sorry for the double post!
John,
While I do agree that testing for ovulation is the best option, it is important to recognize that the Bishops did insist on this. But once that option became legally untenable the bishops had to decide whether to shut down the hospitals (an act that could presumably also result in "radical and irrevocable outcomes") or allow the use of Plan B without ovulation testing.
By your logic no parent should ever allow their children to drive, under any circumstances. Although the statistical likelihood of death is small, the fact remains that such a result is "radical and irrevocable." I continue to think that the Bishops' decision is defensible, and probably even correct, given the factual knowledge available.
The idea that no risk of abortion, however slight, regardless of intent or circumstances, is acceptable is simply not Catholic teaching.
That said, I acknowledge that reasonable Catholics can disagree with the prudential decision by the CT bishops; what I cannot agree with is that they are at fault to the same degree as the CT politicians. Unlike the Bishops' statement and rationale, the legal mandates imposed on the Catholic hospitals are unreasonable.
Mike,
your comments are thought provoking. Thanks. I think however that Catholic institutions cannot acquiesce to being held hostage to immoral demands (presuming that this legislative coercion is immoral which it appears to me to be). The world will not end, as it were, if even every Catholic legal entity is dissolved. Our primary duty is faithfulness to the truth, as defined by the Magisterium. Because God does act. There is no service lost that other hospitals cannot supply. In other words, there always has been and always will be unreasonable legal mandates imposed on the Church. The consequences of refusing to follow them can be horrific, but still refusal is justified.
I agree with your comparison to children driving -- given the stats on teenage immaturity and fatal accidents it doesn't make sense generally to allow teens to drive. I don't think the benefits outweigh the risks usually. But at a certain age, driving is a necessary risk in our society.
"The idea that no risk of abortion, however slight, regardless of intent or circumstances, is acceptable is simply not Catholic teaching." Are you thinking here of the principle of double effect? In this particular circumstance we don't know definitively yet whether or not the risk is substantial that Plan B acts as an abortifacient. A woman's need to not be impregnated against her will trumps all other outcomes except the possibility of aborting her fertilized ovum. The weakest part of the Connecticut bishop's statement for me is this, "...since there is serious doubt about how Plan B pills work..."
If you were not thinking of double effect, what is your citation for this ? It is an interesting proposal.
Thanks, John.
Yes, I am proposing that the unintentional killing of a zygote or fetus as an unintended side effect of the use of Plan B contraceptive can be permissible under the principle of double effect, if but only if the conditions of proportionality are satisfied. Proportionality requires a prudential calculus, and is almost always undertaken with uncertain facts. I have no citation and don't pretend to be announcing dogma, but I am trying earnestly to apply authentic Catholic teaching. Based on what we know regarding Plan B (which admittedly is not as much as we'd like), I think the CT Bishops' prudential calculus is probably correct even though I concede a reasonable person might well differ.
As far as your point regarding being held hostage by immoral legislative demands: while I assume (and believe) that the CT bishops made their decision in good faith, it would have been interesting to see how they would have responded if the Plan B studies had demonstrated a high rate of abortifacient properties -- which would have altered the proportionality calculus significantly, I think.
Thank you, Mike, you present the issue well from both sides I think. I
I agree and really believe that the bishops' calculus would differ if the Plan B studies had demonstrated a high rate of abortifacient properties or if further studies show a high rate. What rate is sufficiently high is the next question I suppose. Or probably the rate itself isn't so definitive as would be a conclusively demonstrated potential. I enjoyed discussing this with you and picked up a lot of info and perspective. Thanks.
Thanks, John. Agreed on all counts.
God bless,
For the record, I am disappointed that AP has not responded to my posts after challenging me. In any case, I am pleased that (i) my reasoning is consistent with the NCBC statement and (ii) that AP is in substantial agreement with statement.
I don't see what there is to respond to. You make reasonable medical claims and I refer in my post to this comments thread for further debate. I'm waiting for some contacts to provide me with a medical summary to post hopefully by the end of the week.
And yes, as I said, I agree in substance with the NCBC statement.
From the Barr Pharmaceuticals Plan B insert:
CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY
Emergency contraceptives are not effective if the woman is already pregnant. 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). It is not effective once the process of implantation has begun.
I don't get it: isn't this enough evidence of the abortifacient nature of the drug?
Linda,
That is I think the pivotal point. Some think maybe this claim by Barr is not actually factual, but only a legal maneuver to protect themselves. Others think for various reasons discussed in this thread that the claim is possibly accurate with a significant enough degree of possibility to not allow compliance with the CT law under the double effect principle.
Just saw your blog: chastity reVisited. Your latest post is very helpful. Thanks. Here's is the gist of it. Fr Euteneuer then continues with several good points.
"Human Life International President: "Plan A: Keep 'Plan B' Out of Catholic Hospitals"
Commentary by Rev. Thomas J. Euteneuer, President, Human Life International
On September 28th the Connecticut bishops issued an unfortunate statement allowing the Plan B abortion-causing drug to be used in cases of rape in Catholic hospitals. I have written respectfully and urgently to the Connecticut Catholic Conference (CCC) and to each bishop individually to ask them to withdraw this potentially precedent-setting statement, and I pray that they do so."
"The available evidence for a postfertilization effect is moderately strong, whether hormonal EC is used in the preovulatory, ovulatory, or postovulatory phase of the menstrual cycle."
How does this figure in?
The Polycarp Research Institute (TPRI)
http://polycarp.org/
postfertiliz..._polycarp_1.htm
The Annals of Pharmacotherapy: Vol. 36, No. 3, pp. 465–470.
Postfertilization Effect of Hormonal Emergency Contraception
Chris Kahlenborn, 1 Joseph B Stanford, 2 and Walter L Larimore3
OBJECTIVE: To assess the possibility of a postfertilization effect in regard to the most common types of hormonal emergency contraception (EC) used in the US and to explore the ethical impact of this possibility.
DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION: A MEDLINE search (1966–November 2001) was done to identify all pertinent English-language journal articles. A review of reference sections of the major review articles was performed to identify additional articles. Search terms included emergency contraception, postcoital contraception, postfertilization effect, Yuzpe regimen, levonorgestrel, mechanism of action, Plan B.
DATA SYNTHESIS: The 2 most common types of hormonal EC used in the US are the Yuzpe regimen (high-dose ethinyl estradiol with high-dose levonorgestrel) and Plan B (high-dose levonorgestrel alone). Although both methods sometimes stop ovulation, they may also act by reducing the probability of implantation, due to their adverse effect on the endometrium (a postfertilization effect). The available evidence for a postfertilization effect is moderately strong, whether hormonal EC is used in the preovulatory, ovulatory, or postovulatory phase of the menstrual cycle.
CONCLUSIONS: Based on the present theoretical and empirical evidence, both the Yuzpe regimen and Plan B likely act at times by causing a postfertilization effect, regardless of when in the menstrual cycle they are used. These findings have potential implications in such areas as informed consent, emergency department protocols, and conscience clauses.
John14v15-
I also read that the FDA concurs with Barr on the anti-implantation feature of Plan B. Do you believe that is also for legal reasons?
As you reported- Dr. Kahlenborn has already done the research and compiled the results. He's devoted his entire career to this stuff (and is finally making some headway). I'm with him.
Being with Chris Kahlenborn-it's too bad Bishop Lori is not. I'm ashamed to admit it- but I'm from the Diocese of Bridgeport. God strengthen and guide our Bishops!
Isn't Bishop Lori the head of the Prolife Committee for the UCSSB? How ironic.
Bishop Lori is one of the committee members. *sigh* Cardinal Rigali is the chairman.
A previously unmentioned study concluding that Plan B does act to prevent implantation of a conceptus, and some basic info on Plan B
to clarify our discussion:
Experts confirm abortifacient potential of morning-after pill
http://www.catholicnewsagency.co...y.co.../
new.php? n=9463
CNA STAFF, May 25, 2007 / 11:33 am (CNA).- The most recent scientific study on Levonorgestrel, the essential component of the “morning-after pill” or “emergency contraceptive,” confirms that the drug does indeed have a third effect on users, which consists in preventing the implantation of a fertilized ovum in the womb of the mother.
The promoters of the drug in Latin America, where most countries have laws against abortion, have argued that the there is no scientific basis for the “third effect,” and that therefore the drug should be legalized. Dr. Horacio Croxatto, professor at the Chilean Institute of Reproductive Medicine, said in 2006 that the morning-after pill “is not abortifacient because it only prevents pregnancy by stopping ovulation.”
Nevertheless, the most recent study (2007) by Doctors Mikolajczyk and Stanford of the Department of Medicine in Public Health of the University of Bielefeld (Germany) clearly indicates that the pill’s “real effect” includes mechanisms that prevent implantation.
Published by the magazine Fertility and Sterility, the study used data from multiple clinical studies with advanced mathematical models and concluded that if emergency contraception only inhibited ovulation its true effectiveness would only be in a range of 8-49 percent. If it acted before ovulation and if it inhibited ovulation completely, its true effectiveness would be between 16-90 percent. The rest of the pill’s effectiveness consists in its anti-implantation mechanisms, which cause an abortion.
The full text and abstract of this study can be found at Fertility and Sterility site,
http://www.asrm.org/Professional...ity/ fspage.html
accessible to members only or at
http://www.sciencedirect.com , full text for purchase. The ScienceDirect abstract follows:
Levonorgestrel emergency contraception: a joint analysis of effectiveness and mechanism of action
Rafael T. Mikolajczyk M.D.a, , and Joseph B. Stanford M.D., M.S.P.H.b
aDepartment of Public Health Medicine, School of Public Health, University of Bielefeld, Bielefeld, Germany
bDepartment of Family and Preventive Medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah
Received 12 April 2006; revised 30 November 2006; accepted 30 November 2006. Available online 22 February 2007.
Objective
To model the effectiveness that can be obtained if levonorgestrel -only emergency contraception (EC) acts only through disrupting ovulation, in relation to other effects that may occur before or after fertilization and accounting for delays in administration.
Design
We modeled follicular growth as a function of follicular size, using known day-specific probabilities of conception and
John14v15 | 11.05.07 - 6:39 pm | #
(cont. from previous post)
known disruption of ovulation by levonorgestrel -only EC, to estimate the expected effectiveness of EC.
Setting
Combined data from multiple clinical studies.
Patient(s)
Simulation models.
A previously unmentioned study concluding that Plan B does act to prevent implantation of a conceptus, and some basic info on Plan B
to clarify our discussion:
Experts confirm abortifacient potential of morning-after pill
http://www.catholicnewsagency.co.../new.php?
n=9463
CNA STAFF, May 25, 2007 / 11:33 am (CNA).- The most recent scientific study on Levonorgestrel, the essential component of the “morning-after pill” or “emergency contraceptive,” confirms that the drug does indeed have a third effect on users, which consists in preventing the implantation of a fertilized ovum in the womb of the mother.
The promoters of the drug in Latin America, where most countries have laws against abortion, have argued that the there is no scientific basis for the “third effect,” and that therefore the drug should be legalized. Dr. Horacio Croxatto, professor at the Chilean Institute of Reproductive Medicine, said in 2006 that the morning-after pill “is not abortifacient because it only prevents pregnancy by stopping ovulation.”
Nevertheless, the most recent study (2007) by Doctors Mikolajczyk and Stanford of the Department of Medicine in Public Health of the University of Bielefeld (Germany) clearly indicates that the pill’s “real effect” includes mechanisms that prevent implantation.
Published by the magazine Fertility and Sterility, the study used data from multiple clinical studies with advanced mathematical models and concluded that if emergency contraception only inhibited ovulation its true effectiveness would only be in a range of 8-49 percent. If it acted before ovulation and if it inhibited ovulation completely, its true effectiveness would be between 16-90 percent. The rest of the pill’s effectiveness consists in its anti-implantation mechanisms, which cause an abortion.
The full text and abstract of this study can be found at Fertility and Sterility site,
http://www.asrm.org/Professional...ity/
fspage.html
accessible to members only or at
http://www.sciencedirect.com , full text for purchase. The ScienceDirect abstract follows:
Levonorgestrel emergency contraception: a joint analysis of effectiveness and mechanism of action
Rafael T. Mikolajczyk M.D.a, , and Joseph B. Stanford M.D., M.S.P.H.b
aDepartment of Public Health Medicine, School of Public Health, University of Bielefeld, Bielefeld, Germany
bDepartment of Family and Preventive Medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah
Received 12 April 2006; revised 30 November 2006; accepted 30 November 2006. Available online 22 February 2007.
Objective
To model the effectiveness that can be obtained if levonorgestrel -only emergency contraception (EC) acts only through disrupting ovulation, in relation to other effe
3 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
