The Morning-After Pill Does Not Cause Abortions

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/babyvixxxen/2695489692/">VixyView</a>/Flickr

Facts matter: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter. Support our nonprofit reporting. Subscribe to our print magazine.


For over a decade, anti-abortion activists have objected to emergency contraception, claiming that it prevents already fertilized eggs from implanting in women’s uteruses and therefore terminates pregnancies.

Just one problem: the science doesn’t support them.

That’s according to an exhaustive New York Times article published this week that reviewed decades worth of science on how what’s commonly known as the morning-after pill works. Most of this research took place after 1999, when Plan B and other similar drugs were first approved for the market.

Back then, the drug’s mechanisms weren’t well understood; pre-approval research focused on establishing that emergency contraception’s active hormone safely and effectively prevented pregnancy when taken shortly after unprotected sex. While government scientists were satisfied the drug worked, they didn’t have a clear understanding of exactly how it did; so the FDA label provided a laundry list of potential causes, including the one—interfering with the implantation of a fertilized egg in the woman’s uterus—that has drawn fire from rock-ribbed pro-lifers.

Since then, the science has developed a much clearer picture of the drug’s effects. Study after study has conclusively shown that emergency contraception (or EC) actually prevents egg release—and without eggs, naturally, fertilization can’t happen, let alone implantation. Other studies have in fact shown that the drug is ineffective when taken after a woman has already ovulated. The International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics has stated conclusively that the three emergency contraception drugs on the market “do not inhibit implantation.”

Even with this new evidence, the drug labeling has stayed the same (despite a request from the manufacturer to remove it in 2009), and public perception of how the drug works have stayed muddled. Misleading words from anti-abortion rights organizations and high profile politicians haven’t helped. In February, Mitt Romney referred to morning-after pills as “abortive pills.” Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum used similar language at the height of the Republican primary contests. Anti-abortion groups like Americans United for Life and the American Life League both define personhood as beginning at conception and then, drawing from the vague and inaccurate FDA labeling about implantation, argue that EC is a form of abortion.

So why doesn’t the FDA simply switch out the labels for the more up to date science? The answer is probably a lot of boring bureaucratic reasons, but the New York Times piece also stresses trepidation from scientists unwilling to make definitive claims in what has become an increasingly political issue.

“Given that time and again politics has trumped science with this product, it’s understandable to be skeptical that the FDA would change the label,” Andrea Miller, president of the National Institute for Reproductive Health and NARAL Pro-Choice New York, told Mother Jones. “Ironically, by its inaction, the FDA is allowing the product to continue to be politicized.”

We've never been very good at being conservative.

And usually, that serves us well in doing the ambitious, hard-hitting journalism that you turn to Mother Jones for. But it also means we can't afford to come up short when it comes to scratching together the funds it takes to keep our team firing on all cylinders, and the truth is, we finished our budgeting cycle on June 30 about $100,000 short of our online goal.

This is no time to come up short. It's time to fight like hell, as our namesake would tell us to do, for a democracy where minority rule cannot impose an extreme agenda, where facts matter, and where accountability has a chance at the polls and in the press. If you value our reporting and you can right now, please help us dig out of the $100,000 hole we're starting our new budgeting cycle in with an always-needed and always-appreciated donation today.

payment methods

We've never been very good at being conservative.

And usually, that serves us well in doing the ambitious, hard-hitting journalism that you turn to Mother Jones for. But it also means we can't afford to come up short when it comes to scratching together the funds it takes to keep our team firing on all cylinders, and the truth is, we finished our budgeting cycle on June 30 about $100,000 short of our online goal.

This is no time to come up short. It's time to fight like hell, as our namesake would tell us to do, for a democracy where minority rule cannot impose an extreme agenda, where facts matter, and where accountability has a chance at the polls and in the press. If you value our reporting and you can right now, please help us dig out of the $100,000 hole we're starting our new budgeting cycle in with an always-needed and always-appreciated donation today.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate