BIRTH: Medical debate continues
I’d like to thank Mr. Ortmann for his fine letter and his civil tone. I would, however, like to address a few issues that need correction and/or clarification.
First of all, hormonal birth control works by three imperfect mechanisms:
1. Blocking ovulation so no egg is released from the ovary.
2. Reducing sperm mobility by changing the environment of the cervix, uterus and fallopian tubes.
3. Blocking implantation of the fertilized egg if steps one and two fail.
Mr. Ortmann states “Although theoretically, the pill could prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg, this does not occur in its actual use. As a pharmacist, I can tell you that the mechanism of action for the pill is to inhibit ovulation. It further acts to create an environment where fertilization of an egg is not possible, in cases where ovulation might occur.” Actually, about 9 percent of women taking oral contraceptives become pregnant during their first year! So, in actual use many women definitely ovulate while on the pill and fertilization not only is possible, it happens frequently.
Secondly, presidential candidate Rick Santorum certainly DOES want to limit access to birth control. He is on record opposing Plan-B or the so-called “morning after pill” and calls it an “abortifacient.” He has stated that “Contraception is not OK.” And his voting record reflects these opinions.
But, in fact, Plan-B is just a higher dose of the usual pill that women take for contraception. It works by the exact same mechanisms. From an ethical point of view, these distinctions don’t matter. If you believe that the fertilized egg is a person, and you set a “trap” to kill it (by preventing implantation), whether the trap works 99 percent of the time or 1 percent of the time, it is still attempted murder.
The morally consistent stance, for all of the candidates who claim to believe that a fertilized egg is a person, is to prosecute all couples who use hormonal birth control for attempted murder. Accomplices in the “crime” would be the doctors who prescribe it, the pharmacists who dispense it and the companies that make it. Perhaps now you will understand why I call this position “radical.” VERY few people really believe this. Mr. Santorum is, at least, more ethically consistent than the other Republican candidates, in that he would also deny a woman the right to an abortion, even if she was raped or is the victim of incest. This, again, is radical.
Thirdly, Mr. Ortmann states: “The origin of “life” for the egg… is irrelevant.” Actually, as we learn more about transgenerational epigenetics we are finding that the life of the pre-fertilized egg is indeed relevant and important.
Lastly, Mr. Ortmann’s folksy chicken and egg example actually supports my position: As a young boy on the farm when we ate fertilized chicken eggs for breakfast we also didn’t say “I’m eating chicken.” That’s because it’s not a chicken, yet.
JUSTIN STORMOGIPSON, MD
Coeur d’Alene