The NYT says ECPs absolutely do not ever murder little babies...
Some time back, I posted on the growth of chemical abortions, and particularly the use of emergency post-coital drugs variously known as "ECPs" or "Plan B." At the time it was clear ECPs functioned in a variety of ways including both the prevention of fertilization and the obstruction of the fertilized ovum from implantation on the uterine wall. In other words, it was clear that one of the agencies of ECPs was the murder of little babies.
As always, the New York Times finds herself helpless to stop promoting sterility and child murder--this is their stock in trade. So recently they ran a news article that was, in fact, an oped piece lobbying the government to stop warning fathers and mothers how ECPs might kill their unborn child... The Times implied religious pro-lifers were responsible for these warnings. Then they huffed and puffed about the best science indicating these warnings are false: ECPs never act as abortifacients. Or ECPs rarely act as abortifacients. Or ECPs can't be proven to act as abortifacients. Or...
Never trust the New York Times--that's the lesson I've come to after decades reading the Gray Lady. If the Times has a piece lobbying the FDA to remove a warning that ECPs could work by obstructing embryos from implantation, that article must be understood to be more Times propaganda for the murder of little babies. Their bloodguilt always outs.
So what's the truth about ECPs functioning as an abortifacient?
The principal promoter of ECPs for years now is Professor of Economics and Public Affairs and Director, Office of Population Research at Princeton University, Professor James Trussell. He runs the Emergency Contraception Website which reports, concerning itself:
This website is operated by the Office of Population Research at Princeton University and by the Association of Reproductive Health Professionals and has no connection with any pharmaceutical company or for-profit organization. This website is peer reviewed by a panel of independent experts.
Directly above this disclaimer, Prof. Trussell and his fellow "reproductive health professionals" provide this link:
To find out more about studies evaluating the effectiveness of emergency contraception, read our thorough and up-to-date academic review of the medical and social science literature here.
Clicking on the link opens up their up-to-date academic review titled, "Emergency Contraception: A Last Chance to Prevent Unintended Pregnancy" dated April 2012. In the review, these experts have this to say about the ways ECPs work (what they call "mechanism of action"):
Mechanism of action
Several clinical studies have shown that combined ECPs containing the estrogen ethinyl estradiol and the progestin levonorgestrel can inhibit or delay ovulation. This mechanism of action may explain ECP effectiveness when used during the first half of the menstrual cycle, before ovulation has occurred. Some studies have shown histologic or biochemical alterations in the endometrium after treatment with the regimen, leading to the conclusion that combined ECPs may act by impairing endometrial receptivity to subsequent implantation of a fertilized egg.
However, other more recent studies have found no such effects on the endometrium.
Additional possible mechanisms include interference with corpus luteum function; thickening of the cervical mucus resulting in trapping of sperm; alterations in the tubal transport of sperm, egg, or embryo; and direct inhibition of fertilization.
No clinical data exist regarding the last three of these possibilities.
Nevertheless, statistical evidence on the effectiveness of combined ECPs suggests that that if the regimen is as effective as claimed, it must have a mechanism of action other than delaying or preventing ovulation.
...The reduced efficacy with a delay in treatment, even when use is adjusted for cycle day of unprotected intercourse, suggests that interference with implantation is likely not an inevitable effect of ECPs. If ECPs did prevent all implantations, then delays in use should not reduce their efficacy as long as they are used before implantation.
...ECPs do not interrupt an established pregnancy, defined by medical authorities such as the United States Food and Drug Administration/National Institutes of Health and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists as beginning with implantation. Therefore, ECPs are not abortifacient.
To make an informed choice, women must know that ECPs--like all regular hormonal contraceptives such as the birth control pill, the implant Implanon, the vaginal ring NuvaRing, the Evra patch, and the injectable Depo-Provera, and even breastfeeding--prevent pregnancy primarily by delaying or inhibiting ovulation and inhibiting fertilization, but may at times inhibit implantation of a fertilized egg in the endometrium. At the same time, however, all women should be informed that the best available evidence is that the ability of levonorgestrel and ulipristal acetate ECPs to prevent pregnancy can be fully accounted for by mechanisms that do not involve interference with post-fertilization events.
Its very high effectiveness implies that emergency insertion of a copper IUD must be able to prevent pregnancy after fertilization.
All the emphases are my own.
Readers more qualified than I may comment, but the long and short of it is that birth control pills and IUDs and other hormonal contraceptives--including ECPs--are widely recognized to pose certain threats to the lives of our unborn children.
Christian, what chance do you want to take with murdering your son or daughter?