Planned Parenthood Lies About the “Morning-After” Pill
By , Published November 23rd, 2011

Yesterday, Planned Parenthood posted this status on Facebook, claiming the morning-after pill “PREVENTS pregnancy, and won’t work if you’re already pregnant.”

Truth and LiesThis is a dishonest and scientifically inaccurate statement, because like any other hormonal birth control method, emergency contraception can work one of three ways: suppressing ovulation (an egg isn’t released and sperm cannot fertilize the egg, so conception won’t occur); it can thicken cervical mucous (which acts as a barrier so sperm cannot fertilize the egg, and conception won’t occur); or it can render the uterus uninhabitable. 

When a woman uses hormonal contraceptives,  the lining of the womb is altered to try and prevent a newly-conceived human being from implanting if conception does happen to occur.  If this is the case, the tiny human being may be killed and lost during the woman’s menstrual cycle.

According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, “Fifty-four percent of women who have abortions had used a contraceptive method (usually the condom or the pill) during the month they became pregnant.”  Thus, conception is likely to occur even when a woman uses hormonal contraceptives.

Who knows how many lives have been lost because women weren’t given the full and complete truth about these types of contraceptives?
Live Action on Facebook
  • bubbalouwee

    Since when has Planned Parenthood been interested in the truth?   The number of humans killed from abortificients is probably several times over the number killed by abortion.  People need to be taught and understand that sexual relations outside of marriage is morally wrong.  The pervasive mentally that sexual relations outside of marraige is normal behavior as long as a pregnacy does not result is wrong.  Life is a gift from God, but our society treats pregnancy like it is a disease.  To separate the act of making love from the offspring it produces is a very bizarre mentality and a grave moral wrong.    

  • Sparky

    There is absolutely nothing dishonest or inaccurate about the post.  In fact if you go to the link of FAQs, it explains exactly what the morning after pill is and how it works.  http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/emergency-contraception-morning-after-pill-4363.asp

    I’m just wondering if it ever occured to you that you can have a different opinion on something without having to compromise your integrity by misrepresenting another’s point of view?

    • Squib56

      Sparky unfortunately this is deceptive and I shall detail exactly why. The Pill, Morning-After Pill, IUD, Contraceptive patch, depo-provera and norplant are known as “contraceptives” right? that is they prevent conception. But in fact all these so-called contraceptives can act as abortifacients and cause abortions. The chemicals in these abortifacients work in three basic ways: 1) They interfere with the woman’s natural process of ovulation – preventing the release of an egg from the ovary (acts as a contraceptive) 2) When ovulation does occur, they thicken the cervical mucus so that sperm have a difficult time getting to the egg. If sperm do not reach the woman’s egg, conception cannot occur (contraceptive) 3) They irritate the lining of the womb so that if actions 1&2 fail, and a woman does become pregnant, the tiny baby will die before he or she can actually attach to the inside of the womb (acts as an abortifacient). In other words, after life begins at conception, the tiny human being must travel to the womb and implant there. But if the lining of the womb has been inflamed by the abortifacient chemicals, it becomes unreceptive to the new human being. Therefore the tiny child cannot attach to the wall of the womb and get nourishment, so she or he dies. Under these circumstances, the chemicals are NOT contraceptive because conception has already occured – rather they cause a very early abortion. They kill a human life at its earliest and smallest stage. Many women are unaware that they are actually having abortions on a regular basis when they use these so-called “contraceptives”. There are also dangerous risks with the morning after pill: breast tenderness, infertility, blood clots, ectopic pregnancies and Cancer. I challenge you to log on to abort67.co.uk and see the opening video and then after you’ve done so I will speak further with you should you wish :) . Many thanks.

      • Sparky

        Okay, but my point was that the primary purpose of the morning after pill is to prevent fertilization just as the fb post said and also that the FAQ that the post links to indicates that it may also thin the lining of the uterus preventing the implantation of the fertilized egg.  The author may consider that an abortion if she wishes, but to characterize the post as a lie is neither accurate nor fair.

  • Anonymous

    According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, “Fifty-four percent of women
    who have abortions had used a contraceptive method (usually the condom
    or the pill) during the month they became pregnant.”  Thus, conception
    is likely to occur even when a woman uses hormonal contraceptives.

    It is commonly accepted that emergency contraception primarily works to
    prevent ovulation, and hypothesized that it might prevent implantation.  Try putting your thinking cap on for a minute, Jennie.  If women who use hormonal birth control end up getting abortions, does that mean that
    a).  Hormonal birth control did prevent the zygote’s implantation, or
    b).  Hormonal birth control did not prevent the zygote’s implantation?

    Take your time, Jennie, and if your answer is A, then you can stop reading here.  But if your answer is B,  then is it really logical to use examples of hormonal birth control failing to prevent implantation in a piece claiming that it does prevent implantation?

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Ana-Dee/100002560591777 Ana Dee

      So are you saying that if a woman had to get an abortion after consuming an EC pill, it must mean that the embryo DID implant itself to the woman’s uterus? Some abortifacients prevent the zygote from implanting itself in the uterus and not  removed via a menstruation.  Ever heard of ECTOPIC pregnancies?  You are right though, you are the self appointed “medical expert” and superior in logic to the rest of us “anti-choice” dummies… All facts be damned. YOU have to have the last word.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Ana-Dee/100002560591777 Ana Dee

      As for your Princeton  article, this is what I stumbled upon:  ”like all regular hormonal
      contraceptives such as the birth control pill, the progestincontaining implant and the injectable depot medroxyprogesterone acetate [32], and even breastfeeding [33] — may
      prevent pregnancy by delaying or inhibiting ovulation,
      inhibiting fertilization, or INHIBITING IMPLANTATION of a
      fertilized egg in the endometrium.” (Emphasis added)  Now go back and read Miss Jennie’s second paragraph.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Ana-Dee/100002560591777 Ana Dee

      You seem to imply that  it is an all-or-nothing issue. It’s not,  ”either you think ALL birth control is abortifacient, or you think that NO birth control is abortifacient. Jennie was not making  either claim. She was stating the  different POSSIBILITIES.  See? Possibilities, not CERTAINTIES?

  • Hancojn

    It all depends on when PP, science and the rest of us determine when pregnancy begins, technically they are correct as pregnancy, in terminolgy, begins at implantation. So any action against the zygote is not an abortion.

    However, its still the murder of an innocent human being, whether mother knows child has come into existence.

    Frankly, its one great big dirty strawman.

  • Pingback: Planned Parenthood doesn’t care about your right to choose, they care about your money. | Warriors of Truth

  • BubbaJx3

    Interestingly enough, PP specifically says on their website that the “Morning-After” pill was one of the methods of abortion. The way I see it, unless you’re already pregnant, it’s not an abortion, so yeah, they lie.

    • Anonymous

      Interesting. Could you please provide the link?

      • BubbaJx3
        • Anonymous

          The link you provided is to medical abortion, not the morning-after pill.  They are different medications with different ingredients.

          • Guest

            Plan B and other estrogen based contraceptives are questionable, like you said.  Ella, on the other hand, is very similar in composition to RU-486.  The only major difference is the dosage.  It is almost certain that this morning after pill prevents a newly conceived human from implanting.  It may even destroy the embryo after implantation.

            Relevant links:

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulipristal_acetate#Pregnancy
            http://lti-blog.blogspot.com/2010/08/scientific-wishful-thinking-ellas.html

          • Anonymous

            The only major difference is the dosage.

            Well,by analogy, the only major difference between a therapeutic injection of digoxin and a toxic one is dosage.  That’s a pretty significant difference.  I’m aware of the differences between ella and Plan-B type drugs, though there does not seem to be any certain proof that ella as currently administered prevents implantation: the LTI article is extremely tendentious.  In any event, PP does not “lie,” as young Miss Stone claims, because they clearly go through the mechanisms of action.  Someone who reads their site will come away with a much better, and more accurate, understanding of emergency contraception than someone who reads this site will.

          • Guest

            A better analogy would be comparing a dose that would be lethal to an obese adult to a smaller dose used on a newborn baby.  Its toxicity would be uncertain, so we would turn to studies done on animals as well as clinical trials.  Both of these point to ella working to prevent implantation.  It is theoretically possible that a future study could show otherwise, but this would go against the evidence we currently have.

            I’m not sure why you think the LTI article is “extremely tendentious”.  Other articles by the same author all but conclude that Plan B and similar chemicals do not cause early abortions.  The site is, obviously, anti-abortion but is neutral on non-abortifacient contraceptives.  It encourages pro-lifers to avoid overstating the potential dangers of these drugs (just as you have done).  If I had linked to something like American Life League’s “The Pill Kills” campaign (which takes the stance that all hormonal contraceptives cause abortions) or the USCCB (which opposes all contraception), you might have a point.  Even then, it’s generally better to address arguments than merely accuse the authors of bias.  Furthermore, you yourself have linked to sources that are at least as tendentious (RH Reality Check, Guttmacher, etc.) when nitpicking blog entries on this site.

            The Facebook post linked to on this blog states that the morning after pill does not cause an abortion.  It then links to a page that describes an abortifacient effect.  Immediately after that, it again states that “Emergency contraception is BIRTH CONTROL, not abortion.” (emphasis in original).  This is definitely confusing, if not misleading, if not downright dishonest.  I can’t say this blog is complete (for reasons I already mentioned), but it’s certainly no worse than what Planned Parenthood has on its site.  Someone who wanted an accurate, up to date understanding of how emergency contraception actually works would do well to visit the two sites I listed.

          • BubbaJx3

            Oh, oops. XD I was actually thinking that they may be two different things as I was rereading the article on the Abortion Pill, but posted it anyway in case they weren’t. I’m very young, therefore there are many things I don’t know about, and will make many mistakes. Fortunately, I’ve learned from this one.

  • Miharu_ichikawa

    Lying or not, the truth is harder to swallow for women who want but are for whatever reason, still not entirely able to deal with having an abortion versus taking a pill. Still, I remain solidly behind Planned Parenthood and all contraception methods, this included. With some of the ridiculous moral debate surrounding the issue and the one-sided sources and ‘pro-life’ writing going on here, is it terrible I wonder why perhaps some of our generation’s own parents had better access to family planning services or perhaps a properly working condom? The idiocy that has been allowed to perpetuate in this world is ridiculous. Turn that last line or two against me, there’s not much but fluff pro-lifers have to their arguments where at least I have solid facts supporting my firm belief in a woman’s choice to have an abortion as being her choice, not having it get taken away because other people do not agree to it. Seems backwards and just outright silly.

    • Guest

      You didn’t cite any of these “solid facts”.  You did, however, express support for the eugenics ideology.  Planned Parenthood’s supporters have, on this blog, gone to great lengths trying to deny that the organization is still laced with eugenics.  You undermine their efforts.

      If you have to lie to someone in order to sell someone something, you probably shouldn’t be selling it to them.  “Choice” is a meaningless concept if it isn’t informed.

      Abortion is a violent act that kills a human being, not simply a personal choice that some people disagree with.  And Planned Parenthood is not an ethical organization, whether or not you support access to family planning.

      http://herestheblood.com/
      http://liveaction.org/projects-of-live-action
      http://www.aul.org/aul-special-report-the-case-for-investigating-planned-parenthood/

  • Eleanore Strong

    Excellent post. Earlier this year I was part of a lively exchange on this subject with a very poorly informed columnist in a local newspaper. Links are below.

    Jeff Ward column:
    http://couriernews.suntimes.com/news/4955775-418/your-beliefs-have-nothing-to-do-with-my-rx.html

    My letter to the editor:
    http://beaconnews.suntimes.com/opinions/letters/5169115-417/plan-b-is-morally-equivalent-to-abortion.html

    Jeff Ward second column:
    http://beaconnews.suntimes.com/news/5342851-418/plan-b-confusion-doesnt-bode-well-for-our-future.html