Abortion as birth control isn’t a very popular subject. Abortion advocates don’t like to bring up the idea of women using abortion as birth control — the National Abortion Federation even calls it a myth. But that’s exactly what some pro-abortion researchers are pushing for: an abortion pill masquerading as a contraceptive.

The authors of the paper in the Journal of Family Planning and Reproductive Health Care, part of the British Medical Journal group, would like to see funding for exploratory work on a post-sex pill, which they anticipate would be similar to the morning-after pill but used routinely and potentially as rarely as once a month or only after the woman has missed a period. The morning-after pill has to be taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex.

“A woman could potentially use a postfertilisation method on a planned schedule only once in each menstrual cycle, no matter how many prior coital acts she had had in that cycle,” wrote the experts from the US and Sweden.

“If the drug were effective when administered after implantation of an embryo, timing would be flexible, and she might even be able to limit its use on average to a few times a year when her menstrual period was late. Importantly, post-fertilisation methods would eliminate the conceptual and logistical challenge of needing to obtain and initiate contraception before having sex, which can be daunting for both women and men.”

The difference between the morning-after pill and this new drug is that this would apparently be marketed to women as a contraceptive, bringing another choice to women for birth control. They could take it every month, only once a month, just in case they got pregnant. And presumably, it would be better than taking the regular old birth control pill, with all of its nasty side effects and potentially life-threatening risks. (No word, of course, on what the side effects and risks of this particular drug would be.)

But although this drug would be sold as a contraceptive, let’s be honest: this would be an abortion pill, plain and simple. How many women would know that, though? How many women would take this pill, thinking it’s just another form of birth control, without realizing they were potentially giving themselves monthly abortions? Every unintended pregnancy doesn’t always end up being ended in an abortionist’s office, after all. If nothing else, this is a drug that should be called what it is: a chemical abortion. But when have abortionists ever been fans of informed consent?

And as for those who would brush off the abortive nature of this drug as no big deal, remember that the baby’s heart begins beating only about three weeks after conception. The child isn’t a blob of tissue just being casually discarded — this would stop a beating heart.

Abortion as birth control isn’t a very popular subject. Abortion advocates don’t like to bring up the idea of women using abortion as birth control — the National Abortion Federation even calls it a myth. But that’s exactly what some pro-abortion researchers are pushing for: an abortion pill masquerading as a contraceptive.

The authors of the paper in the Journal of Family Planning and Reproductive Health Care, part of the British Medical Journal group, would like to see funding for exploratory work on a post-sex pill, which they anticipate would be similar to the morning-after pill but used routinely and potentially as rarely as once a month or only after the woman has missed a period. The morning-after pill has to be taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex.

“A woman could potentially use a postfertilisation method on a planned schedule only once in each menstrual cycle, no matter how many prior coital acts she had had in that cycle,” wrote the experts from the US and Sweden.

“If the drug were effective when administered after implantation of an embryo, timing would be flexible, and she might even be able to limit its use on average to a few times a year when her menstrual period was late. Importantly, post-fertilisation methods would eliminate the conceptual and logistical challenge of needing to obtain and initiate contraception before having sex, which can be daunting for both women and men.”

The difference between the morning-after pill and this new drug is that this would apparently be marketed to women as a contraceptive, bringing another choice to women for birth control. They could take it every month, only once a month, just in case they got pregnant. And presumably, it would be better than taking the regular old birth control pill, with all of its nasty side effects and potentially life-threatening risks. (No word, of course, on what the side effects and risks of this particular drug would be.)

But although this drug would be sold as a contraceptive, let’s be honest: this would be an abortion pill, plain and simple. How many women would know that, though? How many women would take this pill, thinking it’s just another form of birth control, without realizing they were potentially giving themselves monthly abortions? Every unintended pregnancy doesn’t always end up being ended in an abortionist’s office, after all. If nothing else, this is a drug that should be called what it is: a chemical abortion. But when have abortionists ever been fans of informed consent?

And as for those who would brush off the abortive nature of this drug as no big deal, remember that the baby’s heart begins beating only about three weeks after conception. The child isn’t a blob of tissue just being casually discarded — this would stop a beating heart.