Human Fertilization

ACOG Statement Shows Planned Parenthood Deceiving on the Pill’s Ability to Kill Life

Human FertilizationAbortion industry cheerleader Gail Collins of the New York Times writes in her latest op-ed backing funding for top US abortion provider Planned Parenthood:

Dr. Vanessa Cullins of Planned Parenthood says that the pills inhibit the production of eggs or stop the sperm before they reach their destination. “There is absolutely no direct evidence that there is interference with with implantation,” she said.

That is interesting because the Guttmacher Institute (named after former Planned Parenthood President Alan Guttmacher) wrote this via the The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists:

Food and Drug Administration–approved contraceptive drugs and devices act to prevent pregnancy in one or more of three major ways: by suppressing ovulation, by preventing fertilization of an egg by a sperm or by inhibiting implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterine lining.

Later it says:

The primary mechanism of action of “combined” oral contraceptives (those containing both estrogen and a progestin) is the suppression of ovulation. In addition, these pills may interfere with sperm and egg transport, affect the fluids within a woman’s reproductive tract or affect sperm maturation or the readiness of the uterine lining for implantation.

So who is right? Pro-abortion industry Planned Parenthood or pro-abortion industry Guttmacher Institute which published the ACOG information in one of their articles?

Or is the cop-out in Dr. Vanessa Cullins of Planned Parenthood’s statement where she says “no direct evidence” has been found? Could it be that the pill (among other methods) which are clearly designed to inhibit implantation of new human life but have yet to be clinically documented to do so because directly documenting such event is a virtually impossible and impractical task? Whether Cullins’ statement is technically true or not, it is clearly misleading and documents once again the medical misinformation present at Planned Parenthood. Note: In 2009 Live Action documented medical mis-information inside Planned Parenthood clinics as part of the Rosa Acuna Project.

UPDATE:

And Planned Parenthood Colorado had this to say about Amendment 48 which would have given to to human life post-fertilization:

Amendment 48 is so broad it could outlaw emergency contraception, the birth control pill and other methods of birth control because they can prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus.

21 thoughts on “ACOG Statement Shows Planned Parenthood Deceiving on the Pill’s Ability to Kill Life

  1. I'm sorry, but you're probably wrong on this one. (And wouldn't that be *good news*?)

    "Direct evidence," as in hard scientific evidence repeated, done by different researchers in different labs, supports the belief that oral contraceptives don't impair implantation of embryos. Statements on old websites are not good evidence. (Even the latest medical journal online is months old.)

    The comments in this article are supported by good, ethical, repeated research done at different labs by different researchers. https://www.arhp.org/Publications-and-Resources/C

    We have great information in the last ten years that contradict the earlier concerns about interference with implantation by oral contraception and even Plan B.

    In fact, there's some evidence that Plan B might encourage implantation if taken after fertilization – http://lifeethics.org/2006/09/02/review-plan-b-ho… (although the free article in Contraception is no longer available, there are links to many good reviews by other prolife docs). The research is excellent and ethical – done on women who can't get pregnant, due to the laws in Brazil at the time and (I believe) the good ethics of the researchers.

    The highest risk is with the progesterone only pills, which have a 4 fold risk of tubal pregnancy because the same mechanism that slows the sperm on its way to the oocyte can slow the embryo on his or her way down the fallopian tube. Since thes pills also carry the highest risk of "breakthrough ovulation," I strongly discourage their use.

    Reply

    1. So are you saying that the Guttmacher Institute is publishing false information from the The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists?

      Reply

  2. I was informing you that you should not publish false information.

    It's old information that was spread around before new information was found, repeatedly, in different labs by different – some incredibly ethical – researchers. I'm sure that you don't look to Guttmacher for the latest scientific evidence, right?

    Reply

    1. You didn't directly answer my question. Yes or no, is the Guttmacher Institute and The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists putting out false info?

      What are you doing to see that these institutions remove false info?

      Also, can you provide links to documentation of Guttmacher Institute or the The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists saying something different than what they said here?

      Reply

      1. This question wasn't addressed to me, but I have above provided a link to a 2010 Guttmacher article saying something virtually identical to the Collins piece.

        "Yes or no, is the Guttmacher Institute and The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists putting out false info?"

        Some questions cannot be accurately answered with "yes" or "no," but if you insist on a simplistic answer, it is "no." It is extremely common for the websites of newspapers, periodicals, or other literature to leave up older articles when newer articles supplant the information within them. No professional society would ever say that back issues of a journal should be destroyed or made inaccessible when more recent issues give new information; it is the responsibility of the user to understand how to use archival resources. If your doctor were to prescribe a medication combination recommended in a 2004 New England Journal of Medicine article and contraindicated in a 2008 NEJM article that he didn't know about, he could not expect anyone to take him seriously if he tried to shift the blame for his error to the NEJM by saying it gave "false information." The truth is that he didn't bother to do his homework. It is not NEJM's responsibility to do his work for him by telling libraries to throw away the 2004 issue, particularly when the 2004 issue might still contain other useful information.

        I shall respond to your other comment later today if I have time.

        Reply

        1. So is Planned Parenthood Colorado out of line in your view for saying this?

          "Amendment 48 is so broad it could outlaw emergency contraception, the birth control pill and other methods of birth control because they can prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus." http://www.plannedparenthood.org/rocky-mountains/….

          Reply

  3. I've forwarded the information to them, and received much the same sort or reply from them as I get from you. And, yes, their information is false according to scientific research.

    However, the truth is the truth. Some people find truth more important than others. Some understand that understanding itself is only as good as the information you have. Others understand that what has been published in the past is not accurate at a later date.

    Reply

    1. Can you please provide documentation of the scientific research?

      I want the truth too. It is noteworthy when Planned Parenthood is saying one thing and the Planned Parenthood founded Guttmacher Institute and the The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists are saying another. They can't both be right.

      Why do you think that the Guttmacher Institute and the The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists are publishing what you say are false statements in official statements and reports?

      Reply

      1. I gave you links. Take a look at the Life Training Institute and at Jivinjehosephat. Give me an email and I will send the articles I have that are behind a pay wall.

        Reply

        1. RE: This link: https://www.arhp.org/Publications-and-Resources/C
          — From what I see, it talks of EPCs or emergency contraceptives, not regular oral pills. Can you explain this difference?

          — It says of "Copper-T IUD": May also prevent implantation of a fertilized egg. Do you have an opinion on this statement?

          RE: The second post: http://lifeethics.org/2006/09/02/review-plan-b-ho

          — It once again is talking about Plan B, not normal oral contraceptives. How is that comparable?

          Reply

    2. And also the New York Times quoted the The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologist as authoritative in their article as well. I guess they should find new sources too. Who is authoritative is your view?

      Reply

      1. It has occured to me that it's a benefit to PP and pro-aborts to have the media claim that OCP's are abortifacients and that we want to take away everyone's birth control. Two reasons – make every woman who has used the Pill, etc., complicit with abortion and make their ad hominim arguments about those mean "anti-choicers" more sensational.

        The old comments are still being spread, as we can see, today. However, they are based – at best – on research in women who did not ovulate. Women who ovulate have the corpus luteum, which is a much stronger producer of blood levels of hormones than the pills are.

        Good science, such as that done in different labs by different researchers under ethical conditions is the most authoritative source for science. If you're ask about authority in media and websites, I'll take LTI and jivin'jehosaphat and my own reading over the NYT any day.

        Each time I enter this conversation, the discussions seem to be a fight from scientific literature toward both proaborts and prolifers. I wouldn't have bothered if I didn't care about the reputation of liveaction.

        Reply

        1. Live Action isn't asserting any final conclusion but rather comparing obvious contradictions among 3 abortion supporting organizations that all claim to be credible sources of medical information.

          Reply

      2. Livewell, you're having some reading comprehension problems with the Guttmacher report, presumably because Schoolhouse Rock has gone off the air or something. It does not state that oral contraceptives prevent implantation. The second quotation says that "these pills *may* interfere with sperm and egg transport." "May" is a conditional verb form indicating hypothesis or uncertainty: they're not taking a firm stance on the question of implantation.

        In the first passage, "Food and Drug Administration–approved contraceptive drugs and devices act to prevent pregnancy in one or more of three major ways: by suppressing ovulation, by preventing fertilization of an egg by a sperm or by inhibiting implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterine lining," the use of the conjunction "and" to link "drugs" and "devices" means that they are talking about both drugs and IUDs (IUDs are devices that prevent implantation) in their description of the several different ways in which contraceptives work. They are, again, not saying that pills work that way.

        Nothing in the Guttmacher report conclusively states that pills prevent implantation; nor does anything in the report preclude the possibility that subsequent research would reach the conclusion that they only work to prevent ovulation.

        Reply

        1. Planned Parenthood is communicating in a strong way that would be convincing to the public that the pill won't impact implantation but Guttmacher / ACOG are saying that this is a known possible effect.

          Planned Parenthood's website states: "The hormones also thin the lining of the uterus. In theory, this could prevent pregnancy by keeping a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus." http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/bi

          It sounds like whether the pill kills post-fertilization isn't known which is why Planned Parenthood shouldn't be making strong statements one way or the other until it is known. Making strong statements about something unestablished in deceptive. Would you agree?

          Also, it sounds like you are saying that IUDs kill post-fertilization but the pill does not.

          Reply

          1. No, I'm not saying that IUDs "kill." My understanding was that they prevent implantation, but I'm not claiming that my knowledge of how they work is up-to-date. That doesn't change the fact that no grammatically-informed reading of the texts you cite above indicates that the Guttmacher Institute stated that oral contraceptives prevent implantation of a fertilized egg. As to your other question, I doubt that you and I have the same definition of "strong statement," given that your argument that Guttmacher and PP are saying different things is based on an extremely simplistic interpretation of a six-year-old article with clearly stated qualifications. "Strong statement" seems to mean whatever you want it to mean.

            Incidentally, it took me all of thirty seconds to discover that the Guttmacher Institute's most recent discussion of emergency contraception says:

            "Studies on the mechanism of action of emergency contraception show that it works primarily by interfering with ovulation. In cases when ovulation has already occurred, the method may inhibit fertilization or, in cases when fertilization has already occurred, it could, in theory, prevent implantation—although current evidence does not support this latter mechanism of action. In theory, all hormonal contraceptive methods could work through all of these modes, although prevention of ovulation is the primary demonstrated mode for all of them." http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/gpr/13/2/gpr130208…. That's in line with the Planned Parenthood statement that you cite below.

            So, an editorial that claims the Guttmacher Institute says one thing when it actually says another is pretty much giving out false info, no?

          2. "No, I'm not saying that IUDs "kill." My understanding was that they prevent implantation"
            — Does preventing implantation effectively kill the homosapien?
            — Do you think abortion kills?

            Does the text from Guttmacher not say the preventing implantation is a possibility with the pill?

            "So, an editorial that claims the Guttmacher Institute says one thing when it actually says another is pretty much giving out false info, no?"

            What is Guttmacher being claimed to have said that is factually incorrect. Please specifically quote.

            Why does NARAL Colorado claim that a law banning abortions after fertilization would ban the pill because it acts post fertilization? Would you say that NARAL Colorado is on the wrong side of this as well?

            "The most effective forms of birth control like the pill, injectibles like Implanon and Depo-Provera, NuvaRing, the patch, and IUDs work primarily by inhibiting release of an egg into the womb. They also alter the lining of a woman’s uterine wall in a way that makes the uterus inhospitable to fertilized eggs, thereby inhibiting implantation of a fertilized egg if fertilization does occur — preventing a pregnancy from occurring. By giving rights to fertilized eggs, Amendment 62 would make it illegal to use these forms of birth control." http://www.prochoicecolorado.org/ballotwatch.shtm

          3. Also Planned Parenthood Colorado also stated that the pill has post-fertilization effects. Is Planned Parenthood Colorado wrong or Planned Parenthood's Dr. Vanessa Cullins?

            "Amendment 48 is so broad it could outlaw emergency contraception, the birth control pill and other methods of birth control because they can prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus."
            http://www.plannedparenthood.org/rocky-mountains/

          4. The IUD, at least as it's used as an "emergency contraception" is very, very likely to be abortifacient. Later, it is such an irritant that sperm can't get through and probably also prevents implantation. I hate foreign bodies, anyway, but haven't kept up on the research about the IUD.
            Neither Plan B or the daily OCP have the same hormonal effect on blood hormone levels as the corpus luteum — the corpus luteum produces higher hormone effects. The problem is finding enough women who ovulate on OCP's to do a good study.

  4. I have to agree that you guys are a off on this one. As a Physician Assistant and adamant believer in the sancity of life, I have been very concerned about this issue and whether the medical world was putting their spin on the facts. However, after looking into this myself and speaking with other more knowledgeable physicians, I feel confident that ” the pill” is a moral means of contraception which respect the value of the fetus. The risk of being on the pill causing you to miscarry due to preventing implantation is theoretical. In other words it could potentially happen in theory, but is beyond unlikely. If the pill is being taken correctly the chances of you ovulating are very minimal, and if by chance you do ovulate there are other mechanisms making it highly improbable that the sperm will fertilize the egg. If by chance it does, well… your having a baby (barring some other complication). If you think about it I bet you know several women yourself who have gotten pregnant while on the pill. The pill does not cause ” abortions” I really appreciate and respect the work you all do so please make sure your articles and positions are accurate.

    Reply

  5. Are there any studies on the frequency of breakthrough ovulation that you may be able to direct me towards?

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *