Does the Birth Control Pill Cause Abortions

What do the Pill Manufacturers Say
No one is in a better position to address the question of how birth control pills work than the
companies that produce them. In this section I quote from their materials and recount conversations
with representatives of various Pill manufacturers.
Searle
I asked a good friend and excellent prolife physician to call a birth control pill manufacturer
concerning the statements in their inserts. He contacted Searle, whose package insert for the pill
Demulen, says “alterations in the…endometrium (which may reduce the likelihood of
implantation) may also contribute to the contraceptive effectiveness.” (Note that Searle
twice uses the term “may,” in contrast to Ortho and Wyeth, which in their information in the PDR
state the same effect as a fact rather than a possibility.)
Here is part of a letter dated February 13, 1997, written by Barbara Struthers, Searle’s Director of
Healthcare Information Services, to my prolife physician friend:
Thank you for your recent request for information regarding whether oral contraceptives are
abortifacients…One of the possible mechanisms listed in the labeling is “changes in the endometrium
which may reduce the likelihood of implantation.” This is a theoretical mechanism only and is not
based upon experimental evidence, but upon the histologic appearance of the endometrium.
However, as noted by Goldzieher, the altered endometrium is still capable of sustaining nidation, as
shown by pregnancies occurring in cycles with only a few or no tablet omissions. 58
Dr. Struthers (PhD) makes a valid point that the Pill’s effects on the endometrium do not always
make implantation impossible. But in my research I’ve never found anyone who claims they always
do. The issue is whether they sometimes do. To be an abortifacient does not require that
something always cause an abortion, only that it sometimes does.
In fact, whether it’s RU-486, Norplant, Depo-Provera, the Mini-pill or the Pill, there is no chemical
that always causes an abortion. There are only those that do so never, sometimes, often and usually.
Children who play on the freeway, climb on the roof or are left alone by swimming pools don’t always
die, but this hardly proves these practices are safe and never result in fatalities. Thus, the point that
the Pill doesn’t always prevent implantation is true, but has no bearing on the question of whether it
sometimes prevents implantation, as suggested by Searle’s own literature.
Dr. Struthers goes on to say, “It is unlikely that OCs would decrease the likelihood of endometrial
implantation, particularly when one appreciates that the blastocyst is perfectly capable of implanting
in various ‘hostile’ sites, e.g. the fallopian tube, the ovary, the peritoneum.”
Her point is that the child sometimes implants in the wrong place. True enough—but, again, no one is
saying this doesn’t happen. The question is whether the Pill sometimes hinders the child’s ability to
implant in the right place. Whether the child implants in the wrong place or fails to implant in the
right one, the result is the same—death. But in the first case a human agent does not cause the
death. In the second case, it does—by use of the Pill.
Dr. Struthers then says, “Used as directed, the hormone level in modern OCs is simply too low to
cause interception, that is, failure of the blastocyst to implant.”
If this is true, then why does the company’s own literature—produced by their researchers and
submitted to the FDA, the medical community, and the public—suggest the contrary And why do
dozens and dozens of scientific and medical sources definitively state the contrary If Dr. Struthers is
right, not just some but all of these other sources have to be wrong.