Does the Birth Control Pill Cause Abortions

Organon
Next I called Organon, the maker of the birth control pill Desogen. After explaining my question
about their literature that says the Pill sometimes prevents implantation, I was transferred to Erin in
medical services. She informed me “the Pill’s primary mechanism is preventing ovulation.” After my
follow-up question, she said, “The other mechanisms also happen, but they’re secondary.” When I
asked how often the primary mechanism fails and the secondary mechanisms kick in, she said
“there’s no way to determine the number of times which happens and which doesn’t.”
Reading between the lines, Erin said, “If you’re asking if it’s an abortifacient…[pause]” I interjected,
“Yes, I am.” She continued, “…that’s difficult to ever say that.” She added, “What happens is, if
ovulation occurs, the Pill will thicken the mucus and thin the endometrium so that it doesn’t
allow that pregnancy.” She quickly added, “but it’s not like the IUD.” I understood her to mean
that preventing implantation is the primary function of the IUD, whereas it is only a secondary
function of the Pill.
Wyeth-Ayerst
Wyeth-Ayerst Labs is the maker of six combination Pills. I called and spoke with a medical
information coordinator named Adrianne. I read to her the professional labeling of their Pills that says
“other alterations include changes…in the endometrium (which reduce the likelihood of
implantation).” I asked if she knew how often the Pill prevents implantation.
Once again it became obvious that I was prolife, presumably because no one but a prolifer would
care about this issue. Adrianne read to me a printed statement that said “these mechanisms are not
abortifacient in nature.” She carefully explained that inhibiting ovulation and thickening the cervical
mucus were contraceptive, not abortive. Of course, I agreed 100%. She then said, reading from the
statement in front of her, “while it is true that progestins do alter the uterine lining, this is not
considered a contraceptive action of these methods. The fact that these methods are not 100%
effective and successful pregnancies have occurred clearly demonstrate that successful implantations
can occur.”
Over the following ten minutes, Adrianne kept talking about the first two mechanisms. I kept asking
about the third. Finally she said, “Yes, that [interfering with implantation] occurs, but it doesn’t
prevent a pregnancy.” I thought, that’s true, it doesn’t prevent a pregnancy, it actually ends a
pregnancy, but I knew that wasn’t what she meant. I then referred her back to Wyeth’s professional
labeling and pointed out once more the third mechanism. She followed along with her copy and said,
“That third effect happens, but it’s not considered a contraceptive action, because sometimes it fails
to prevent pregnancy.”
Of course, she had already acknowledged that sometimes the Pill fails to prevent ovulation and
sometimes the thickened cervical mucus fails to prevent the sperm from fertilizing the egg. In the
same way a visible pregnancy proves the third mechanism has failed, it proves the other two
mechanisms have also failed. Yet they are still considered to be real mechanisms of the Pill, despite
the fact they sometimes fail. Why shouldn’t the third effect be treated the same way
I said, “According to your professional labeling, sometimes your Pills do prevent a fertilized egg from
implanting—is that correct or incorrect” She paused for a very long time and I heard papers
shuffling. Finally she said, “Yes, that’s correct, but not always…that’s why we can’t say contraceptives
are 100% effective.”
I said, “Okay, let me try to summarize, and please correct me if I’m wrong. There are three different
ways the Pill operates. #1 usually works. When #1 fails, #2 may work. When #1 and #2 fail, #3
may work. And sometimes all three fail.”