Morning-after pill's ties to abortion questioned, yet again
June 6th, 2012
06:15 PM ET

Morning-after pill's ties to abortion questioned, yet again

Is the morning-after pill also an abortion pill?  That's seems a continuing question.  If you read some of the labels, the morning-after pills work primarily by "stopping (or delaying) the release of an egg from the ovary."  But the controversy has been - and continues to be - whether taking the morning-after pill is tantamount to abortion.

Ella, Plan B and Next Choice (the generic version of Plan B) are morning-after pills currently all currently available in the United States.  All three labels indicate the drugs work by preventing the release of an egg from an ovary.  If the egg is never fertilized, there's nothing to abort. 

All three labels also indicate that the pills  may prevent the attachment of a fertilized egg to the uterus, which has been interpreted by some to mean it causes an  abortion.

A New York Times article Wednesday looked at the science and mounting data that morning-after pills do not cause abortions and whether election year politics is fueling the debate.
Dr. Jim Breeden, President of The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists says even though the line of thinking that morning-after pills cause abortins has not gone away, the data is irrefutable.

"We've been saying that all along.  It's an important distinction that the morning-after type pills prevent pregnancy by stopping ovulation so there is no fertilization," Breeden said. "I think it doesn't go away because there was some uncertainty many, many years ago as to how the method actually worked, so there was speculation that it might have impacted implantation.  But nobody knew that– there was no research that showed that."

Plan B, first approved by the FDA in 1999 for emergency contraception use, was originally manufactured by Barr Pharmaceuticals. It contains a hormone the company says has been used in birth control pills for more than 35 years.  Today, it's made by Teva Pharmaceuticals who bought Barr.  In 2006 the agency approved Plan B for over-the-counter use in women aged 18 years and older.  It's now available over-the-counter for women 17 and older.  The pill can be used up to 72 hours after unprotected sex to prevent a pregnancy.

Ella, made by Watson Pharmaceuticals was approved in 2010.  It blocks progesterone, a female hormone produced by the ovaries.   Watson spokesman Charles Mayr says people often confuse emergency contraception pills used to "prevent" pregnancy, with abortion pills like RU-486, also known as mifepristone. 

"Ella is not an abortion pill.  Ella is a contraceptive product for use within 120 hours of unprotected sex or contraceptive failure.  It is used to prevent pregnancy.  We recognize that people have different opinions about contraceptives and emergency contraceptives," Mayr said.  "And a product that can be used to prevent an unintended pregnancy that results from a contraceptive failure or unprotected intercourse is an important option that we believe women should have.  Ella has been determined to be safe, it's determined to be effective.  We believe it's a valuable option but it is not an abortion drug. This drug does not terminate a pregnancy."

When asked whether the FDA would consider revising the labels of  morning-after pills by dropping the implantation reference, FDA spokesperson Erica Jefferson told CNN: "Labeling of a drug may change as more becomes known about a drug after it is approved, usually at the request of a company to reflect new information from clinical trials or other scientific sources."

Asked what would help put the controversy to rest, Breeden said: "Reasonableness would be good.  Actually studying the literature and trying to put pre-conceived concepts aside and actually looking at what the data and research show."

Politics, he says, is at play here. "We have been pushing very hard to make this go away, to make contraception easily assessable.  We have the highest unintentional pregnancy rate in the world - about 49%.  That's 3 million pregnancies a year that are unplanned, unwanted, unintended and unfortunately, many of them end in abortion.  If we had good contraceptive access we would not have so many unwanted pregnancies."

Breeden says today's literature and research shows that if these pills did prevent implantation there wouldn't be as many cases where they failed to prevent pregnancy.   

He says with all the science showing that these pills work by preventing ovulation and not by interfering with implantation, a label change might go a long way toward putting some of these concerns to rest.

soundoff (50 Responses)
  1. Tony

    How many times do id iots need to be told this is NOT an abortion pill? Thee creeps are so hell bent that some rape victim must continue to suffer by posibly being impregnated during an attack. Maybe these are the ones who will go to hell.

    June 7, 2012 at 08:32 | Report abuse | Reply
    • chefdugan

      I think it should be called the "OOPS" pill. I didn't start out to have sex but just got carried away. ANYTHING that prevents another birth should be not only legal but praised. This pill should be mandatory equipment for most televangalists and fundamental preachers.

      June 7, 2012 at 10:07 | Report abuse |
  2. Dave

    "That's seems" paragraph 1
    "cause abortins" para 4

    June 7, 2012 at 09:20 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Easy Solution

      Why don't you use punctuation and proper sentence structure when you beech about others?

      June 7, 2012 at 09:24 | Report abuse |
  3. Easy Solution

    Oral sex takes care of the problem. No pill needed.

    June 7, 2012 at 09:23 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Katie

      Spoken like a man.

      June 7, 2012 at 16:03 | Report abuse |
    • Sam

      Is there a problem with that, Katie? Do you deny that oral sex prevents pregnancy?

      June 7, 2012 at 16:26 | Report abuse |
    • Kate2

      Um, yes there is a problem with it, Sam. Ever heard of the expression "one-way street"?

      June 7, 2012 at 16:54 | Report abuse |
    • Burnz

      Oral sex can be a 2-way street, Kate. But condoms also work.

      June 7, 2012 at 18:59 | Report abuse |
    • lynne

      Just another dumb, no ignorant response.

      Oral sex is sex without the implication of pregnancy, but there are still heath implications.

      I am just so tired of private matters overriding the really important issues like – how are citizens going to find employment that will support them, will our economy collapse, will our citizens have affordable health care (like all westernized cultures do!), etc.

      No, instead we focus on abortion, same sex marriage, etc.

      Not that they aren't relevant and emotional topics, but really... if it came down to your life and the choices you decided to make would you really want them scrutinized?!!

      It's all good if someone else is under the microscope, but I doubt that the majority of folks walk the path of Jesus. If you don't want the microscope on you don't say it's okay if it happens to someone else.

      Jesus was a good person who tried to teach others to be decent to one another. Somehow his message was highjacked and violated.

      June 7, 2012 at 22:11 | Report abuse |
    • F11

      I'd want to see what Katie looks like before oral. You know, just to make sure she's a chick but besides that, its all good.

      June 8, 2012 at 10:30 | Report abuse |
  4. WhatNow

    I'll be glad when this election year is over and we can quit dragging out the abortion and gays issues to distract people from reality. I grow tired of people prying in others private lives.

    June 7, 2012 at 09:56 | Report abuse | Reply
  5. Sy2502

    I'd like Liberals to stay out of my stomach (hear that, Mayor Bloomberg?) and Conservatives to stay out of my pants.

    June 7, 2012 at 13:11 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Flyingarchitect

      And if Adam and Eve had this pill? What then?

      June 8, 2012 at 07:34 | Report abuse |
  6. mk045

    "Reasonableness would be good. Actually studying the literature and trying to put pre-conceived concepts aside and actually looking at what the data and research show." Unfortunately, the people they're dealing with are not swayed by data or facts. For them, "reasearch" is a four letter word. The source material for these people is not "reasonable", and they do not suffer reason.

    June 7, 2012 at 13:14 | Report abuse | Reply
  7. Ryan

    At risk of sounding insightful, it should be mentioned here that the box for these medications states explicitly that they function to impede implantation of a fertilized egg. The same is true for most forms of non-emergency birth control. Go ahead, look at yours when you get home.

    The pro-life position, in order to be philosophically consistent, must oppose the use of medications that impede the implantation of a fertilized egg (that we, along with the rest of the medical community, maintain is a unique human life). If we oppose the surgical abortion that results in the termination of this life after 3 months in the womb, then we must oppose the use of medications that will disallow an embryo to implant, which will deny continued nourishment and growth, resulting in the termination of this life, even after 3 hours in the womb. Not opposing the use of such drugs would be equivalent to opposing world hunger, but then not opposing the use of a scorched earth policy in a third world country because you believe insurgents should have the convenience of using hunger as a weapon. You may not like the pro-life position, but at least understand it before you reject it as irrational garbage. A similar philosophical consistency cannot be found in the actions of abortion proponents, who will vehemently defend abortion in the name of protecting and promoting the equality of women, but then not oppose the termination of a pregnancy that is motivated solely upon the fact that the baby is a female.

    And to ensure you this is not some crazy conspiracy against the concept of birth control in general, I offer this guaranty: as soon as a pharmaceutical company develops a form of birth control that prevents ovulation, impedes the movement of sperm through the uterus, and is clinically proven NOT to thin the endometrium, my wife and I will be the first in line to buy it. We will even camp outside of Walgreen’s for a month awaiting its release dressed as the Obamas.

    June 7, 2012 at 14:38 | Report abuse | Reply
    • kiliclika

      I appreciate your comments regarding consistency. So now my question. Perhaps you're aware that not every fertilized egg implants. There may be physiological or biochemical reasons for this. Does this imply that the mother is aborting her conceptus? There are also cases in which a pregnant woman loses her featus (termed "spontaneous abortion"). Is she aborting her child? Do not the conceptus and the fetus in these cases "deserve" to live?

      June 7, 2012 at 14:49 | Report abuse |
    • ReasonableOne

      I think anti-abortionists miss the point when they are arguing "for life".... If the embryo/fetus/egg/sperm/individual cell or whatever it is at any given point during pregnancy cannot survive outside of the womb on its own (or with reasonable modern medicine, i.e. a premie on a ventilator) how can it be considered "life." If you disagree so much with the abortion process why not just induce the mother into labor at whatever stage of pregnancy she is in and then let God/science decide if its life or not.

      June 7, 2012 at 16:06 | Report abuse |
    • Ryan

      Great questions.

      Yes, I am aware not every fertilized egg implants (in fact, best estimates put this number far higher than those that do achieve implantation) for a yet-unknown amount of natural causes. This does not necessarily imply that the mother is aborting her conceptus though. Allow me to illustrate:

      A woman is standing firmly in a wide and swift river of water 6” deep, 20 yards upstream from the edge of 300 foot waterfall, complete with razor-sharp jagged rocks at the bottom. She observes a small canoe drifting towards her. Upon closer inspection, the canoe contains a child, sleeping in the bottom of the canoe, unaware of the danger that lies ahead. Now, in honor of the Hunger Games, and in memory of Ray Bradbury, lets assume there are security cameras mounted to the trees along the bank of this river, capturing video of this event. If for some reason the boat gets caught in some rapid current, swings out 20 feet away from the woman and gets thrown forward, catapulting the craft and one-child crew over the edge before the woman is able to react, no judge in the world would hold her liable for her inability to rescue the child. However, if the canoe passes within 12” of the woman, and she does nothing but stare at the passing vessel and sleeping child, she can be charged with failure to render aid by a jury reviewing the video evidence. But, if the canoe comes within 12” of the woman, and rather than helping or doing nothing, she gives the boat a hefty push downstream towards the waterfall because she didn’t want to be inconvenienced with carrying a child to the bank of the river to safety, the judge will convict that woman of murder.

      In all three instances the result was the same: the termination of the life of a child. The reasons for the termination were all very different. A woman who experiences a spontaneous abortion (termed “miscarriage”) is no more liable for the termination of her conceptus or fetus (termed “baby”), than the woman who was unable to rescue the child from the waterfall. But to willingly ingest a medication that is explicitly stated to inhibit implantation and so terminate the life of a conceptus is at best equal to river scenario #2 and at worst river scenario #3.

      The answer to your final question is yes, all conceptuses and fetuses deserve to live. The medical reality for now is that we cannot ensure the health and well-being of every zygote, but this is hardly justification to stand at the brink of the waterfall and shove canoes over the edge all day. To do so is the equivalent of saying, “Can’t save them all, so might as well kill as many as we can!”

      And to ReasonableOne, why don’t we buy you a ticket on the next Russian space ship and then once in orbit jettison you naked with a rope tied to your waist. If you don’t survive, its not murder.

      Thanks for your consideration to all who will read this.

      June 7, 2012 at 16:18 | Report abuse |
    • Star

      Ryan, that was amazing 🙂 I wholeheartedly agree with all that you said and it's extremely refreshing to see someone with intelligence AND humor 😉 be able to articulate a logical argument to all of these "pro-choicers" who have convinced themselves and each other of the legality and morality of the abomination they so eagerly support. Life is sacred, regardless of what creed you swear by, including not any at all but compassion and empathy. For billions of miles in every direction, there is nothing but a barren wasteland and here we are on this jewel teeming with life of every kind and we've cheapened it so much that the slaughter of the most precious is law.

      June 8, 2012 at 00:31 | Report abuse |
    • SillyBean

      On what authority do you declare that all "conceptus and fetuses" deserve to live? Who gives you jurisdiction over this part of human existence (or non existance as the case may be)? You are pompous and self-righteous so learning to live with the fact that each human is autonomous and (if they are capable, born) will be making independent decisions concerning the minutia of their own existence and some of those decisions while be wholeheartedly contrary to your moral and political belief system – and you will just have to deal. Women have induced their own aborions in one way or another for a milenia and they will continue to do so legally or illegally – abortion (medical or spontaneous) are just as much a part of human procreation as fertilization itself. Always has been, always will be. It's replete through history regardless of age, nationality, or education level, the world over, since the beginning of recorded history. You think all that will change because YOU feel that "waaaa it's wrong!" Let me put together another scenario... We discover the existence of organized, sentient life on other planets... Human-like beings on Pluto, for example. They have their own social order and system. Abortion is legal in their society and practiced through every month of gestation, for any reason, whatsoever. What right do you have to hop on a space ship, fly to Pluto, and tell a Plutonian female she must carry her conceptus to term? None. Your jurisdiction, authority, and opinion are legally (and even in all practicality) "checked" at the opening of the female body. The fact of the matter is, you have a right to ask me what's going on inside my uterus, but I don't have to tell you, or show you, or answer to you, or do as YOU wish me to do with my uterus. My uterus is a no man's land and you were never invited.

      June 8, 2012 at 11:49 | Report abuse |
    • Ryan


      On what authority do you declare that no “conceptus and fetus” deserves to live? Your authority is derived from an obscure and convoluted 39-year-old court ruling the majority opinion of which itself stated that if the personhood of the unborn could be established, the ruling and its implications regarding the legality of abortion collapses under the 14th amendment (go read it here- http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0410_0113_ZO.html).

      In other words, if human embryology can advance to the point where we can be sure the unborn is a unique human being, everything but the baby must be thrown out with the bathwater. It is upon these medical advances that I, along with the rest of the pro-life community, am seeking to appeal to you and whoever else may read this. I do not contradict for a moment that abortion has been happening, legally or illegally, since at least the beginning of recorded history. But so has the rape of women and children, murder, and slavery—and these things are still morally wrong and commonly legislated against. The fact it has always existed, and will continue to exist in perpetuity does not mean its not wrong. I’m glad Abraham Lincoln cried “waaaa its wrong” regarding slavery; I’m glad Rosa Parks cried “waaaa its wrong” regarding segregation; I’m glad Martin Luther King, Jr., cried “waaaa its wrong” concerning civil rights. We build monuments today of those who bore reproach in their day standing against injustice.

      If your Plutonians are only human-like but not genetically human, I have as much concern for them as I do for human-like primates residing on our own planet currently (don’t poach them, let them do what they want, don’t test hair products on them, etc). But if they indeed share our genetic code, they are as human as our friends in the international space station, and should enjoy the same lawful protections I am arguing for based on the findings of modern prenatal research. I will be happy to donate to Pluto’s first pro-life pregnancy medical center should this scenario prove true.

      I guarantee you I will be requesting no such invitation to your no-man’s land. You and I both have autonomy to do what we want with our respective bodies, but only within the boundaries of the law. The debate here is should it be legal for anyone to deny the unborn (at any given stage of development) from enjoying the opportunity to live we have all enjoyed.

      June 8, 2012 at 15:50 | Report abuse |
  8. SillyBean

    Abortion should be 100% legal, for any reason whatsoever, through all 9 months of pregnancy. True story.

    June 7, 2012 at 15:19 | Report abuse | Reply
    • SillyBean

      If it's inside my body, or on the surface of the moon, it's out of the jurisdiction of any US court. Period.

      June 7, 2012 at 15:22 | Report abuse |
    • havekids?

      I'm pro-choice, but I am shocked that anyone would think that abortion after 3-4 months should be leagal. Sick.

      June 7, 2012 at 17:04 | Report abuse |
    • Star

      You're obviously a troll or soulless idiot. I mean, have you seen the pictures of the babies ripped apart from the womb with skin burned off?? Personally, I'm hoping for an idiot troll 😉 Good luck to you, you obviously need it.

      June 8, 2012 at 00:36 | Report abuse |
    • SillyBean

      I'm not a troll or an idiot. My profile: college educated, 30s, corporate worker, female, personally responsible (my car is paid for, my dog even has health insurance), debt free, etc. I really do believe, as visceral as the thought may be to you, that a woman should be able to have anything (another person included) removed from her body at any point and time, for any reason. The state (or you) has no right dictating inside the famle body... None. Even if you believe you are morally right, the authority of all others is checked at the opening of the female body – a no man's land. You might as well be legislating your personal opinion with Plutonians on the surface of Pluto. You really have no place.

      June 8, 2012 at 11:25 | Report abuse |
    • James

      College educated? And you spell female famle? Nice. It's pretty bad when you even make a pro choicer cringe. I personally look at my daughter everyday and wonder how anybody can murder such a precious thing. I know where you'll end up and where I'll end up. That's what matters in the end.

      June 10, 2012 at 13:22 | Report abuse |
  9. Todd

    Who edited this article? Spelling and grammar is atrocious.

    June 7, 2012 at 15:21 | Report abuse | Reply
  10. TheTruth

    I'd just like to put a big thank you out there for the morning after pill!! You saved my teenage years!

    June 7, 2012 at 16:28 | Report abuse | Reply
  11. Sam

    I would like oral sex from Katie.

    June 7, 2012 at 16:28 | Report abuse | Reply
  12. Chris

    I think that these preventative pills can kill a fertilized egg. What this guy in the article said was that it prevents a pregnancy. He probably defines prgenancy as occuring when the fetrilized egg attaches to the uterus. Ovulation could happen before or shortly after sex–before taking the pill. So if this pill is still effective in these cases, it must be killing a fertilized egg. Technically that's not a pregnancy. These guys quoted in the article are not being fair because they do not tell you how they define pregnancy. I am pro-choice btw. But these guys are just playing semantic games.

    June 7, 2012 at 16:58 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Ryan

      And if these pills kill a fertilized egg, these pills are indeed tantamount to abortion.

      June 7, 2012 at 21:38 | Report abuse |
    • CatSh

      You people can't read apparently. The doctor said the morning father pill prevents pregnancy by preventing ovulation. For you dummies, that means the egg doesn't detach from the ovary and so cannot be fertilized. No zygote. No pregnancy in any terms. Jeez people!

      June 7, 2012 at 22:05 | Report abuse |
    • Ryan

      Paragraph 3

      "All three labels also indicate that the pills may prevent the attachment of a fertilized egg to the uterus, which has been interpreted by some to mean it causes an abortion."

      Welcome to the debate.

      June 7, 2012 at 22:12 | Report abuse |
    • jthemom

      Ah, more fertilized eggs are people nonsense. All those "people" that pass out of woman's uterus over her lifetime are so sad that that never got to live to be zygotes. Complete non-issue since the article clearly states that we now understand how Plan B works and it has nothing to do with killing a fertilized egg that isn't even a multiplying embryo. How far back are we willing to take this proclamation of life? Are my infant son's millions of potential future children my current grandchildren?

      June 7, 2012 at 23:39 | Report abuse |
    • CatSh

      Last sentence, Ryan.

      He says with all the science showing that these pills work by preventing ovulation and not by interfering with implantation, a label change might go a long way toward putting some of these concerns to rest.

      June 8, 2012 at 09:35 | Report abuse |
  13. Ken Margo

    Women need to TOTAL control over THEIR BODY. Without control she's a slave. For those of you against abortion or birth control, you all have the same thing in common. NOBODY offers any money to support these kids. KIDS ARE NOT FREE. Put your money where your mouth is. Tell republicans to raise taxes so programs can exist to help these kids. The reality is YOU DON'T CARE ABOUT THE KIDS. You just want to push your phony religious agenda.

    June 7, 2012 at 18:53 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Ryan

      Total control does not infer moral immunity. If I control my body and with my body kill somebody, what I did was still morally wrong. And are you trying to appeal to people to support abortion by using children?

      And actually, there are a lot of resources to help pregnant women and mothers. Medicaid, state CHIP programs, and WIC are just a few (if Obama hasn't stripped your state of women's health funding or plans to soon in an political/bullying maneuver, see Texas and Wisconsin).

      Also there are pregnancy resource centers and pregnancy medical centers everywhere whose sole purpose is to assist mothers with food, housing/shelter, diapers, and other baby items. All but a handful of these places receive no public funding. Its all private donations. People are offering money. People are putting their money where their mouth is.

      And yes, if raising taxes will end the need for abortion, sign me up comrade.

      June 7, 2012 at 22:05 | Report abuse |
    • SillyBean

      Why would I need immunity against YOUR moral in my own body. Is not the INSIDE of my uterus completely under MY jurisdiction and control? Do you have a say as to what is right/wrong among Plutonians on the surface of Pluto? No, you really have no authority, jurisdiction, or control (legally or practically). It's the same thing with the inside of a woman's uteri. The biology, ability to create, and willingness to host a creation are all my responsibility – to relenquish if I choose to do so. Good day.

      June 8, 2012 at 11:30 | Report abuse |
    • Ryan

      SillyBean, again.

      Your uterus indeed is completely under your jurisdiction and control. So is the car that own debt-free along with your equally as insured dog. If by some chance a baby appears in the back seat of your car while driving and you throw the baby out the window at 70 mph resulting his/her death, the argument “I have complete jurisdiction and control over my car” would not be much of a defense in a court of law.

      No one is trying to control you. I’m only pleading that we offer equal legal protection to those in our society that are currently stripped of such protections. This is not the first time in history people have requested such a thing for those then considered less than human (see slavery, civil rights, women’s suffrage, and on and on).

      The biology and ability to create is actually shared between you and a male of our species (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex). As for the willingness to host a creation, I hope someday the relinquishment of such responsibility will not require the death of an unborn child. I do not think such a hope is too far pharmaceutically fetched.

      June 8, 2012 at 15:51 | Report abuse |
    • Ashish

      No I didn't see the picture at all saarscm, saarscm.Morning after pills are extremely expensive, while abortions are sometimes done for free depending on the clinic and the woman's situation. It sounds really terrible to say, and I even feel bad saying it, but there are some children who are better off dead than brought into this world because of the situation they will be born into.And Stephanie, clearly you didn't let my entire comment soak in. I clearly stated that abortions shouldn't be thrown around lightly. Girls that spread their legs more than peanut butter shouldn't be allowed to say I don't want this, take it out . But you can't simply judge that women who have abortions are monsters. Maybe the woman that left the remains in the parking lot did it for a reason. I have a firm belief that it wasn't because she didn't care, but because she realized what she actually did. Imagine being scared and alone and not knowing what to do. You feel that abortion is the only way out. Then they hand you that bad when you leave the clinic and when you get to your car, you make the mistake of opening the bag and seeing what's inside. Do you know how that woman probably felt? Don't be so quick to assume she left it there because she had no feelings, her feelings were probably the sole reason WHY she left it there.

      August 2, 2012 at 04:36 | Report abuse |
  14. MashaSobaka

    I could care less if it causes an abortion. Abortion is legal. Period. People need to get over that and get the heck out of other people's private lives and medical decisions.

    June 7, 2012 at 19:43 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Ryan

      Slavery was legal at one point in time, but it did not change the fact that it was morally wrong.

      June 7, 2012 at 20:58 | Report abuse |
  15. Ryan

    Paragraph 3

    "All three labels also indicate that the pills may prevent the attachment of a fertilized egg to the uterus, which has been interpreted by some to mean it causes an abortion."

    Welcome to the debate.

    June 7, 2012 at 22:11 | Report abuse | Reply
  16. Ryan


    Your lack of understanding in the area of basic human reproduction is breathtaking. If an egg is fertilized, it IS a zygote. And it becomes an embryo immediately after the first cell division (before implantation). And your infant son will not have any of his contribution for your future grandkids until he hits puberty, and even then he will need to charm a mate into contributing her stock to make your grandkids. This is all assuming, of course, she is not currently being aborted somewhere right now, and that your son gains a deeper appreciation for life than you have at present.

    And yes, I mourn the loss of human life due to miscarriage. Most people do.

    The small amount of studies cited hardly lay to rest the question of whether or not the hormones in emergency (or non-emergency) contraception inhibits implantation. Those messages on the medication box are there because a thinning endometrium was observed during clinical trials of these drugs. But if I did believe the article, I sure am glad we now know how Plan B works after millions of women have ingested it. Thanks FDA! Don't women deserve better than this?

    Last question to you: if a fertilized egg is not classified as human, then what is it? If you can tell me, I will concede this is a non-issue and begin donating to Planned Parenthood. But if it is nothing but human, then we all have blood on our hands.

    June 8, 2012 at 00:37 | Report abuse | Reply
    • shawna

      Thank you, Ryan. It is my birthday today, and I kid you not, reading your comments has been one of the best birthday presents ever. You rock.

      June 8, 2012 at 01:56 | Report abuse |
  17. vbscript2

    So, in the statement quoted in the article, he says it can be taken up to 120 hours after. Don't the vast majority (nearly all) fertilizations happen prior to that? If fertilization has already occurred when you take it, it seems kind of difficult to argue that it's only for preventing ovulation.

    June 8, 2012 at 04:12 | Report abuse | Reply
  18. Wow

    There are so many typos in this article it's hard for me to take it seriously since I can't get through the 4th paragraph. Did an intern write it? Editing, please.

    June 8, 2012 at 09:19 | Report abuse | Reply
  19. Dr Usman

    CONTACT US :usmanudanladi@gmail.com

    May 15, 2017 at 23:20 | Report abuse | Reply

Post a comment


CNN welcomes a lively and courteous discussion as long as you follow the Rules of Conduct set forth in our Terms of Service. Comments are not pre-screened before they post. You agree that anything you post may be used, along with your name and profile picture, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and the license you have granted pursuant to our Terms of Service.

About this blog

Get a behind-the-scenes look at the latest stories from CNN Chief Medical Correspondent, Dr. Sanjay Gupta, Senior Medical Correspondent Elizabeth Cohen and the CNN Medical Unit producers. They'll share news and views on health and medical trends - info that will help you take better care of yourself and the people you love.