![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
chron-job.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsI had occasion to listen to a good Episode of Science Friday on NPR this week, which had a substantive interview with Kristina Gemzell
(her credentials)
The meat of it was, that Levonorgestrel based Emergency Contraception (Of which Plan B is an example) does not, despite various claims, have any effect that prevents the implantation of a fertilized egg. Rather, its only effective action is to prevent (or delay) ovulation, which prevents conception.
The relevant studies are linked here and here . They show that there is no statistically detectable pregnancy preventing effect if Levonorgestrel is given post-ovulation. She goes on to say that, should Levonorgestrel be taken post-ovulation, and/or post-fertilization, that it has no effect on the uterine lining, no effect on implantation, and no negative effect on the progression of the pregnancy or the health of the eventual fetus.
Interested parties can listen to the podcast here:
And there is more good information at the show's blog, here:
In a nutshell, so far as it can be scientifically determined, Plan B is a pure contraceptive, and not an abortifacient.
Obviously, those who are opposed to birth control in general will still be opposed to Plan B. But I am very interested in seeing the reaction of certain social conservatives who go to great lengths to couch their opposition to Plan B (and even the more typical oral contraceptive pills) as opposition to abortifacients. Framing, as they do, their opposition in terms of "Life Begins at Conception", will they change their tune, I wonder, when there is clear evidence that Levonorgestrel based Emergency Contraception indeed acts to prevent conception, and ONLY to prevent conception? Some may simply deny the science, and maybe others will even move the goal posts from "Life begins at conception" to "Life begins at insemination."
I think this can be an important litmus test to detect politically motivated insincerity and hidden agendas. Many (including myself) have always harbored the suspicion that "ensoulment" arguments are cynically used as a public relations tool, since 'protecting life' is a far more palatable justification than 'enforcing pregnancy'. Those who continue to typify Plan B as an abortion pill, in the teeth of evidence, reveal the actual unimportance of 'ensoulment' to their political goals. Continued opposition would be yet another small verification to those who believe that the real motivation behind it is the desire to reinforce traditional gender roles and sexual mores by recreating the traditional penalties of sex.
(her credentials)
The meat of it was, that Levonorgestrel based Emergency Contraception (Of which Plan B is an example) does not, despite various claims, have any effect that prevents the implantation of a fertilized egg. Rather, its only effective action is to prevent (or delay) ovulation, which prevents conception.
The relevant studies are linked here and here . They show that there is no statistically detectable pregnancy preventing effect if Levonorgestrel is given post-ovulation. She goes on to say that, should Levonorgestrel be taken post-ovulation, and/or post-fertilization, that it has no effect on the uterine lining, no effect on implantation, and no negative effect on the progression of the pregnancy or the health of the eventual fetus.
Interested parties can listen to the podcast here:
And there is more good information at the show's blog, here:
In a nutshell, so far as it can be scientifically determined, Plan B is a pure contraceptive, and not an abortifacient.
Obviously, those who are opposed to birth control in general will still be opposed to Plan B. But I am very interested in seeing the reaction of certain social conservatives who go to great lengths to couch their opposition to Plan B (and even the more typical oral contraceptive pills) as opposition to abortifacients. Framing, as they do, their opposition in terms of "Life Begins at Conception", will they change their tune, I wonder, when there is clear evidence that Levonorgestrel based Emergency Contraception indeed acts to prevent conception, and ONLY to prevent conception? Some may simply deny the science, and maybe others will even move the goal posts from "Life begins at conception" to "Life begins at insemination."
I think this can be an important litmus test to detect politically motivated insincerity and hidden agendas. Many (including myself) have always harbored the suspicion that "ensoulment" arguments are cynically used as a public relations tool, since 'protecting life' is a far more palatable justification than 'enforcing pregnancy'. Those who continue to typify Plan B as an abortion pill, in the teeth of evidence, reveal the actual unimportance of 'ensoulment' to their political goals. Continued opposition would be yet another small verification to those who believe that the real motivation behind it is the desire to reinforce traditional gender roles and sexual mores by recreating the traditional penalties of sex.
