I don't care what you call it, maybe it is the best option, huh?
"Morning-after pill not a method of abortion" November 24, 2007
I APPLAUD David O'Brien's call for common ground on the issue of abortion (Op-ed, Nov. 16) and for accountability regarding the consequences of the extreme anti-abortion positions promoted by many Catholic pastoral leaders and their political colleagues. However, in one area O'Brien, like so many others, has fallen prey to the propaganda of those opposed to legal abortion at any cost.
By referring to the morning-after pill as an abortion method, O'Brien perpetuates the confusion between the abortion pill and the morning-after pill.
The morning-after pill is a method of contraception, not abortion. It prevents pregnancy if taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex, and has no effect if a woman is pregnant. It is available without a prescription to women ages 18 and older. In contrast, RU-486, or the abortion pill, can induce a miscarriage between the fifth and eighth weeks of pregnancy. It can only be administered by a medical provider, though a second drug to complete the process can be taken at home.
JESSICA ARONS
Washington
The writer is director of the Women's Health and Rights Program at the Center for American Progress"
Maybe that contraceptive pill is the answer -- somewhat -- to the problem, huh?
Not too happy about the RU-486 effects. Induce a miscarriage?
Ugh!
