FALSE SECURITY

The Right Frame of Mind
Morning-After Pill Should Not Be More Accessible
By Rev. Mark H. Creech
December 29, 2003

(AgapePress) - A government advisory panel recently voted 23-4, recommending the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approve the "morning-after pill" for over-the-counter use. A final decision is not expected until February, so the battle rages over whether the FDA should comply.

In a December 19 editorial, the Greensboro News & Record in North Carolina said the morning-after pill should be made more accessible, using arguments consistent with those made by the drug's proponents.

The editorial contended the drug is "said to be safe with simple directions for use." But who is making this assertion? The manufacturer! Is it wise to trust the opinion of a corporation poised to make money from these pills?

Fifty percent of the women taking this form of contraception experience nausea, and 20% experience vomiting. Other potential "side effects" listed are infertility, blood clot formation, heart attacks, and fallopian tube pregnancy. There are no long-term studies conducted to know if women are at risk for serious diseases like cancer.

The editorial argued the morning-after pill has emergency benefits. "It could be used by rape victims ...." But rape victims can already go to almost any hospital for emergency contraception. Over-the-counter availability would skip the important step of medical and psychological assessments after rape and also bypass police intervention to more quickly search for the sexual predator.

What is more, Jill Stanek of the Illinois Leader wisely points out that sexual predators would welcome this tool to keep assaults of minors like "stepdaughters, nieces, daughters of friends, or infatuated students hidden, storing a stash of emergency contraceptives in their bedroom drawer or pocket to give their victim after each rape." In other words, the drug could actually become a facilitator of the sexual abuse of teen girls. No pregnancy, no evidence.

Advocates like the Greensboro News & Record say, "... [T]he morning-after pill, if taken within 72 hours, prevents pregnancy after intercourse," yet admits, "If fertilization should possibly occur, it keeps the fertilized egg from being implanted in the uterus. That is the medical definition of pregnancy."

That may be the social liberal definition of pregnancy, but any medical dictionary will define pregnancy as beginning at conception. Once an egg is fertilized, which can occur as early as 15 minutes after intercourse, it contains all 46 chromosomes that shape a human being. Inside are all the complex genetic details that make up a person's hair, eye color, sex, skin tone and height. These details remain the same throughout a person's life, except for location (inside or outside the womb). Thus, if the morning-after pill is taken once the egg is fertilized, destroying a human life, it's no longer a contraceptive but an abortifacient drug.

Of course, the editorial employs the favorite argument of "pro-choice" supporters -- a woman has a right to control her own body. But a woman's right to her own body isn't without limits. A woman doesn't have the right to kill her body. That's a crime. Besides, the life within her isn't a part of her body. It has its own genes, blood type, and is a different sex 50% of the time.

You may have seen the cartoon showing two babies with halos sitting on a cloud in heaven. One says to the other, "She had no right to abort me. After all, it's my body."

The editorial admits opponents argue that "the morning-after pill over the counter invites irresponsible sex," but then dismisses it by saying that opponents make the same claim concerning birth-control pills.

Indeed, many opponents like myself do make that claim about birth-control pills and contraception in general.

Our society should note the wisdom of Pope Paul VI's 1968 predictions about the extensive use of contraceptives. He warned their use would produce a general lowering of morality; a general disregard for the physical and psychological well being of women that would include impoverishment, coercive government family-planning programs; and the treatment of a woman's body as a machine.

After 40 years of prevalent contraceptive use, it's clear the Pope's concerns were well founded.

Sexual immorality in the U.S. is rampant. Pornography use is skyrocketing. Robert Michaels, a demographer from Stanford, says that as birth-control pills became more available, that line paralleled to the divorce line. The Joint Center Data Bank reports that from 1974 to 1998, the poverty rate for single mothers was three times higher than those of married couples. China currently has a one-child policy law and forced abortions while certain U.N. policies only give aid to countries with active contraception and sterilization programs. Battles rage over whether to legally allow women to manufacture eggs for cloning and stem cell research.

Furthermore, sexually-transmitted diseases are epidemic. The use of condoms has lured many into a false sense of security concerning protection from these diseases. The National Institutes of Health reported in a June 2000 report titled, "Scientific Evidence on Condom Effectiveness for Sexually Transmitted Disease Prevention," that even when condoms are used 100% of the time, there is still a 50% relative risk of getting gonorrhea or chlamydia, a 50-71% relative risk of acquiring syphilis, a 15% relative risk of getting HIV, and no evidence of a reduced risk of getting HPV.

These are some of the serious consequences of our society's emphasis on sexual freedom with its undue reliance upon contraceptives. At best, widespread contraception use has been a trade-off for problems bigger than the ones it was meant to solve.

It's time we once again recognized God's plan for human sexuality. God's intention for sex was that it be a sacred and holy experience between a husband and wife, with the potential blessing by God of children. God's instructions to the first married couple were, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it." The word contraception literally means "anti-creation."

Our rejection of God's plan for sex is threatening to destroy our nation. Sociologist Pitirim Sorokin, in The American Sex Revolution, noted as late as the 1960s that America was committing "voluntary suicide" through unrestrained sexual indulgence.

Furthermore, the gradual reduction of fertility rates in the West, caused by widespread use of contraception and induced abortions, is threatening the future of the West as a geopolitical power.

The Greensboro News & Record concludes its editorial in support of easy access to the morning-after pill by saying, "FDA Commissioner Mark McClellan says the decision about over-the-counter sales would be determined not by politics but by 'a science-based process.' We hope he means it."

Yes, we hope he means it as well. Opponents like myself may have a faith-based impetus for opposing easy access to the morning-after pill, but we believe history, science, and medicine bear out the need to restrict its over-the-counter use.

-----

Rev. Mark H. Creech (calact@aol.com) is the executive director of the Christian Action League of North Carolina, Inc.