The Family Research Center blog is reporting that the article, entitled “Defining Reality: The Potential Role of Pharmacists in Assessing the Impact of Progesterone Receptor Modulators and Misoprostol in Reproductive Health" was written by Donna Harrison, M.D., President, American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and James G. Mitroka, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Pharmaceutical Sciences at Palm Beach Atlantic University.
As the article abstract states: "Medical abortion is increasingly heralded as an ideal method for decreasing maternal mortality in health-care resource-deprived areas and as an answer to the shrinking pool of physicians willing to perform abortions. The advent of progesterone receptor modulators (PRMs) and the recent approval by the Food and Drug Administration of ella (ulipristal) as an emergency contraceptive put pharmacists in the center of abortion controversy. Pharmacists, worldwide, need to be aware of the controversy surrounding the introduction of PRMs, particularly with regard to the effect on health policy, their mechanism of action, associated adverse events, and common off-label uses. Once understood, genuine opportunity exists for pharmacists to serve a fundamental role in positively shaping public health policy."
The FRC points out a key phrase in the article that describes the potential abortifacient quality of drugs such as ella:
"Based on these data, it can be reasonably expected that the [FDA approved dose] will have an abortive effect on early pregnancy in humans."
It also states: "Whether ulipristal is used intentionally or unintentionally by pregnant women, any surviving embryo may be exposed to an embryotoxic agent for more than six days, as the half-life of ulipristal acetate is approximately 32 hours."
The marketers of ella claim the pill does not cause abortions even though its chemical makeup is similar to RU486 which is known as the "abortion pill." The FDA and Watson Pharmaceuticals are able to deny the drug's abortifacient qualities only because they have redefined the beginning of pregnancy to say new life begins not at conception but at implantation - which leaves up to a seven day "window" of opportunity to destroy the embryo without actually calling it an abortion.
However, even these linguistic gymnastics don't work because, as the Harrison-Mitroka article states, the embryotoxic agent in ella lasts for more than six days. This is clearly enough time for conception to occur and for a human life to be destroyed via use of ella.
"Hopefully, more writing will be done with regard to these aspects of ulipristal and its abortifacient effects," writes the FRC's Chris Gacek.
The U.S. Bishop's Conference has condemned the approval of ella for use in the U.S., as well as the marketers plan to deceive the public into thinking the drug will not cause an abortion.
"Millions of American women, even those willing to use a contraceptive to prevent fertilization in various circumstances, would personally never choose to have an abortion,” said Cardinal Daniel DiNardo, chairman of the U.S. bishops’ Committee on Pro-Life Activities in a June, 2010 letter to the FDA. “They would be ill served by a misleading campaign to present Ulipristal simply as a ‘contraceptive.’"
"In fact," he continued, "FDA approval for that purpose would likely make the drug available for ‘off-label’ use simply as an abortion drug – including its use by unscrupulous men with the intent of causing an early abortion without a woman's knowledge or consent. Such abuses have already occurred in the case of RU-486, despite its warning labels and limited distribution.”
Cardinal DiNardo went on to cite the support of the current administration for federal laws ensuring no one is involved in an abortion without his or her knowledge or consent. He also cited the Obama Administration’s rationale for supporting broad access to contraceptives as a means of reducing abortions.
“Plans for approving a known abortion-causing drug as a ‘contraceptive’ for American women is not consistent with the stated policy of the Administration on these matters,” the cardinal wrote.
© All Rights Reserved, Living His Life Abundantly®/Women of Grace® http://www.womenofgrace.com
Prestigious Journal Article Confirms ella is Abortifacient
By Susan Brinkmann, OCDS
Staff Journalist
The January issue of the prestigious Annals of Pharmacotherapy contains an important article in which the author confirms the potential abortifacient quality in ella, the newly approved "morning after pill".
The Family Research Center blog is reporting that the article, entitled “Defining Reality: The Potential Role of Pharmacists in Assessing the Impact of Progesterone Receptor Modulators and Misoprostol in Reproductive Health" was written by Donna Harrison, M.D., President, American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and James G. Mitroka, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Pharmaceutical Sciences at Palm Beach Atlantic University.
As the article abstract states: "Medical abortion is increasingly heralded as an ideal method for decreasing maternal mortality in health-care resource-deprived areas and as an answer to the shrinking pool of physicians willing to perform abortions. The advent of progesterone receptor modulators (PRMs) and the recent approval by the Food and Drug Administration of ella (ulipristal) as an emergency contraceptive put pharmacists in the center of abortion controversy. Pharmacists, worldwide, need to be aware of the controversy surrounding the introduction of PRMs, particularly with regard to the effect on health policy, their mechanism of action, associated adverse events, and common off-label uses. Once understood, genuine opportunity exists for pharmacists to serve a fundamental role in positively shaping public health policy."
The FRC points out a key phrase in the article that describes the potential abortifacient quality of drugs such as ella:
"Based on these data, it can be reasonably expected that the [FDA approved dose] will have an abortive effect on early pregnancy in humans."
It also states: "Whether ulipristal is used intentionally or unintentionally by pregnant women, any surviving embryo may be exposed to an embryotoxic agent for more than six days, as the half-life of ulipristal acetate is approximately 32 hours."
The marketers of ella claim the pill does not cause abortions even though its chemical makeup is similar to RU486 which is known as the "abortion pill." The FDA and Watson Pharmaceuticals are able to deny the drug's abortifacient qualities only because they have redefined the beginning of pregnancy to say new life begins not at conception but at implantation - which leaves up to a seven day "window" of opportunity to destroy the embryo without actually calling it an abortion.
However, even these linguistic gymnastics don't work because, as the Harrison-Mitroka article states, the embryotoxic agent in ella lasts for more than six days. This is clearly enough time for conception to occur and for a human life to be destroyed via use of ella.
"Hopefully, more writing will be done with regard to these aspects of ulipristal and its abortifacient effects," writes the FRC's Chris Gacek.
The U.S. Bishop's Conference has condemned the approval of ella for use in the U.S., as well as the marketers plan to deceive the public into thinking the drug will not cause an abortion.
"Millions of American women, even those willing to use a contraceptive to prevent fertilization in various circumstances, would personally never choose to have an abortion,” said Cardinal Daniel DiNardo, chairman of the U.S. bishops’ Committee on Pro-Life Activities in a June, 2010 letter to the FDA. “They would be ill served by a misleading campaign to present Ulipristal simply as a ‘contraceptive.’"
"In fact," he continued, "FDA approval for that purpose would likely make the drug available for ‘off-label’ use simply as an abortion drug – including its use by unscrupulous men with the intent of causing an early abortion without a woman's knowledge or consent. Such abuses have already occurred in the case of RU-486, despite its warning labels and limited distribution.”
Cardinal DiNardo went on to cite the support of the current administration for federal laws ensuring no one is involved in an abortion without his or her knowledge or consent. He also cited the Obama Administration’s rationale for supporting broad access to contraceptives as a means of reducing abortions.
“Plans for approving a known abortion-causing drug as a ‘contraceptive’ for American women is not consistent with the stated policy of the Administration on these matters,” the cardinal wrote.
© All Rights Reserved, Living His Life Abundantly®/Women of Grace® http://www.womenofgrace.com
The Family Research Center blog is reporting that the article, entitled “Defining Reality: The Potential Role of Pharmacists in Assessing the Impact of Progesterone Receptor Modulators and Misoprostol in Reproductive Health" was written by Donna Harrison, M.D., President, American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and James G. Mitroka, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Pharmaceutical Sciences at Palm Beach Atlantic University.
As the article abstract states: "Medical abortion is increasingly heralded as an ideal method for decreasing maternal mortality in health-care resource-deprived areas and as an answer to the shrinking pool of physicians willing to perform abortions. The advent of progesterone receptor modulators (PRMs) and the recent approval by the Food and Drug Administration of ella (ulipristal) as an emergency contraceptive put pharmacists in the center of abortion controversy. Pharmacists, worldwide, need to be aware of the controversy surrounding the introduction of PRMs, particularly with regard to the effect on health policy, their mechanism of action, associated adverse events, and common off-label uses. Once understood, genuine opportunity exists for pharmacists to serve a fundamental role in positively shaping public health policy."
The FRC points out a key phrase in the article that describes the potential abortifacient quality of drugs such as ella:
"Based on these data, it can be reasonably expected that the [FDA approved dose] will have an abortive effect on early pregnancy in humans."
It also states: "Whether ulipristal is used intentionally or unintentionally by pregnant women, any surviving embryo may be exposed to an embryotoxic agent for more than six days, as the half-life of ulipristal acetate is approximately 32 hours."
The marketers of ella claim the pill does not cause abortions even though its chemical makeup is similar to RU486 which is known as the "abortion pill." The FDA and Watson Pharmaceuticals are able to deny the drug's abortifacient qualities only because they have redefined the beginning of pregnancy to say new life begins not at conception but at implantation - which leaves up to a seven day "window" of opportunity to destroy the embryo without actually calling it an abortion.
However, even these linguistic gymnastics don't work because, as the Harrison-Mitroka article states, the embryotoxic agent in ella lasts for more than six days. This is clearly enough time for conception to occur and for a human life to be destroyed via use of ella.
"Hopefully, more writing will be done with regard to these aspects of ulipristal and its abortifacient effects," writes the FRC's Chris Gacek.
The U.S. Bishop's Conference has condemned the approval of ella for use in the U.S., as well as the marketers plan to deceive the public into thinking the drug will not cause an abortion.
"Millions of American women, even those willing to use a contraceptive to prevent fertilization in various circumstances, would personally never choose to have an abortion,” said Cardinal Daniel DiNardo, chairman of the U.S. bishops’ Committee on Pro-Life Activities in a June, 2010 letter to the FDA. “They would be ill served by a misleading campaign to present Ulipristal simply as a ‘contraceptive.’"
"In fact," he continued, "FDA approval for that purpose would likely make the drug available for ‘off-label’ use simply as an abortion drug – including its use by unscrupulous men with the intent of causing an early abortion without a woman's knowledge or consent. Such abuses have already occurred in the case of RU-486, despite its warning labels and limited distribution.”
Cardinal DiNardo went on to cite the support of the current administration for federal laws ensuring no one is involved in an abortion without his or her knowledge or consent. He also cited the Obama Administration’s rationale for supporting broad access to contraceptives as a means of reducing abortions.
“Plans for approving a known abortion-causing drug as a ‘contraceptive’ for American women is not consistent with the stated policy of the Administration on these matters,” the cardinal wrote.
© All Rights Reserved, Living His Life Abundantly®/Women of Grace® http://www.womenofgrace.com
