Contraception rejection I
In response to obstetrician/gynecologist Rachel B. Rapkin's letter “Contraception confusion” (Jan. 24 and TribLIVE.com): Emergency contraceptive pills (ECPs) contain the same synthetic hormones as oral contraceptives (aka “the pill”), but in higher doses. An ECP gives the body a short, high burst of synthetic hormones that disrupt natural hormone production needed for ovulation and pregnancy.
ECPs prevent pregnancy by inhibiting ovulation, or if that does not work, by disrupting egg and sperm transport, or by preventing implantation. ECPs and the pill are not always successful in inhibiting ovulation. This is known as a “breakthrough ovulation” and happens between 2 percent and 28 percent of the time for the pill.
A newly formed life, conceived in the fallopian tube, has all the genetic information of a new human being; all that is needed is time, an acceptable environment and nourishment to become viable. That is why the pill and ECPs have been described as having abortifacient properties.
Since oral contraceptives and ECPs cause hormone-induced abortions, they should not be funded through forced participation in any health plan. There is a safer, more effective, morally acceptable alternative. It is called natural family planning.
Brian & Laura Hall
The writers are certified natural family planning instructors with The Couple to Couple League International Inc. (ccli.org).
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Inconsistent Wolf
- Corbett is the honest choice
- Pushing witchcraft
- ObamaCare solution
- Corbett over Wolf I
- Gross in 45th
- Barbour sentence shameful
- Corbett over Wolf II
- Embrace domestic energy production
- Better in long run
- Unworthy of high office