ESF President weighs in on the effects of Plan B, or the Morning After Pill.  Previously, the method has been viewed as a contraceptive, but a closer look at the findings of a new study, published in the Contraception Journal, suggests that it may have a predominant, abortifacient effect.

ALL OVULATE, WITHOUT PREGNANCIES — PLAN B IS NOT CONTRACEPTIVE (A Critique Of Noé Et Al 2010[1])

The mechanism of action (MOA) of plan B levonorgestrel emergency contraception (LNG-EC) remains controversial.[2]  Often believed to suppress ovulation and prevent conception,[3] some studies suggest embryocidal mechanisms; i.e., the induced death of early embryos.[4]   Within the Church, these concerns[5] MOA have prompted efforts to ensure LNG-EC was ethically safe to give to rape victims, providing moral certainty of anti-conceptive effects without abortifacient effects.[6]

Largely to allay these concerns, Noé conducted an elegant and meticulous investigation[7] evaluating how, how effectively, and precisely when LNG-EC works. Using transvaginal ultrasound (TVUS) to unequivocally demonstrate follicular rupture (FR) or ovulation, of 388 women given LNG-EC after intercourse, 122 had fertile intercourse (FI); i.e., intercourse during the fertile period. In these, the timing of LNG-EC dosing, the day of ovulation, and the day of FI were all precisely known. Then using validated, day-specific estimates of pregnancy after FI,[8] they determined effectiveness rates based on the ratio of observed to expected pregnancies.

BREAKTHROUGH METHODOLOGY

No prior studies[9] had tested LNG-EC effectiveness directly, with ovulation timing, known FI, and daily pregnancy probabilities, in women seeking emergency contraception. LNG-EC studies often were merely artificial studies of the effects on reproductive physiology, not emergency contraceptive studies. Their usefulness notwithstanding, they were LNG-EC-induced cycle alteration studies,[10] not studies of LNG-EC taken as an emergency contraceptive. Noé ensured that we would study a real world, actual emergency contraception experience, discovering how LNG-EC really worked, rather than settling for derived inferences.

The importance of this is illustrated in a study[11] which gave subjects LNG-EC on cycle day 10, with ovulation suppressed in 80%. The investigators concluded LNG-EC ovulation suppression was a substantial part of LNG-EC’s MOA in preventing clinical pregnancy. However in Noé day 10 was categorically considered outside of the fertile period, based on correlative follicle size, among other data. Thus even if LNG-EC suppresses ovulation on day 10, it is unjustified to conclude that suppression of ovulation is a substantial part of its MOA.

RESULTS

Noé showed that of the 6 fertile days, the first day -5 and the last (the day of ovulation) day 0, LNG-EC is 100% effective (0 pregnancies, 13 expected) in preventing clinical pregnancy[12] taken days -5 to-1, then, strikingly, 0% effective day 0 and afterward. Remarkably, though 100% effective days -5 to -1, this was despite 86% of the women ovulating, thus suppression of ovulation could not be the MOA.[13]

Moreover, as regards effects on spermatozoa “day 0” (ovulation day), is the most fertile day of the cycle,[14] precisely because the oocyte is already available for fertilization, and conception therefore depends only on spermatozoa availability. If interference with sperm function were ever a plausible mechanism shouldering the 100% effectiveness burden, it would be on this day where sperm function is the rate-limiting step. But on this day, there is 0% effectiveness, and LNG-EC’s MOA cannot be interference with spermatozoa.

Thus we see very robust evidence that LNG-EC cannot prevent pregnancy by interference with ovulation nor by impeding spermatozoa function.

IMPLICATIONS

We say “all” ovulate when actually 86% do, because normal women ovulate just as often as subjects in this study do (85-94%).[15] This debunks the preexisting notion of predominant suppression of ovulation with occasional “breakthrough conceptions”.[16] LNG-EC does not prevent ovulation when given during the fertile phase after FI. Anovulatory effects are excluded as the MOA of LNG-EC, as the authors rightly concede.

The authors impute interference with spermatozoa function through alterations in cervical mucus,[17] a mechanism plainly untenable according to their own data, and also by more recent studies[18] these together outweighing the outdated study cited.[19] Spermatozoa are found in the Fallopian tubes mere minutes after intravaginal insemination, while LNG-EC is given most often far too late (often more than 24 hours after FI) to impede spermatozoa function.

Is Plan B a contraceptive at all? The preponderance of the evidence suggests not. Seeing this, other investigators have recently advanced far-flung, speculative explanations such as glycodelin-A[20] effects, and the relatively new concept of the “unfertilizable oocyte”[21], the former being ultimately disproved by the very investigators raising the possibility and the latter[22] being not so much a case of data in search of conclusions as a priori conclusions in search of supporting data.[23]

These data make it overwhelmingly clear that one cannot have moral certainty of avoiding postfertilization effects from LNG-EC given after FI, since there is a very powerful pregnancy prevention effect not at all attributable to known or even speculatively imputed pre-fertilization mechanisms, even if this admittedly is quite the contrary to what had previously been widely believed. But the bioethicist can also learn from these data that the previous notion of how post-fertilization effects actually operate is now updated and shown to have been erroneous. Many[24] assumed that the risk of abortifacient effects from LNG-EC was absent if given throughout most of the fertile period and that the danger only began if given when ovulation became imminent. This was because the abortifacient mechanism was thought to depend on direct, unmediated LNG-EC interference with endometrial receptivity, and with an imminently forming or formed embryo in need of endometrial implantation. Missing the point also of the data in the present study, many falsely thought that if this study demonstrated that no pregnancies were prevented when given after ovulation, this meant LNG-EC cannot interfere with the postfertilization survival of the embryo.

This thinking is now turned on its head, given the present data. When something is given is a very different issue from when it exerts its effects, and LNG-EC shows just that type of difference.

The data show that the only time when LNG-EC has any efficacy at all is when given before ovulation day, and during that time it is, stunningly, 100% effective. Then starting on ovulation day that effectiveness falls abruptly to 0%, so that LNG-EC can do nothing to prevent pregnancy once ovulation starts. Thus the pregnancy prevention effect is an “all-or-none, on-and-abrupt-off” mode of operation pointing powerfully to a single unitary MOA with a trigger or switch — a deadline — after which LNG-EC administration has no pregnancy prevention capability. Moreover this off switch despite happening around the time of ovulation is not itself ovulation. And this switch has the power to govern events occurring after fertilization, even though it occurs and is affected before ovulation. This “switch” can only be that which the authors themselves recognize in the beginning of their paper — the LH surge. LNG-EC taken after FI during the first five fertile days including the day before ovulation inhibits the LH surge which – can this be a surprise? – affects not so much folliculogenesis and ovulation, but much more so the luteinization of the follicle which in turn supports luteal function and endometrial-level support of the embryo.

So what is given before, nonetheless acts afterward, and what is effective later, nonetheless must be given earlier, a concept long known in therapeutics[25], as for example with migraines, where the crucial vasoconstrictive precursor phase, itself painless, nonetheless can be interrupted to block the later, painful vasodilator phase. The symptomatic phase is not itself directly treated but rather indirectly, by targeting its most crucial precursors, due to their powerful ability to bring about the symptomatic stage.

Such cascade-like, domino-effect-type biological processes are particularly important in the menstrual cycle where the most decisive events are sequentially governed by pre-existing stages in a carefully orchestrated synchrony, if pregnancy is to be established. In this case the LH surge is interfered with, leading to LNG-EC-induced inadequacy of the luteal phase, and consequent loss of embryos because of inadequate luteal phase endometrial support. Here, loss of pregnancy is a much more sensitive test of endometrial inadequacy than either endometrial histology studies[26] or functional tests of known endometrial markers[27]. Interfere with the LH surge and subsequent predictable consequences follow that have been reported to occur, such as shortened luteal phases,[28] inadequate luteal phase progesterone,[29] and abnormal luteal phase premature bleeding.[30]

Should it really be surprising that endometrial receptivity ends up being far easier to interfere with than ovulation, when this is the universal verdict of specialists in assisted reproductive techniques such as in-vitro fertilization,[31] who have to often compensate for embryos “not taking” (not implanting) by using multiple embryos, hoping that one in three or four fertilized embryos can be made to successfully implant in the endometrium?

We now have a well elucidated, unitary post-fertilization MOA of pregnancy prevention for LNG-EC, one with robust explanatory power, strong biological plausibility, an excellent evidential basis, and, least not, a unitary simplicity not requiring hypothetical conjecture or complex mechanistic maneuvering.

The bitter irony of this is that the alleged “safe period” during which many past rape victims at our hospitals have been given LNG-EC is precisely the most dangerous time, morally speaking. It is precisely that time period when LNG-EC administration is most apt to endanger new human ambryos.

These data should be allowed to change that situation.

“And Mary said, ‘Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be done to me according to your word.’ And the angel departed from her.” (Luke 1:38)

On January 1st, Catholics everywhere celebrate the Feast Day of the Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God.  The “Theotokos” is honored on this day, and has been so by generations, since 1931.  As always, God respects free will; He allows humanity to chose its individual path in life.  In this way, God asked the Blessed Mother to be the Mother of God and she obediently accepted.  Notice that this acceptance was not without questioning of how this miracle was to be done.  There was, no doubt, an hint of fear in her questioning, since Mary had “[known] not man.”  Still, understanding the weight of the burden she was to carry and to the gratitude of many millions, she graciously proclaimed “let it be it done to me according to your word.”

This admirable act of obedience brought about the salvation of humanity.  Similarly, when we accept God’s plan willingly and gratefully, for our lives, we see the graces and fruits reaped from this submission in our daily lives.  In this way, woman of all faiths, and even those without faith at all, can look to Mary as a heroin and example of true feminism.  When women work with their bodies and allow the natural, working capacities of their health and well-being to carry out their proper functions, without artificial inhibitors, then women are able to live their lives without the added, serious risks that these preventative measures introduce.

May we always follow the Blessed Mother’s lead in saying, “yes” to God’s plan for each of our lives.

My Personal Victimization On Behalf Of The Contraceptive Mentality

When I look at a pregnant woman, I have this sense of joy, a sense of jovial excitement — one that is matched by few other feelings I experience when casting eyes on a stranger.  I love to see a woman, glowing in the prime of her pregnancy months, proudly flaunting the beauty and immeasurable accomplishment of the life growing inside of her.  Often these women are wearing flattering maternity clothes which seem to say, “Look at what I can give the world!  Look at what I have to offer the future through this growing bump and look how absolutely beautiful I can look while doing it!”

My husband and I, naturally, expected to receive the same reactions from others when we discovered that God had blessed us with a pregnancy.  We expected strangers to smile and ask the normal questions– “Oh how cute! When are you due?”  ”Do you know what you are having?” and of course “Is this your first?”  And certainly, we have encountered many of these inquiries.  However, what we failed to prepare ourselves for, was the hurricane of reactions from those who view pregnancy as a disease or something to somehow be ashamed of.  I know, it’s tough for some to believe that this reaction exists, but take my word for it– it does and it is devouring our society with a ravenous hunger!

From the moment I “started to show,” it seemed that complete strangers would cast vicious looks of judgment and disgust in my direction.  My husband and I began to notice all of the attention around my 6th month, when we would frequent our local mall, visiting Baby Gap as we eagerly waited to find out whether our little blessing was to be a boy or girl.  (This should be an experience that brings nothing but excitement and lighthearted anticipation for any parent.)  After the stares started to become a regular expectancy of my husband and my outings,  I shared my frustration of the reality with my mother– years of contraceptive practices, and specifically the anti-child mentality that has been engrained within the baby boomer generation, has resulted in a brainwashing of sorts.  She did not believe me, initially — how could anyone have such a hatred for the gift that is a pregnancy?  But then, of course, it happened; I was grocery shopping with my mother, one Sunday morning, when a woman in her mid-forties gave me what was, perhaps, the most blatant of repugnant stares that I had yet to receive.  My mother, without skipping a beat, looked at me with surprise, then turned to the woman and courageously stated, without reluctance, “Isn’t she beautiful with her unborn baby growing inside of her?”  (It’s just my guess that our stranger’s puzzled nod was not one of sincerity.)

The world of today, especially the western, “civilized” world  is anti-fertility, anti-child, anti-family, and consequently, faux feminist.  I must correct an error that I made previously;  I had first experienced this growing up as the eldest of a family of nine children.  (Yes, I said nine, as in 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9!)  Anytime my family would venture out to dinner or for a movie, etc. we would receive these familiar looks of disgust, shock and even horror at the sight of our family daring spend time in public together (and this was when we only had five).  It is clear that the problem has become even more prevalent less than a century following the legalization of birth control.  This disdain for family and for children has manifested itself in a sort of idolatry of artificial contraception.

Recently, I emailed the writer of an article published in the ever-radical Huffington Post .  The author, Laura Stepp, considers herself an expert in feminism, the female psyche, and family psychology.  The goal of the piece was to credit at least partial success of the female, summer Olympic athletes, to their presumed usage of birth control (the presumption being on Ms. Stepp’s part, of course):

“Without the IUD, implant, pill and other methods, many of our athletic
heroines might have been home changing diapers or packing school lunches
instead of scoring soccer goals and setting swimming records…You have to
wonder how many more U.S. women would have been able to train and qualify
for Olympic competition were all methods of contraception completely covered
by insurance, as is the case in some other Western countries.”

In my letter, to which I never received a response, I complained and questioned Ms. Stepp, as to how she could accurately consider herself a fighter for women’s rights, a feminist who studies the foundations of family life and, at the same time, name such a dehumanizing victor as the root of female, olympic success.  Many, as she noted in her article, of these female olympians (13 to be exact), are mothers, juggling family life, as well as a successful athletic career.  I hardly believe that it would dignify those admirable women to attribute even a speck of their success, whether in the maternal or professional aspects of their lives, to artificial birth control.

Regretfully, however, this is the state of our society.  We have successfully fulfilled Christ’s prophesy on his journey to Calvary– ”Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me, but weep for yourselves and for your children.  For behold, the days are coming when they will say, ‘Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bore, and the breasts that never gave suck.’” (Luke 23:28-29)

I began this article the day before my husband and I welcomed our beautiful daughter into this world, and as I look into her gorgeous blue eyes, I can tell you with the upmost confidence that that growing belly of mine was anything but a reason to glare.

Shocker!

An interesting and compelling study was published in the latest issue of “Education and Health,” scholarly online and open access journal, based in the UK.  The study commentary, given by Professor David Paton, Chair of Industrial Economics at Nottingham University Business School, entitled “Underage Conceptions and Abortions in England and Wales 1969-2009: The Role of Public Policy,” provides a new look into the effects of the ever-present societal push toward birth control.

Today, this push has been not only a reality, but a “go to” solution on the part of polity makers to reduce the problem of “unwanted” and teen pregnancy in the UK, as well as in America.  The Professor notes that for the past forty years “millions of pounds have been spent by policy makers on numerous initiatives aimed at cutting teenage pregnancy rates in the U.K.”  Still, the trends in underage conceptions, since 1969, is shockingly deafening of this effort.  In fact, the facts “[present] something of a challenge” for this push, considering that the rate of underage conceptions is “almost exactly the same in 2009 as 40 years previously.”

Professor Paton notes the traditional view, underlying the initiatives behind the desire to reduce the number of “unwanted pregnancies,” and subsequently abortions, is that “access to school-based sex education and to family planning…will reduce pregnancy rates amongst those teenagers who were already having sex but will not cause an increase in the proportion of all teenagers who engage in sexual activity.”  However, the evidence to the contrary is unavoidable:

“Easier access to family planning reduces the effective cost of sexual
activity and will make it more likely (at least for some teenagers) that
they will engage in underage sexual activity. Given high failure rates of
contraception amongst this group, the overall impact of access to family
planning on underage pregnancy rates is impossible to predict
a priori.”

As the study indicates, a change in governmental and societal policies must be implemented in order for any culture to successfully prevent the unfortunate reality of teen pregnancy, as well as the evil of abortion.  We encourage you to read Paton’s commentary at its full, online journal access here.  There is no need for society to continue believing the lies we are fed in defense of immoral and dehumanizing practices.

August 27, 2012

The Pro-Choice “Bandwagon” Skillfully Distracts From Akin’s Main Arguments Behind Defense Of Life Cause

Today, ESF Founder and President, Dr. Dominic Pedulla, was published in Catholic Online.   The Doctor notes a clarification, in his article, of Akin’s main point and of the argument against abortion, which is so often attacked by the question of “rape and incest.”

As a continuation of his earlier article, Dr. Pedulla admits that he, initially, fell for the “bandwagon” attack against what seems to be an ill-choice of words to describe a noteworthy point in the defense of all innocence and life.  The article takes a scientific approach to the examination of Akin’s claim that “”If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.”  Although his choice of words was unfortunate, Dr. sheds light on what Akin was actually trying to convey, in his statement, and why he views it as a licit argument in the defense of life cause.

To view today’s article in Catholic Online click here.

August 27, 2012

A Celebration Of True Womanhood

If, as I remember the Psalmist saying “The Queen stands at the King’s right hand” (Psalm 45), and if, as the Gospel teaches us, Jesus was to receive the throne of His father David, not just temporally, but “forever”, then it is only appropriate to consider the humble Virgin of Nazareth, Mary the Mother of God – she who was the very first to accept Jesus as her Lord and Savior — the “Queen of Heaven.” And indeed her queenship is exactly what we celebrate today in the Church.

What Akin Ought To Have Said

It’s false to say what Akin said, that rape will not result in pregnancy, or that it does so only rarely, due to some protective mechanism in the female body.  The reality is that there are many pregnancies from rape.  And perhaps his rashly made comments were generated, at least in part, by frustrations of the question he was asked, frustrations pro-lifers know only too well – the phony insistence that if abortion is bad at all, at least it ought to be allowed in cases of pregnancy from rape or incest, shouldn’t it? —Something completely irrational, because it completely ignores the real reasons to be against abortion in the first place.

Nonetheless, Akin could have, and should have, made a very different point.  Only the guy who condemns all violence is a credible witness against rape.  Isn’t this obvious and intuitive?  Otherwise we have selective condemnation — only some types of violence are really wrong or at least worthy of being condemned — in which case, even the condemnation of rape is on shaky ground.  This is because the reason rape is wrong is the very same reason all violence against the innocent is wrong.  In a false, selective kind of condemnation perhaps some folks might be heard to say, “I’m against all rape except in the case of uncontrollable predators who might otherwise kill.  But in all other cases it’s wrong,” something so wrongheaded it scarcely needs to be said.

So, the true defender of life and dignity might say that only he who 100 percent opposes abortion knows why rape is truly wrong, as an act of violence against an innocent; all others are not fully trustworthy.  It is pro-lifers who are fully consistent when they condemn rape; all others are somewhat contradictory in that only some innocents they consider worthy of protection and dignity, or only under certain conditions, in which case they show themselves neither trustworthy nor credible in defending any victims, even their “pet peeve” victims.

Imagine if we had truly educated and well-formed statesman, who knew that ALL RAPE IS WRONG. ALL RAPE IS VICIOUS. But for the very same reason that ALL ABORTION IS WRONG AND VICIOUS, and not just because rape is our own politically correct pet peeve!

Dominic M. Pedulla MD, FACC, NFPMC, ABVM, ACPh
President, The Edith Stein Foundation

August 22, 2012

Everything Nice, An Oklahoma-Based Gourmet Sweets Company Generously Donates Time and Talent To ESF!

An Oklahoma-based sweets company, which specializes in unique, extravagant, and artistic goodies has graciously donated their time and talent this weekend to the Edith Stein Foundation’s cause.  These young and immeasurably skilled entrepreneurs contributed 100% of their proceeds from the “Women of Faith, Women of Action” conference, this past weekend, to our Foundation.

As the only food vendor at the conference, the ladies of Everything Nice were considerably generous in their decision to bake, sell and share their gourmet goodies, all for the benefit of women’s health!  These women are truly leaders in a generation targeted by secularism and faux feminism.  Please go to their fan site and “like” their page.  Everything Nice is not only a talented and selfless company, but we must say that they sure do produce some delicious sweets!

PSSSSSST- We recommend their “Better-Than-Your-Grandma’s Chocolate Chip Cookies!”

The Edith Stein Foundation Responds To An Author’s Feeble Attempt At Demeaning Womanhood

On Tuesday the Huffington Post ran a shockingly radical article by author Laura Stepp, who is described by her publisher as a “Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist.”  The premise of the article is simply a mission of promoting the recent passage of Obama’s HHS Mandate, which requires employers to provide coverage of services such as birth control, sterilization and abortion.  Blinded by her blatantly desperate goal of pushing the glory of birth control, Stepp attempts to make the argument that birth control is a noteworthy contributor to the successes of our wonderfully talented, female Olympians.  If this isn’t enough, the author makes the large assumption that these athletes owe their thanks to birth control for the ability to “delay childbearing to pursue their dreams.”

Well, we could not simply respond to this pathetic disregard for womanhood via a statement on the post’s “comment” section.  ESF sent Miss Stepp the following reaction to her blithely ignorant post.

Laura,

I, and many others as I see from the comments, was disheartened and extremely surprised to read an article by such an established author, as yourself, containing such insulting and unmerited connections between the successes of women and birth control usage.  As an author whose bio professes you to be one of extensive experience in writing on women’s issues, the family dynamic, and sexuality, it is inconceivable that you would find it acceptable to so blatantly disregard womanhood, in such a way as your recent Huffington Post blog entry (entitled “Olympic Champions and Birth Control”) has done.

Your article is a blatant and sad example of how our society is profoundly anti-woman. It is truly stooping to a new low to attribute even a partial success of our multi-talented, driven, and hard working female, olympic athletes to some form of artificial birth control. Shame!

The measure of a woman’s worth is in no way, shape, or form due to the use of some fertility inhibitor. Many women juggle careers, family lives and yes, motherhood and are enormously accomplished.  Moreover, the beauty of a woman’s fertility is a incredibly unique power of womanhood.  I implore you to refrain from so demeaning the greatness of woman and of her progression in society by making ridiculous attributions of her successes to an aspect of her sexuality.  This mindset is undoubtably one of regressionism.

“You have to wonder how many more U.S. women would have been 

able to train and qualify for Olympic competition were all methods 

of contraception completely covered by insurance, as is the case in 

some other Western countries.”

No, no we don’t.

Yeah, Laura, maybe those headaches, depressions, leg blood clots, weight gain, bleeding, cancers, heart ailments, etc., etc., would have been a huge help huh?

On The Feast Day Of Edith Stein — August 9th

We think that if the great Saint Edith Stein (Theresa Benedicta of the Cross) were alive today, she would be a tireless and undaunted champion of the true dignity of women, of their true “reproductive rights”, and of their true “reproductive freedom!”

Of course this would mean fighting against the counterfeit facsimile of these freedoms; namely contraception, sterilization, and abortion. May our society soon confront the false and demeaning contraceptive stereotype of woman that too often prevails, with the ugly and disparaging caricature of real womanhood within it.

May Saint Edith always bless our efforts with her shalom!