‘Abortifacant’ Birth Control

In our paper on Colorado’s “personhood” initiative, Diana Hsieh and I pointed out that many common forms of birth control, including the pill and IUD, may act to prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg. The implication is that, if a fertilized egg were defined as a “person,” with all the legal rights of a newborn, such birth control logically would have to be banned.

Now the Colorado Catholic Conference illustrates that our concerns were warranted. In a March 31 e-mail, the group warns:

Senate Bill 225 the Birth Control Protection Act concerning the definition of contraception. Senate Bill 225 defines contraceptive or contraception as a medically acceptable drug, device, or procedure used to prevent pregnancy.

This bill is dangerously broad and sweeping with the generic definition it provides for the terms “contraceptive” or “contraception.” This definition could have the effect of making a “drug, device or procedure” that is actually an abortificant a contraceptive or contraception in Colorado.

I criticized the bill on other grounds. But at least debate over the bill has clarified this important issue, as well as the Catholic opposition to birth control that may prevent implantation. Few Catholics seem interested in banning birth control across the board, though the Church opposes it in all cases.

One thought on “‘Abortifacant’ Birth Control”

  1. Every woman has right to dream of having a baby. Tubal reversal allows a woman the ability to conceive naturally without any harm. Although tubal ligation is considered a permanent method of birth control, but at some later stage you think that you have done something wrong and you should not have done tubal ligation. But don’t worry; in approximately 90% of cases the procedure can be reversed.

Comments are closed.