that Hobby Lobby decision...

[Michchamp]

I think there are a few different definitions accepted by different religions, but to act like one has been determined scientifically is BS.

well... I guess it comes down to semantics, no? But the "scientific" standard, that implantation of a fertilized egg is the final step in conception makes logical sense to me. beyond that point, the fetus can start to develop. fertilization without implantation means jack shit.

 

[Gulo Blue]

well... I guess it comes down to semantics, no? But the "scientific" standard, that implantation of a fertilized egg is the final step in conception makes logical sense to me. beyond that point, the fetus can start to develop. fertilization without implantation means jack shit.

Bro, do you even science?

 

[Sbee]

Link to science and evidence please. I know most of the pills out there prevent ovulation, but Tinsel keeps saying those aren't the pills this is about.

UDs come in a number of forms. They can be inert, or have copper or hormones embedded within them. Most scientists believe that they interfere with the ability of sperm to get to an egg in time to fertilize it before they die.

Research does not support the idea that they prevent fertilized eggs to implant. The journal Fertility and Sterility published a study in 1985 that followed three groups of women for 15 months. One group had an IUD, one group had their tubes tied, and one group was trying to get pregnant. They then measured hormone levels to see if fertilization occurred. It did so only in the group trying to get pregnant.

Another study found that a telltale sign of fertilization ? a surge of the hormone human chorionic gonadotropin ? occurred in only 1 percent of 100 cycles in women using IUDs. This would be consistent with the failure rate of IUDs in general. In other words, IUDs do not appear to work by aborting a fertilized egg.

Emergency contraception, which is really just a large dose of the hormones in a birth control pill, works in a similar manner. The pills can thicken the mucus in the cervix to make it difficult for sperm to reach the egg, and they prevent ovulation from occurring in the first place. Because the doses of medication are very short-term, they probably cannot affect the uterine lining in such a way as to affect implantation.

Moreover, the fact that both of these forms of contraception can fail, and allow pregnancies to occur, provides evidence that if a fertilization occurs, it can move on to implant and grow

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/06/h...antation-science-suggests.html?pagewanted=all

 

[Gulo Blue]

UDs come in a number of forms. They can be inert, or have copper or hormones embedded within them. Most scientists believe that they interfere with the ability of sperm to get to an egg in time to fertilize it before they die.

Research does not support the idea that they prevent fertilized eggs to implant. The journal Fertility and Sterility published a study in 1985 that followed three groups of women for 15 months. One group had an IUD, one group had their tubes tied, and one group was trying to get pregnant. They then measured hormone levels to see if fertilization occurred. It did so only in the group trying to get pregnant.

Another study found that a telltale sign of fertilization ? a surge of the hormone human chorionic gonadotropin ? occurred in only 1 percent of 100 cycles in women using IUDs. This would be consistent with the failure rate of IUDs in general. In other words, IUDs do not appear to work by aborting a fertilized egg.

Emergency contraception, which is really just a large dose of the hormones in a birth control pill, works in a similar manner. The pills can thicken the mucus in the cervix to make it difficult for sperm to reach the egg, and they prevent ovulation from occurring in the first place. Because the doses of medication are very short-term, they probably cannot affect the uterine lining in such a way as to affect implantation.

Moreover, the fact that both of these forms of contraception can fail, and allow pregnancies to occur, provides evidence that if a fertilization occurs, it can move on to implant and grow

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/06/h...antation-science-suggests.html?pagewanted=all

Thank you. This article is actually exactly what I was looking for. It actually says the copper IUD can prevent pregnancy after fertilization, but the hormone in plan b, which is 99% of emergency contraception, takes time to impact the endometrial lining, and if someone ovulates before taking it, it doesn't impact pregnancy rates.

 

[Michchamp]

Bro, do you even science?

I am not a scientist, no. And I actually took the time to read the applicable part of the amicus brief the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecologists filed on behalf of the government in this case (starting on pg. 12; page 19 of the entire document). it states the same shit sbee's article states, but in more detail.

 

[Spartanmack]

UDs come in a number of forms. They can be inert, or have copper or hormones embedded within them. Most scientists believe that they interfere with the ability of sperm to get to an egg in time to fertilize it before they die.

Research does not support the idea that they prevent fertilized eggs to implant. The journal Fertility and Sterility published a study in 1985 that followed three groups of women for 15 months. One group had an IUD, one group had their tubes tied, and one group was trying to get pregnant. They then measured hormone levels to see if fertilization occurred. It did so only in the group trying to get pregnant.

Another study found that a telltale sign of fertilization — a surge of the hormone human chorionic gonadotropin — occurred in only 1 percent of 100 cycles in women using IUDs. This would be consistent with the failure rate of IUDs in general. In other words, IUDs do not appear to work by aborting a fertilized egg.

Emergency contraception, which is really just a large dose of the hormones in a birth control pill, works in a similar manner. The pills can thicken the mucus in the cervix to make it difficult for sperm to reach the egg, and they prevent ovulation from occurring in the first place. Because the doses of medication are very short-term, they probably cannot affect the uterine lining in such a way as to affect implantation.

Moreover, the fact that both of these forms of contraception can fail, and allow pregnancies to occur, provides evidence that if a fertilization occurs, it can move on to implant and grow

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/06/h...antation-science-suggests.html?pagewanted=all

There doesn't seem to be any research that indicates these hormones are detectable or even produced at or right after conception. Most seem to indicate that hormone production begins with implantation. Two in particular (wikipedia and the link below) indicate that these hormonal changes, particularly chorionic gonadotropin are not produced until after implantation.

http://americanpregnancy.org/duringpregnancy/hcglevels.html

Which says "It is made by cells that form the placenta, which nourishes the egg after it has been fertilized and becomes attached to the uterine wall. Levels can first be detected by a blood test about 11 days after conception and about 12 - 14 days after conception by a urine test."

If that is the case, the fact that these hormones don't show up in studies of women using IUDs or these emergency contraceptives is no proof at all that they don't prevent implantation. The fact that the failure rate of IUDs is as low as 1% and that hormone production occurs after implantation seems to indicate that they likely do prevent fertilized eggs from implanting.

 

[Michchamp]

There doesn't seem to be any research that indicates these hormones are detectable or even produced at or right after conception. Most seem to indicate that hormone production begins with implantation. Two in particular (wikipedia and the link below) indicate that these hormonal changes, particularly chorionic gonadotropin are not produced until after implantation.

http://americanpregnancy.org/duringpregnancy/hcglevels.html

Which says "It is made by cells that form the placenta, which nourishes the egg after it has been fertilized and becomes attached to the uterine wall. Levels can first be detected by a blood test about 11 days after conception and about 12 - 14 days after conception by a urine test."

If that is the case, the fact that these hormones don't show up in studies of women using IUDs or these emergency contraceptives is no proof at all that they don't prevent implantation. The fact that the failure rate of IUDs is as low as 1% and that hormone production occurs after implantation seems to indicate that they likely do prevent fertilized eggs from implanting.

can you maybe find a site that links to the research they cite? this seems a little light in its supporting claims.

and the site lists "chiropractor" as a healthcare provider for pregnancy... and that's the default option in that drop down menu. that doesn't seem fishy to you at all?

 

[Michchamp]

this article from a federal judge has made a bit of a stir, since he explicitly tells the Supreme Court to STFU.

"Next term is the time for the Supreme Court to go quiescent–this term and several past terms have proven that the Court is now causing more harm (division) to our democracy than good by deciding hot button cases that the Court has the power to avoid. As the kids say, it is time for the Court to stfu."

BTW... the judge was a Bush appointee (... no, obviously not THAT Bush...)

 

[Spartanmack]

can you maybe find a site that links to the research they cite? this seems a little light in its supporting claims.

and the site lists "chiropractor" as a healthcare provider for pregnancy... and that's the default option in that drop down menu. that doesn't seem fishy to you at all?

I haven't found one yet but I also haven't found a single piece that indicates these hormonal changes can be detected any less than 11 days after conception - well after implantation. I do find it interesting that you don't have the same request of the NYT piece - unless links to web pages like the Mayo Clinic and the NIH satisfy the research requirement.

The argument against the labeling is clearly based on the assertion that there is no proof that they prevent implantation but it completely ignores that fact that there is also no proof that they don't prevent it either. At best, the issue is unresolved but given their effectiveness (plan B can be taken up to 5 days after intercourse - the outer bound of sperms life span - and doesn't seem to be any less effective on the 5th day than the 1st) and the fact science seems to indicate these hormones aren't detectable until well after implantation it stands to reason that there is some affect on implantation of fertilized eggs or at a minimum, you can't say the science indicates there isn't.

And "chiropractic" is one of 29 different disciplines/resources that people might find helpful re: pregnancy. The list, if you took a second to look at it, includes medical providers like Ob-Gyns, fertility specialists, pharmacists, etc as well as non-medical resources like family law, life insurance, support groups, fitness/yoga instructrion. So, no the fact that chiropractors are on the list doesn't seem all that fishy

 

[Michchamp]

... I do find it interesting that you don't have the same request of the NYT piece - unless links to web pages like the Mayo Clinic and the NIH satisfy the research requirement....

I didn't feel the need to, since it was corroborated by the statements of the obstetrics and gynecologists group (you know... actual doctors) I posted. And Red gave it his approval as well.

 

[Gulo Blue]

And Red gave it his approval as well.

Once I knew what to look for, I found a paper where, if I read it right, they gave plan b to a few hundred women and determined when they ovulated after the fact. None of the women that took the drug before ovulating got pregnant. Of the women that had ovulated, statistically, they would expect 8.7 pregnancies (that's the potentially fishy part, I don't know how you determine expected pregnancies, but I tend to believe they did it using sound methods.) 8 women actually did get pregnant. It's a small sample, so I expect there are other studies out there based on the claims of "strong" evidence. So, I'm not 100% convinced that it does nothing, but I have been swayed significantly and believe that if it does have an impact, it probably isn't much.

Not to imply this has anything to do with when a new human life begins. It's only about what these drugs do. Which I think most people get on both ends of the spectrum and at all parts in between.

 

[Spartanmack]

I didn't feel the need to, since it was corroborated by the statements of the obstetrics and gynecologists group (you know... actual doctors) I posted. And Red gave it his approval as well.

well you know, there are also other actual doctors who don't agree. And since the science is clearly not settled, maybe we should consider the political bent of the various physicians as well, particularly where they fall on the pro abortion/pro life spectrum.

Wait a second, is that "actual doctors" thing in reference to the earlier comment about chiropractors? if so, if you took a second to click the drop down, you'd see that "chiropractor" was one of 29 categories of resources people might find useful re: pregnancy. It includes categories for medical providers like Ob-Gyns, fertility specialists, pharmacists, birthing centers, etc as well as non-medical resources like family law, adoption services, life insurance, support groups, fitness/yoga instructrion.

 

[Michchamp]

Once I knew what to look for, I found a paper where, if I read it right, they gave plan b to a few hundred women and determined when they ovulated after the fact. None of the women that took the drug before ovulating got pregnant. Of the women that had ovulated, statistically, they would expect 8.7 pregnancies (that's the potentially fishy part, I don't know how you determine expected pregnancies, but I tend to believe they did it using sound methods.) 8 women actually did get pregnant. It's a small sample, so I expect there are other studies out there based on the claims of "strong" evidence. So, I'm not 100% convinced that it does nothing, but I have been swayed significantly and believe that if it does have an impact, it probably isn't much.

Not to imply this has anything to do with when a new human life begins. It's only about what these drugs do. Which I think most people get on both ends of the spectrum and at all parts in between.

so what you're saying is, these drugs aren't "abortifacients," unless you have some really extreme view of when pregnancy begins?

 

[Gulo Blue]

so what you're saying is, these drugs aren't "abortifacients," unless you have some really extreme view of when pregnancy begins?

You're being too absolute in your wording. Plan b probably isn't most of the time. The copper IUD probably is.

If plan b were to reduce implantation of fertilized eggs by 5-25%, that could have been missed by the paper I looked at. With 8 pregnancies there's a lot of room for statistical error. Perhaps there are bigger studies out there, but it takes a lot to reduce the level of uncertainty. Regarding whether or not these drugs are abortofacients or when pregnancy starts, I think there's a lot of misunderstanding, some of it appears to be deliberate, and people make decisions based on sometimes flawed understanding about these terms. Arguing about the terminology has to happen so that we have a functioning system of laws of course. But really, people disagree (and will continue to disagree) about what is or isn't ok to do regarding the potential creation and ending of a human life and people should have, to the extent possible, accurate information required to follow their consciences...so manipulation of the terminology to mislead people is an awful thing to do. For decades when we thought some of these drugs were abortofacients, we misled people to believe they were not. Some of these drugs, we now have evidence, probably aren't abortofacients very often (you seem quick to drop the "some" and the "probably" from that sentence, but those words are important, and would change some peoples behavior.)

 

[Michchamp]

You're being too absolute in your wording. Plan b probably isn't most of the time. The copper IUD probably is.

If plan b were to reduce implantation of fertilized eggs by 5-25%, that could have been missed by the paper I looked at. With 8 pregnancies there's a lot of room for statistical error. Perhaps there are bigger studies out there, but it takes a lot to reduce the level of uncertainty. Regarding whether or not these drugs are abortofacients or when pregnancy starts, I think there's a lot of misunderstanding, some of it appears to be deliberate, and people make decisions based on sometimes flawed understanding about these terms. Arguing about the terminology has to happen so that we have a functioning system of laws of course. But really, people disagree (and will continue to disagree) about what is or isn't ok to do regarding the potential creation and ending of a human life and people should have, to the extent possible, accurate information required to follow their consciences...so manipulation of the terminology to mislead people is an awful thing to do. For decades when we thought some of these drugs were abortofacients, we misled people to believe they were not. Some of these drugs, we now have evidence, probably aren't abortofacients very often (you seem quick to drop the "some" and the "probably" from that sentence, but those words are important, and would change some peoples behavior.)

So when in a brief filed before the Supreme Court, the College of Obstetrics and Gynecologist says "these things are not abortifacients and do not terminate pregnancy" ... that's not good enough for you?

 

[Spartanmack]

So when in a brief filed before the Supreme Court, the College of Obstetrics and Gynecologist says "these things are not abortifacients and do not terminate pregnancy" ... that's not good enough for you?

Aren't they saying there isn't proof that they are or do? Just like there isn't proof that they aren't or don't. That's different and that, I believe is part of Gulo's point. By the way, was it good enough for you when virtually every western Intelligence agency said Saddam Hussein was pursuing weapons of mass destruction? Or is it your contention that the COG is infallible and completely apolitical?

 

[Michchamp]

Aren't they saying there isn't proof that they are or do? Just like there isn't proof that they aren't or don't. That's different and that, I believe is part of Gulo's point. By the way, was it good enough for you when virtually every western Intelligence agency said Saddam Hussein was pursuing weapons of mass destruction? Or is it your contention that the COG is infallible and completely apolitical?

That's a really fucking stupid analogy.

 

[Spartanmack]

That's a really fucking stupid analogy.

Only because you have no other response for it.

 

[Gulo Blue]

So when in a brief filed before the Supreme Court, the College of Obstetrics and Gynecologist says "these things are not abortifacients and do not terminate pregnancy" ... that's not good enough for you?

Not on its own. In such a biased, political setting, a conclusion, void of the facts used to reach it or any context, it doesn't tell me much. Even your example statement there is just saying the same thing twice. Out of context, such statements blanket everything and project more certainty than the science justifies. Since some things are abortofacients, it's wrong. Since various emergency contraceptives have been shown to various degrees to only probably not be abortofacients, it's wrong.

 

[Michchamp]

Not on its own. In such a biased, political setting, a conclusion, void of the facts used to reach it or any context, it doesn't tell me much. Even your example statement there is just saying the same thing twice. Out of context, such statements blanket everything and project more certainty than the science justifies. Since some things are abortofacients, it's wrong. Since various emergency contraceptives have been shown to various degrees to only probably not be abortofacients, it's wrong.

their brief referred explicitly to the forms of birth control at issue in the Hobby Lobby dispute.

yes, there are abortifacients... they were not at issue in the case, unless you're talking to Scalia, Alito, or the plaintiffs. And I don't think it's going out on a limb to consider their views pretty far removed from the norm.