by Laurel Recsetar and Cooper Crouch
The abortion lobby has itself in a pretzel. On one hand, Planned Parenthood and other supporters of abortion argue that certain forms of contraception (e.g. Plan B and Ella) do not have abortifacient effects. These proponents of abortion mock the “unproven claim that they will interfere with a fertilized egg’s implantation.” But then, when it’s convenient, they pivot and make the exact opposite claim.
At no time was the rhetoric more heated over the scientific effects of birth control than during the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby decision. A Mother Jones headline read “In Hobby Lobby Case, the Supreme Court Chooses Religion Over Science,” declaring the science settled that “Plan B, Ella, and two intrauterine devices—do not prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg into the uterus.”
The LA Times opined that “the weight of scientific evidence indicates that IUDs act as contraceptives. They prevent fertilization” and dismissed beliefs to the contrary as “crazy.” The New Republic agreed, calling it “undisputed scientific fact” that such forms of birth control do not prevent implantation.
NARAL tweeted an RH Reality Check article about Hobby Lobby to fans saying “Science is on our side.” The article derided “the idea that Plan B could affect implantation ‘scientifically unsupported speculation.’”
But that was four months ago.
Today, NARAL is sounding the alarm that “‘Personhood’ measures would ban most common forms of birth control. Any form of contraceptive that prevents implantation, rather than or in addition to fertilization, would be banned. This would have an enormous impact on the 99 percent of American women who use birth control.”
Wait a minute, I thought the idea that birth control could affect implantation was “scientifically unsupported speculation”?
Indeed, the pro-abortion lobby’s most common refrain is that personhood would ban contraception. Planned Parenthood has stated repeatedly that personhood would this “outlaw women’s health services like . . . the birth control pill.”
Even the mainstream media has picked up the refrain, fooling political candidates like Colorado’s Cory Gardner who renounced his support for recognizing life at conception because he bought into Planned Parenthood’s “Big Lie” that Personhood would outlaw contraception.
In fact, mainstream media outlets have swallowed this internal contradiction so deeply that they express it with a straight face in a single breath. A hostile MSNBC article declares that “Personhood would indeed threaten some forms of contraception – the ones Personhood supporters insist, despite evidence and medical definitions, are actually abortion, because of the unproven claim that they will interfere with a fertilized egg’s implantation.”
Huh? If evidence and medical definitions show that these forms of contraception aren’t actually abortifacient and do not interfere with implantation, how is it conceivably possible that they could be banned?
Thankfully, at least some commentators aren’t asleep at the wheel. Ramesh Ponnuru at the National Review has been actively vocal in pointing out this absurd pro-abortion contradiction.
So which is it? Was the pro-abortion lobby lying then, or are they lying now? Are Planned Parenthood and their allies deliberately lying and using scare tactics to undermine support for personhood amendments?
The truth is that personhood amendments do not and could not affect the legality of contraception which merely prevents fertilization. Therefore, if it’s true that certain forms of contraception do not have abortifacient effects, then there is no risk of that contraception becoming illegal upon adoption of a personhood amendment.
The purpose of personhood is to protect the lives of persons who cannot protect themselves: the unborn. It is not and never has been about outlawing contraception which prevents a new human being from coming into existence in the first place. That’s just the abortion lobby’s Big Lie.
Cooper Crouch is a United Nations liaison for Personhood USA. Born and raised on the South Texas border, Cooper took interest in public policy at a young age due to her geographic location and immersion during her first job for the Secret Service. In 2012, she transplanted her life to New York City, where she is now a senior studying Politics, Philosophy and Economics at The King’s College.
Laurel Recsetar is a United Nations liaison for Personhood USA. She is a senior studying Politics, Philosophy, and Economics at The King’s College in New York City. She plans to practice family law and continue pro-life advocacy work throughout her career.