(Please keep in mind as you
read this article that it was written in the
1990's)
Contraception, abortifacient – what’s the
difference? Well, on the face of it, it’s
rather simple. A contraceptive, properly
so-called, prevents human life from
beginning. The laws of our land permit
contraceptive use in all 50 states. Certain
types are sold only on prescription, others
without prescriptions over the counter.
Substantial portions of our federal tax monies in
the last two decades have been spent for the
promotion of contraceptive education and
contraceptive use–particularly among teenage and
poverty groups.
An abortifacient
can also be simply defined. It is a drug or
device which causes an abortion within the first
one or two weeks of a human’s life. An
abortifacient acts after human life has begun and
produces a micro-abortion. The Roe vs. Wade
and more recent Casey Supreme Court decisions,
which legalized abortion in all of our states, for
social reasons, for the full nine months of
pregnancy, obviously also legalized it in the very
first weeks. Abortifacients, which had been
outlawed in every state since the Civil War, are
now legal in every state. So far, so simple.
But now we get into a cloudy
area. The intrauterine device is
advertised in our medical journals as a
“contraceptive.” The morning-after pill,
or shot, is advertised as a
“contraceptive.” The contraceptive pill,
which also at times produces micro-abortions, is
also advertised as a “contraceptive.” So
is the new Norplant.
To say the least, this blurs the distinction
between contraceptives and abortifacients, and
confuses people.
In the early
1960’s, officials from the American
College of Obstetrics and Gynecology teamed up
with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and
they simply redefined the word
“conception.” They said it would no longer be
the time of union of sperm and ovum, but rather
would be the time, one week later, when this new
human plants inside the lining of the mother’s
womb. “Fertilization” would still be the
word used for the time of union of sperm and
ovum. The interesting thing was though
that no one knew of this change except an inner
circle of medical and drug people. And so
what has happened? Well, just what they
planned.
Today a
physician can truthfully call the IUD a
“contraceptive,” and mean that it prevents
implantation in the wall of the uterus, while his
patient, hearing him use the word,
“contraception,” will understand it to mean “the
prevention of the union of sperm and ovum.”
And so, presto! An abortifacient is called a
“contraceptive,” and everybody is fooled. A
classic example of double speak, or the perversion
of language.
That slight of hand
definition change happened 30 years ago.
Today only a few physicians know that many
so-called contraceptives really act as
abortifacients.
