Pro-lifers for Plan B

With all the controversy around the FDA's refusal to approve the emergency contraception drug Plan B (despite the recommendation of its board of experts), Chicago Tribune columnist Steve Chapman makes a prolife argument for approving the drug, especially in light of its effectiveness in preventing conception but not implantation. "As a longtime pro-lifer, I think anti-abortion groups had solid grounds to oppose the morning-after pill when its function was unclear--as I did. But given what we now know, it's a grave mistake to keep opposing it. In fact, there are grounds for celebration: A drug once believed to produce abortion is found to prevent abortion."

So, the big question for the prolife movement: Do we want to prevent unwanted pregnancies or not? When some in the prolife movement speak (Chapman quotes the American Life League: "Plan B aborts children and hurts women"; and Concerned Women for America, which opposes it partly because of its "abortifacient potential") I find myself wondering if what they're most concerned about is making sure people who have sex outside of marriage suffer "the consequences"--in this case, pregnancy. And that seems like a wrongheaded approach to me.

A final interesting point from Chapman: "There is no way to be 100 percent sure that emergency contraception never interferes with implantation. But the mere possibility of an adverse event is a poor reason to reject its use. After all, breast-feeding is known to cause uterine changes that can prevent a fertilized egg from being implanted. No one in the pro-life movement would say mothers should therefore abstain from nursing. Just as nursing is morally and ethically permissible because it advances worthy purposes, so is the morning-after pill."

PS. If you want to read Chapman's column, you better do it quick; the Tribune starts charging after seven days.