ADF Alliance Alert

By Matt Bowman, Esq.

Bill Saletan, a pro-abortion commentator at Slate, decided on Monday to advise the Vatican about Catholic moral theology.  In direct contradiction to a recent statement from the Catholic Church,  Saletan says that “morning-after pills are contraceptives, not interceptives . . . from the standpoint of respecting embryonic life, you may take them in good conscience.”

Rather than simply stating that his position is incompatible with Catholic principles, Saletan seems eager to try to convince Catholics themselves that contraception and abortion are just fine morally, under their own theological views. If he believes in his own outlook so confidently, why not try to convince people to convert, rather than trick them into thinking their activities are accepted by the Church when they are assuredly not?

Saletan’s statements are flawed on several more levels. The Vatican document only talks about even possibly taking something to prevent conception in the singular case of rape, never suggesting that if morning after pills are purely contraceptive then, by golly, “you may take them in good conscience.” Some theologians think that conception-preventing actions are not permissible even in rape, while others think that preventing conception may be permissible. But even uninformed commentators know that Catholic teaching unequivocally opposes contraception in circumstances outside rape. And one of the main reasons the Church is against contraception is precisely “from the standpoint of respecting embryonic life,” because of the link seen between contraception and abortion, and between the conjugal act and procreation.

Saletan also goes to great lengths to prove that the morning after pill does not kill early embryos after fertilization. Yet as I discussed in testimony before the Wisconsin State Assembly (multiple footnotes and sources may be found in the link),  “Drugs known as “emergency contraception” have three possible functions: inhibiting sperm migration to the ovum, preventing ovulation by preventing the surge of luteinizing hormone, and preventing implantation of the newly formed human embryo into the uterine wall. Although there is dispute about whether and how often EC prevents implantation, some studies suggest that post-fertilization prevention of “pregnancy” is not unlikely, and advocates of EC admit that women should be informed that implantation can be prevented. Only one product, “Plan B,” is specifically approved and marketed for use as EC in the United States at this time, though there are other drugs and devices that can be used with a similar effect. All such methods have the reasonably possible effect of preventing implantation of a newly formed embryo.”

How odd, that so much proof exists that these drugs don’t prevent implantation, and yet even the drug manufacturers and promoters concede that women should be told that the drug may prevent implantation! Why require women to be told something so ridiculous that Saletan mocks the Vatican for even suggesting it?

Moreover, the specific context of Catholic healthcare and rape suggests that the morning after pill has even a greater danger of preventing implantation. This is because the drug supposedly acts primarily to prevent ovulation. Many Catholic hospitals wish to test to see whether the woman has ovulated–if she has, or if they can’t administer the simple test to find out, they wish not to administer the drug for fear of its abortifacient effect. Will someone please explain to me how an anti-ovulation drug, when taken after ovulation, can still be an anti-ovulation drug? If its supposed main function is impossible, the drug and the intent behind it will include preventing implantation to an even higher degree.

This shows Saletan to be wrong again when he says that women don’t intend to prevent implantation of an embryo. What is intended by the drug, in common experience of a “morning after” situation, is to prevent being pregnant later and all the associated consequences, by any means that the drug may function. That broad intention includes moral culpability for whatever the drug reasonably has a risk of doing, which includes killing early embryos, And that is what the Vatican statement correctly stated.

Matt Bowman is an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund. He is also a parishioner in the Catholic Church. As with past posts, this commentary presents his personal views and insights.

Related:

Matt Bowman: 10 Issues from the Vatican’s New Bioethics Document