There was an interesting article about the UN Population Fund and pregnant women in Africa recently in the New York Times. It's available here. It questions whether the policy of the US government not to release $34 million in funds allocated by Congress for the UN Population Fund is really a "pro-life" policy in practical terms. The UN Population Fund has been accused of supporting forced abortions and sterilizations in China, and therefore the US government refused to support the fund in recent years. The Population Fund denies the accusation, a denial that seems credible to me. The article argues that the move of the US government is not pro-life because of the loss of life that will result from less funding for the organization's activities in Africa such as equipping maternity hospitals and promoting contraception and safe child birth. African women have a 1 in 16 chance of dying in childbirth. Tragic.
On a related note, Steven Chapman made an interesting point about the "morning-after pill" in his column. He argues that the typical "pro-life" opposition to Plan B is actually not pro-life. Rather than being "abortion in disguise," Chapman claims that:
The best scientific evidence we have indicates that the morning-after pill serves to block fertilization, while having no effect on implantation. That makes it contraception, not abortion. 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.
Regarding the concern that the pill may have abortifacient properties, he writes:
The drug...can prevent pregnancy by impeding sperm and by delaying ovulation, but it has "not been shown to cause a post-fertilization event--a change in the uterus that could interfere with implantation of a fertilized egg." 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. [emphasis mine, JDM]
Even conventional birth control pills have come under attack as causing abortions. A friend recently sent us an email warning and linked to an article criticizing the pill.
To conclude his article, Chapman writes:
If emergency contraception were widely and easily available, it could prevent a lot of pregnancies that would otherwise end, tragically, in abortion. That's reason enough for the FDA to approve over-the-counter sales. For anyone who believes in the sanctity of life from the moment of conception, Plan B is not an enemy but an ally.
