Which methods do this? In varying degree, the methods that prevent implantation, and therefore kill a baby at one week of life, include the intra-uterine device (IUD), Norplant, Depo Provera, Progesterone Only pills, lowdose contraceptive combination pills, and the morning-after pills. Let’s take them one at a time.

This is an implant under the skin of her forearm that lasts five years. In the first half of that time it’s effect is to almost always suppress ovulation. In the last half of that time, break-through ovulation is the rule. However, very few pregnancies survive. Clearly, this second half is commonly effective through micro-abortions and prevention of implantation.

As with Norplant, there is some variance from woman to woman, but in a far higher percent of cases Depo Provera suppresses ovulation. Break-through ovulation, however, does occur as attested to by full-term pregnancies recorded with women who were receiving this shot every three months.

The intrauterine device, commonly referred to as an IUD or coil (in Europe), is a small plastic or metal device that is inserted through the vagina and into the cavity of the uterus. The purpose of this is to "prevent" pregnancy.

Until recently, almost all scientific papers had agreed that its effect was to prevent the implantation of the tiny new human being into the nutrient lining of the uterus; an abortive action.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration stated in an official report that its effectiveness is "in direct proportion to the quantity and quality of the inflammatory reaction to various types of IUDs"...and states that there "is one common thread . . . " They all "interfere in some manner with the implantation of the fertilized ovum in the uterine cavity."

A detailed report in a Planned Parenthood publication in 1989 claimed that a high percentage of its action was the prevention of fertilization.

These fall into the same category as the Progesterone- Only implant, Norplant, and the Progesterone-Only injection, Depo Provera.

This medication has an antinidatory effect on the endometrium (that is, a hardening of the lining of the uterus), which prevents implantation of the tiny new human being (blastocyst stage).

If, for example, a rape victim had ovulated just before the assault and fertilization had occurred, then the use of such medication after the event would clearly be abortive.

There is a possibility that it can act in a sterilizing fashion. The large hormone dose could rapidly affect the ovary and prevent an ovulation that might have occurred one to three days after the intercourse. If sperm were still present and active in the woman’s genital tract, she might otherwise have been fertilized one to three days after the event. In this case, some have suggested that such treatment (for example, as for an assault rape victim) might actually prevent a pregnancy.

In actual practice, there is no way of knowing if she was fertilized at all and, if so, which effect the medicine had.

There are over 30 "contraceptive" pills on the market, each differing a little from the others. They "prevent" pregnancy through three separate functions.

1. They thicken the mucous plug at the cervix. If this is the primary effect, then it truly is contraceptive because it prevents sperm from entering.

3. They render the lining of the womb hostile to the implantation of the tiny new human at one week of life. This effect is abortifacient.

The earlier high-estrogen pills largely prevented ovulation. The newer low-estrogen pills allow "break-through" ovulation in up to 20% or more of the months used. Such a released ovum is fertilized 10% or more of the time. Most of these tiny new lives which result, do not survive. The reason is that at one week of life this tiny new boy or girl cannot implant in the womb lining (see number 3 above) and dies. These are micro-abortions.

The pill, then, can have a contraceptive or temporary sterilization effect (by far the most common), or it can be an abortifacient.

Yes! "The morphological changes observed in the endometrium of oral contraceptive users have functional significance and provide evidence that reduced endometrial receptivity does indeed contribute to the contraceptive efficacy of OCs." In other words, because the endometrial lining is not receptive to the human being, who must implant in order to continue living, the human being will die.

Somkuti, et al., "The Effect of Oral Contraceptive Pills on
Markers of Endometrial Receptivity," Fertility and Sterility,
Vol. 65, #3, 3/96, p. 488

RU 486 kills a developing baby after his or her heart has begun to beat.

It blocks a vital nutrient hormone, Progesterone. The embryonic baby, who had implanted into the nutrient lining of the mother’s womb at least two weeks earlier, can be compared to a grape on a vine. If the stem is pinched, preventing the nourishing sap from reaching the grape, it will wither, die and drop off. Just so, if this drug is used, it causes the embryonic baby to wither and die. A second drug, prostaglandin, is used to expel the dead baby from her womb.

Counting from the first day of her last normal menstrual period, it is effective only from the fifth through the seventh week. Some claim success, but with decreasing effectiveness, into the 9th week.

RU 486 alone is effective from 60 to 80% of the time. If Prostaglandin is added, the abortion rate rises to 95%.

Couzinet et al., "Termination of Early Pregnancy
by RU-486 (Mifepristone), New Eng. J. of Med.,
vol. 315, no. 25, Dec. 18, 1986
O. Ylikorkala et al., Outpatient Abortion With
RU-486, OB-GYN, vol 74, no. 4, Oct. 1989
M. Rodger et al., Blood Loss . . . After RU-486 and
Prostaglandin...," Contraception, vol. 40, no. 4, Oct. 1989.
Science Magazine, Sept. 1989

First Visit: She must have a thorough history, physical exam and blood count. If she’s anemic, has high blood pressure, kidney disease, asthma, has a vaginal infection, smokes or is over 35, she is rejected. Finally, she needs an ultrasound exam to confirm the age of her baby and to rule out a tubal pregnancy. She must sign permission and, in some states or nations, wait 1 or more days.

Second Visit: She takes the pills.

Third Visit: She is given the prostaglandin drug. This produces hard labor. Usually the baby parts are passed that day.

Fourth Visit: If she has not aborted or if there is still bleeding, she will need an ultrasound to determine if the uterus is empty. If not, she needs a D&C. The French Ministry of Health requires that the abortion facility be equipped with an EKG, IV equipment, and a "crash cart" with a defibrillator in the event of a heart attack resulting from the drugs.

Yes. Bleeding is the most common. In the controlled testing reported, one woman in a hundred bled so badly she either needed a D&C (surgical scraping out of her womb) and/or a blood transfusion. In an under-developed country, such a treatment would normally not be available and, very likely, some of these women would bleed to death.

e.g., In a controlled trial in the state of Iowa, one woman took the pills and went home. She bled so badly She needed four emergency blood transfusions to save her life.

Interruption of Preg. with RU-486 & Prostaglandin,
Silvestre et al., N. Eng. J. Med., Vol. 322, 3/8/90, No. 10
Efficacy of Mifepristone & Prostaglandin in 1st
Trimester Abortion, UK Multicentre Trial, Br. J. OB/Gyn,
June ’90, Vol. 97, pp. 480-486

Other complications include substantial pain, tubal pregnancies, incomplete abortion, uterine rupture, e.g., an 18-week abortion with RU 486 and prostaglandin produced rupture of the uterus and a near fatality.

Uterine Rupt.-Ab.-Second Trimester:
J. Norman, Br. J. Ob/Gyn, vol. 102,
Apr. ’95, p. 332

and psychological upset ranging from mild to serious, post-abortion syndrome and, in a few cases, death of the woman.

RU 486 and a prostaglandin will produce an abortion 95% of the time. The rest will be advised to have a surgical abortion. But there will be some who will refuse surgery and carry to term. These babies will have a significant possibility of fetal deformity. Why? Two poisonous drugs were given when the heart, limbs, etc., were being formed. This didn’t quite kill, but the effect can be to cause severe structural deformities as a direct toxic effect, similar to those from Thalidomide.

This drug may have an action similar to DES, which was used in the ’60s to prevent miscarriage, and which turned out to be a chemical time bomb. RU 486 also can, in the body, react chemically to produce free radicals, which can combine with DNA, the genetic building blocks of our bodies. Through this mechanism fetal deformity can be produced at birth, and/or possibly show up 20 or more years later as a malformation or even cancer, such as the DES did. It is even possible that it could unite with maternal DNA to produce cancer or fetal defects in subsequent offspring.

In addition, the drugs can cause genetic damage to the developing baby and, if to the mother, damage to children she bears later, similar to the DES drug tragedy.

In the tightly controlled French experience, there has been one such tragedy. Under the far looser private care in North America, the number of deformed babies should be greater.

Two French researchers report on two women who continued their pregnancies after their RU 486 failed to cause abortion. One delivered a normal baby. "The second pregnancy was terminated because of malformations (sirenomelia)" [fusion of lower extremities]

Note that pro-life groups have never opposed research with RU 486 to find therapeutic uses. To date all studies of this drug were paid for by or associated with the manufacturer.

A pamphlet, "RU 486, A Human Pesticide," is available from Hayes Publishing Company in Cincinnati -Phone (513) 681-7559.

This also works to kill a baby after his or her heart has begun to beat. It works roughly within the same timeframe, but in a different fashion. The RU 486 essentially starves the baby which then dies and is lost. Methotrexate is a direct poison and kills the developing baby.

Methothrexate & Misoprostol, M. Creinin et al., JAMA, Oct. 19, 1994

Methotrexate & Misoprostol to Terminate Early Pregnancy,
R. Hausknecht, N. Eng. J.M., Vol. 333, No. 9, 8/31/95, Pg. 537