Human Nature: Science, Technology, and Life.

Plan B and Personal Responsibility

Good news in the fight against teen pregnancy: The FDA is making to it easier for young people to get morning-after pills.

Here's the FDA's announcement:

On March 23, 2009, a federal court issued an order directing the FDA, within 30 days, to permit the Plan B drug sponsor to make Plan B available to women 17 and older without a prescription. The government will not appeal this decision. In accordance with the court's order, and consistent with the scientific findings made in 2005 by the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research,  FDA notified the manufacturer of Plan B informing the company that it may, upon submission and approval of an appropriate application, market Plan B without a prescription to women 17 years of age and older.

The New York Times warns that Plan B won't solve the problem:

Contraception advocates have pushed for easy access to Plan B for girls and women of all ages because the longer a woman delays in taking the medicine after unprotected sex, the more likely she will become pregnant. Eliminating doctors from the transactions, it was hoped, would lead to far fewer pregnancies and abortions. Indeed, advocates once predicted that widespread and easy access to emergency contraceptives would cut the number of induced abortions in half and slash teenage birth rates. But young people in the United States have so much unprotected sex—one in three girls under the age of 20 will get pregnant, with 80 percent of the pregnancies unplanned—that Plan B has been little more than a sandbag on an overtopped flood wall. Even women who are given the medicine free often fail to take it after having unprotected sex. "This is not going to be a cheap cure to the unintended pregnancy epidemic in this country," said James Trussell, director of the Office of Population Research at Princeton University.

Trussell has made the same point before: Emergency contraception has

not reduced unintended pregnancies in America or anywhere else that has introduced it. There is so much unprotected sex you would have to use so much emergency contraception to make a dent. ... It is not a magic bullet. If you want to seriously reduce unintended pregnancies in the UK you can only do [that] with implants and IUDs.

Why implants and IUDs? Because you don't have to think about them. They bypass the most common cause of what we erroneously call contraceptive failure: our own failure to use contraceptives properly and consistently.

I agree that using implants to bypass human failure is the most effective way to prevent unintended pregnancies. But that's no excuse for tolerating our failure in the first place. Emergency contraception, taken promptly after sex, can be (though you shouldn't rely on it) a magic bullet. But bullets don't work unless you fire them. Technology requires human agency.

Cecile Richards, president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, makes precisely this point about the FDA's decision: "Providing birth control, including emergency birth control, to young women helps them make responsible decisions and avoid unintended pregnancy."

The FDA hasn't solved the problem of unintended pregnancy. It has given you one more means to solve it. Go get your emergency contraception, now. And while you're at it, ask about an implant, so you won't have to count on a last-minute pill to bail you out. The responsibility is yours.

Coitus Interceptus

I'm just back from vacation and trying to catch up on the war in Gaza. More on that later. But first, something I didn't have a chance to get to before the break: the Vatican's latest pronouncement on fertility technology. Apparently the men in Rome are having trouble understanding some nuances of the female reproductive system.

The pronouncement comes in the form of Dignitas Personae, an instruction from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which articulates official Catholic positions. This document covers several interesting topics, which I hope to get to in the days ahead. But the one that calls for rebuttal right away is the section on "[n]ew forms of interception and contragestation." It says:

Alongside methods of preventing pregnancy which are, properly speaking, contraceptive, that is, which prevent conception following from a sexual act, there are other technical means which act after fertilization, when the embryo is already constituted, either before or after implantation in the uterine wall. Such methods are interceptive if they interfere with the embryo before implantation and contragestative if they cause the elimination of the embryo once implanted.

This is an astute and useful set of distinctions. Unfortunately, the CDF immediately proceeds to violate them. Here's its next paragraph:

In order to promote wider use of interceptive methods [a footnote here specifies "morning-after pills"], it is sometimes stated that the way in which they function is not sufficiently understood. It is true that there is not always complete knowledge of the way that different pharmaceuticals operate, but scientific studies indicate that the effect of inhibiting implantation is certainly present, even if this does not mean that such interceptives cause an abortion every time they are used. ...

Really? Is the effect of inhibiting implantation "certainly present"? Let's review the mechanics of morning-after pills, specifically levonorgestrel, marketed as Plan B. The problem with the CDF's statement is that this "interceptive" is chemically identical to the best-known contraceptive: the pill. And the risk that this drug

will prevent implantation of an embryo is purely theoretical. There is no documented case of such a tragedy, since we have no way to verify conception inside a woman's body prior to implantation without causing the embryo's death. Even theoretically, the risk is vanishingly small, since the primary effect of oral contraception is to prevent ovulation, and the secondary effect is to prevent fertilization. To classify oral contraception as abortifacient, one would have to posit a scenario in which the drug fails to block ovulation, then fails to block fertilization, and yet somehow, having proved impotent at every other task, manages to prevent implantation.

So, the assertion of an anti-implantation effect is theoretically unsound. But what do the data show? Two years ago, the world's leading expert on levonorgestrel, James Trussell, co-authored an analysis of the available research in the Journal of the American Medical Association. The analysis confirmed that that anti-ovulation effects wipe out any data suggesting a possible anti-implantation effect. It concluded:

Published evidence clearly indicates that Plan B can interfere with sperm migration by altering the cervical and uterine environment, and that preovulatory use of Plan B usually suppresses the LH surge either completely or partially, which in turn either prevents ovulation or leads to the release of ova that are resistant to fertilization. Epidemiological evidence rules strongly against interruption of fallopian tube function by Plan B. Evidence that would support direct involvement of endometrial damage or luteal dysfunction in Plan B's contraceptive mechanism is either weak or lacking altogether. Both epidemiologic and clinical studies of Plan B's efficacy in relation to the timing of ovulation are inconsistent with the hypothesis that Plan B acts to prevent implantation.

In fact:

Progestational drugs, including levonorgestrel, are used therapeutically in assisted reproduction because they increase the rate of successful implantation and pregnancy. That observation a priori reduces the likelihood that Plan B interferes with implantation; it even raises the counterintuitive but undocumented possibility that Plan B used after ovulation might actually prevent the loss of at least some of the 40% of fertilized ova that ordinarily fail spontaneously to implant or to survive after implantation.

So, in summary:

[T]he ability of Plan B to interfere with implantation remains speculative, since virtually no evidence supports that mechanism and some evidence contradicts it. ... [T]he best available evidence indicates that Plan B's ability to prevent pregnancy can be fully accounted for by mechanisms that do not involve interference with postfertilization events.

So much for the question of effect. But what about the other part of the moral equation: intent? The Vatican document, still referring to morning-after pills, says that "anyone who seeks to prevent the implantation of an embryo which may possibly have been conceived and who therefore either requests or prescribes such a pharmaceutical, generally intends abortion."

But a woman who requests a morning-after pill doesn't necessarily seek to prevent an embryo's implantation. In fact, as we just showed, it would be irrational of her to seek that effect, since no evidence supports it. In fact, given the evidence, it would make just as much sense for her to request the pill in order to prevent embryonic loss. And anyone who has ever taken a morning-after pill knows that at that moment, your actual intent is to avert pregnancy at the earliest possible stage of the process, which happens to be ovulation.

Bottom line: The perceptive analytical framework established by Dignitas Personae, combined with the best scientific evidence and analysis, clearly implies that morning-after pills are contraceptives, not interceptives. Therefore, from the standpoint of respecting embryonic life, you may take them in good conscience.

The Morning-After Myth

David Savage, one of my favorite legal writers, has a good story in the L.A. Times about President Bush's plan to protect medical employees from punishment when they refuse to violate their consciences. The idea sounds good till you read the details: The rule bars "any entity" that gets federal money (e.g., private companies that happen to be funded in part by a grant) from disciplining any employee, including one "whose task it is to clean the instruments." Savage reports:

Proponents, including the Christian Medical Assn. and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, say the rule is not limited to abortion. It will protect doctors who do not wish to prescribe birth control or to provide artificial insemination, said Dr. David Stevens, president of CMA. "The real battle line is the morning-after pill," he said. "This prevents the embryo from implanting. This involves moral complicity. Doctors should not be required to dispense a medication they have a moral objection to."

Hey, I'm all for respecting moral objections. Doctors are entitled to their own ethical judgments, regardless of what the medical establishment says. But they're not entitled to such defiance when the judgments in question are scientific. And what Dr. Stevens says about the morning-after pill—that it "prevents the embryo from implanting"—is such a gross misrepresentation that it's amazing he's in charge of any medical association.

Let's get clear on two important points. First, "morning-after" does not mean "after-fertilization." To repeat what I wrote about this two years ago:

An egg loses its fertility within 12 to 24 hours. It takes sperm about 10 hours to reach the egg, and sperm can survive in the female reproductive tract for up to five days. If you want to get pregnant, you'd better send in the sperm before the egg shows up. But if you don't want to get pregnant, and the sperm are on their way or already there, you still have time to stop the egg.

Second, of all the ways in which a morning-after pill might block pregnancy, preventing implantation is the least plausible. Chemically, a morning-after pill is a form of oral contraception. Here are the facts:

The risk that oral contraception will prevent implantation of an embryo is purely theoretical. There is no documented case of such a tragedy, since we have no way to verify conception inside a woman's body prior to implantation without causing the embryo's death. Even theoretically, the risk is vanishingly small, since the primary effect of oral contraception is to prevent ovulation, and the secondary effect is to prevent fertilization. To classify oral contraception as abortifacient, one would have to posit a scenario in which the drug fails to block ovulation, then fails to block fertilization, and yet somehow, having proved impotent at every other task, manages to prevent implantation.

So what Stevens says is, at a minimum, a gross distortion. And it's a particularly evil distortion because it steers women away, not from abortion, but from the measure that is at that moment most likely to prevent them from later resorting to an abortion. If I ran a medical facility and found out one of my doctors was feeding patients that kind of propaganda, I'd fire him. And the government, particularly a government that calls itself conservative, has no business standing in my way.