by Family Research Council
July 30, 2012
On June 5, 2012, New York Times writer Pam Belluck wrote an article called Abortion Qualms on Morning-After Pill May Be Unfounded. In her article, Belluck mistakenly lumps Plan B and ellatwo very different drugstogether, ignorantly proclaims that these drugs do not prevent implantation, and does not account for ellas abortion-inducing actions. Unsurprisingly, Belluck claims that the pro-life view of morning-after pills is probably rooted in outdated or incorrect scientific guesses about how [they] work. As she presents her devoid argument, Belluck argues that no studies have confirmed that emergency contraceptive pills prevent fertilized eggs from implanting in the womb and that these pills only delay ovulation. She heavily refers to a New York Times review, along with scientists and experts she forgets to cite, to support her view that Plan B does not prevent implantation and that the one-shot dose in morning-after pills does not have time to affect the uterine lining.
Disheartened by Bellucks reporting? Luckily, several renowned pro-life advocates have written articles against Bellucks dishonest claims:
Donna Harrison, The Timess Convolution of Facts on Abortifacients
Jeanne Monahan, Emergency Contraception: We need an unbiased review of the facts
Richard Doerflinger, Letter in Response to NY Times Article of June 6, 2012
Marie T. Hilliard, Are Journalists Now Scientists? A Reporter Loses Sight of Data on Plan B