Even More Evidence That the BCP Causes Unrecognized Abortions

Pop Star’s Use of Salvia Puts Hallucinogen in the Spotlight
February 18, 2011
Physical activity helps improve walking speed in those with osteoarthritis
February 21, 2011
Show all

Even More Evidence That the BCP Causes Unrecognized Abortions

I’ve published two academic articles on the likely association between the birth control pill (BCP) and unrecognized abortions (the so-called “post-fertilization effect” of the pill):

My friend, pro-life physician and researcher Chris Kahlenborn, MD, recently wrote this to me regarding a study showing that women on the pill ovulate frequently while taking the BCP:

In Table 4, you will see that the estimated ovulation rate for triphasic oral contraceptives (OCs) is between 13% and 19% after the first cycle.

Although it’s impossible to say for sure, I think most would agree that with a high rate of break-through ovulation, it means you are either having a lot of early abortions or that these oral contraceptives are stopping all sperm all the time in the other ovulatory cycles which did not visibly register as pregnancy.

My logic is that since we know women get pregnant on the pill, in those cycles, the mucus did not stop the sperm so we know that sperm can get through at times.

But what if women ovulates on the pill and we do not detect a visible pregnancy?  It seems logical to me that the conditions on the sperm were similar (ie, in both cases ovulation occurred) and so the hormone levels in the  body and the effects on the cervical mucus are likely very similar; therefore, sperm are likely getting through in the latter situation also, which tends to indict early abortion as a likely method of action.

Bottom line: with a high rate of break-through ovulation, I think it’s disingenuous to assume that OCs prevent pregnancy by stopping the sperm all the time.

I think anyone with a hint of intellectual honesty would agree that the potential for early abortion is very high, given the high rate of break-through ovulation.

I think if you told the average lay person that you still ovulate 15% of the time on the pill and told them that it’s very likely that at least some sperm get through with each sexual intercourse, many would wonder what is happening to the baby.

Hope this helps … note also that this paper was funded by Johnson and Johnson, a contraceptive manufacturer … if the drug companies are are discovering the high rate of ovulation, I think it the least we can do it think about their study’s implications.l

I do think that one day if someone does a study with early pregnancy factor, it will show that OCs cause early abortions.

However, even then, with good biochemical proof, docs (even, unfortunately, many Christian doctors) will likely thumb their noses.

There is no logic with evil as pride clouds even the brightest minds.

Feel free to pass on to whomever wants to read this explanation.

Maybe some OB/Gyns will read it and think or more importantly, pray over it.  It’s a huge challenge for them, but they will sleep more tightly once they begin to look into it and ask God for help.

Here are some of my other blogs and writings on this very important topic:

2 Comments

  1. Andrew says:

    Hello Dr. Walt Larimore, I am a Protestant new to this topic of birth controls as abortifacients. I have been reading your blog posts, Alcorn’s articles and books and I saw the documentary 28 days on the pill. It looks like your last posts on this topic were from 2011. Have you posted anything new since that time? Since 2011, have you seen any developments in this area that have strengthened or weakened the arguments on either side? My wife is a licensed, practicing OB/GYN who is the medical director in her hospital. We are very interested in this topic. Please let me know if you are aware of any updates on this since 2011? Has AAPLOG, or any similar org, ever published anything in a peer reviewed journal to challenge your or Dr. Stanford? If you’d like feel free to email me. Thank you for your service.

    • Hello Andrew,

      Thanks for your note. And, no, I’ve not researched or published in the arena of the association of birth control and post-conception (abortificient) effects in over 10 years. I’ve also not seen much in the literature on the topic recently, but again, it’s not a topic I’m keeping up with these days.

      Four AAPLOG physicians disagreed with the literature review published by Joseph B. Stanford, MD, MSPH, CFCMC, and myself. They also disagreed with Randy Alcorn and my publications together. My understanding is that their counter-arguments were never accepted for publication in the peer-reviewed medical literature.

      Randy and I published pieces in a bioethics journal (Larimore WL, Alcorn R. Using the birth control pill is ethically unacceptable. In: Bevington LK, DiSilvestro R (eds.). The pill: Addressing the scientific and ethical questions of the abortifacient issue. The Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity. Chicago, IL. 2003:36-45) in which the AAPLOG physicians published their opinions. The entire journal is online here: https://www.cbhd.org/cbhd-resources/the-pill-addressing-the-scientific-and-ethical-questions-of-the-abortifacient-issue.

      To find out what, if anything, is new in this arena, consider contacting Joseph B. Stanford, MD, MSPH, CFCMC, who is now Professor, Vice Chair for Research, and Director of the Office of Cooperative Reproductive Health, Division of Public Health, Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, University of Utah School of Medicine. He is Adjunct Professor in the Departments of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Pediatrics.

      Do let me know what you learn and blessings on the journey.

      Walt

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.