ligious beliefs. In contrast to the definitions that give support to pro-life individuals, proponents believe that there is little evidence that emergency contraceptives act as abortifacients. The supporters of emergency contraceptives, upon discovering the view of this drug treatment as an abortion agent, countered those claims. The counter-argument is two fold. The first part is medical research on the drug. Numerous supporters with medical background have written articles in respected journals such as the New England Journal of Medicine. For instance, Dr. Phillip Stubblefield, M.D. states that emergency contraceptives cannot be considered an abortion agent, medically speaking, because as illustrated by in vitro fertilization pregnancy cannot begin until implantation occurs. Therefore, since emergency contraceptives act before this point they are not abortifacients (Stubblefield 41). In addition, research indicates that oral contraceptives do not affect early stage fetuses (Federal). The other front that supporters defend their opinion on is on legal grounds. Their legal backing comes from examination of abortion laws throughout the world. For example, the Center for Reproductive Law and Policy complied a study of various abortion laws and found that even in countries with strict abortion laws emergency contraceptives are approved medical therapy (Center). Those who oppose these medications and even some supporters are concerned about the temptation of people to replace traditional, time-tested contraceptive with a quick two-dose treatment after intercourse. They cite three primary risks of replacing traditional birth control with emergency birth control. The first is reduced use of barrier devices, such as condoms, will increase the chances of contacting a STD. In addition, reports, like the one from the FDA, contain statements indicating the effectiveness of postcoital contraceptives is less than the effectiveness of ...
