In FRC Blog
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 Ella—two very
different drugs—together, ignorantly proclaims that these drugs do not
prevent implantation, and does not account for Ella’s 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morning-after pills “is probably rooted in outdated or incorrect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 empty
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 Belluck’s reporting? Luckily, several renowned
pro-life advocates have written articles against Belluck’s dishonest
claims:
Donna Harrison, The Times’s Convolution of Facts on Abortifacients
Gerard Nadal, Responding to the New York Times on ‘Morning After’ Pills: A Factual Recalibration (Part I)
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
