Other antiabortion organizations blast emergency contraception as unsafe and immoral. "'Emergency contraception' is actually a misnomer, because the pill can actually serve as an abortion-inducing drug," claims Heather Cirno, spokeswoman of the conservative public policy organization Family Research Council, which opposes abortion in all cases, including rape and incest. "That's something that the abortion lobby doesn't talk to you about."

Two other leading pro-life organizations, American Life League and Concerned Women for America, are also strongly opposed to emergency contraception. Says Wendy Wright, spokeswoman for Concerned Women of America, "One of the ways the so-called emergency contraception works is by not allowing a life that has been conceived to implant in the woman's womb. Implantation is simply the process by which the new life gets nutrition; so it causes the death of that new life. It is an abortifacient.

"Birth control pills need a prescription," Wright adds. "What's happening with emergency contraception is that they are being handed out without a prescription. It's a higher dose of something else that requires a prescription for good reason. The groups promoting these morning-after pills are putting young women's lives and health at risk."

	Print story E-mail story

The Bush administration's stance on emergency contraception remains unclear. Although few observers think he would overtly try to overturn or gut Roe vs. Wade, Bush has taken a much harder antiabortion line than observers thought he would: His first significant act after being sworn in was to cut off funding to international organizations that provide abortions. And his appointment of antiabortion conservative Tommy Thompson as secretary of health and human services also worried pro-choice advocates.

But even if the Bush administration doesn't move directly to limit the use of emergency contraception, its aggressive funding of abstinence-only sex education is certain to make it less known to young women.

Right-to-life groups and conservative moralists worried about lax sexual behavior each have their own reasons for opposing emergency contraceptives. Right-to-lifers usually define pregnancy as beginning with conception: when the sperm penetrates the egg. So, in these conservatives' eyes, the morning-after pill is no different from RU-486, the notorious "abortion pill." (The medical community, by contrast, tends to define pregnancy as implantation -- when the fertilized egg implants itself into the uterine lining.) At a political level, emergency contraception represents the thin end of the wedge for right-to-lifers: If preventing a fertilized egg from implanting itself on the uterine wall is not considered an abortion, the antiabortion position could begin to erode. It's not the easiest position for antiabortion groups to argue: After all, many women might instinctively feel more comfortable knowing they had destroyed a tiny 16-cell blastocyst, which might or might not later have proved to be a viable embryo, than knowing that they had destroyed a 4-week-old fetus. On the other hand, the issue's low profile works in the pro-lifers' favor: If such a small percentage of the population is even aware of emergency contraception, who would even notice if it's gone?

As for the moralists, they believe that emergency contraception is bad for the same reason that frank sex education is bad: In their minds, it encourages unwanted behavior. Attitudes toward the morning-after pill neatly reflect one of the great divides in the culture wars: One group favors teaching kids what can happen if they have sex and providing emergency contraception, while the other preaches abstinence and hopes that teenagers will stop having sex.

Order "Mothers Who Think: Tales of Real-Life Parenthood" from the editors of Mothers Who Think.