These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Contraception threatened by definition of conception.
    Journal: Contracept Technol Update; 1991 Sep; 12(9):140-3. PubMed ID: 12317310.
    Abstract:
    IUDs, oral contraceptives (OCs) and Norplant are all contraceptives that work primarily or part of the time as abortifacient because they do not prevent fertilization, but rather prevent implantation of the fertilized ovum. According to anti-abortion advocates, and a new Louisiana law, these methods are being used to perform abortions, not prevent conception. Anti-abortion groups charge that the pharmaceutical industry has successful redefined conception to mean implantation, rather than fertilization in order to sell contraceptives. They maintain that fertilization, not implantation, is the act of conception. Both the American Fertility Society and the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology consider conception to occur at the time of implantation. According to their definition, IUDs, OCs, and Norplant are clearly not abortifacient. Many health care professionals see the anti-abortion advocate's argument as religious, rather than scientific. Also, scientists and physicians distinguish between a fertilized egg and an embryo. This is a distinction that the anti-abortion advocates often fail to make.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]