Um... birth control pills prevent conception.

Not according to the anti-choice crew. Sometimes there is break-through ovulation and a fertilized ovum then fails to implant.

I haven't followed the most recent research but the last time I did it seems that nobody really knows if it really is true that the birth control pill makes the ovum harder to implant or not (in those rare cases where a fertilized egg would exist). The arguments are mostly speculative, except of course in the anti-contraception circles.

But doesn't it matter that the main point (or one of them) of the BC pill is to prevent ovulation to begin with??? So that negates the argument before it begins, really -- leaves those anti-choice/contraception folks without a leg to stand on. Sure, the other stuff about harder to implant IF one gets fertilized may be unsettled, but the point seems to be (and needs to be made, repeatedly, loudly) that preventing an egg from even being present is the goal.

I'm just saying when I read this post, ("All these methods prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg in a woman's uterus. They prevent pregnancy, but not conception.") it sure seems like you're conceding their point and giving it that leg to stand on. You've effectively, off-handedly, endorsed their nonsense here.

I'm waiting for Huckabee to come out against medicine itself for constantly intervening in God's plan.

I have to agree with KC, here: it sounds like you're asserting that hormonal birth control pills, EC, and IUDs work by preventing implantation. A more accurate way to say it would be "These methods may in some cases prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg in a woman's uterus. They may in some cases prevent pregnancy, but not conception." But even this statement is highly speculative.

Has anybody asked this hick what he actually thinks of contraceptives? Maybe Garance is confusing this guy with Pope Nazinger?

You people need to follow your anti-choicers more closely. I've been writing about this strain of their thinking since 1999, back when it was a fringe postion even within the pro-life movement. But it's become increasingly mainstream in recent years. Go to the American Life League site and read up on abortifacients if you want to understand their arguments and their code. According to ALL:

There is a legal link between some forms of contraception and abortion. The IUD, the birth control pill2, the morning-after pill regimen, Norplant, Depo-Provera, the Lunelle injectible, the patch and other such methods work not only to prevent conception but also to take the life of a preborn baby during his first few days of life.

That is their position and "life begins at conception" is code for "I agree with them." But you're right -- someone should ask him.

I can't find it, but I remember reading a very clever study in South America, where to figure out the morning after pill's mechanism to prevent pregnancy, women's ovulation was tracked and they used the morning-after pill as their only form of contraception.

The study found that if women took the pill after ovulation, it had no effect on pregnancy. But if they took it before ovulation, it pretty much stopped pregnancy.

So, the evidence is that the morning-after pill prevents pregnancy by delaying ovulation until after all the sperm are dead, as opposed to preventing implantation.

This is not to disagree with Garance's point, which is entirely accurate as a matter of politics. Huckabee clearly opposes the most commonly used forms of contraception such as birth control pills, IUDs, and the morning after pill, as well as RU-486 (which induces abortion) and medical abortion. That's because right-wingers routinely lie about the science on birth control, and state that it causes abortion when it does not.

I just thought we should be clear on the facts here. Huckabee is definitely saying he opposes the birth control pill, and doesn't think women should be allowed to use it. He is also mis-representing the science to justify his position.

Quick question:

I am on the birth control pill to control endometriosis. If I don't take the pill, the disease will get worse, causing me incredible pain and physical damage to my reproductive system that will render me sterile. It might also progress to other parts of my anatomy, leading to lesions and scarring of my liver, lungs, stomach, or other vital internal organs.

So, I take the pill to control the disease. But I also have sex with my husband. So, I guess I'm killing babies, according to Huckabee.

My question is where should the government intervene to protect my babies? Should they stop me from getting the pills I need for my health and future fertility? Or should they prevent my husband from having sex with me?

How would this be enforced?

Implantation can fail if you take the pill, just as it fails a very large percentage of the time if you don't, but I'm unaware of any study concluding that the pill makes implantation more likely to fail. If GFR knows of any evidence along these lines, she really should provide it.

Yeah. I don't think that "life begins at conception" is code for "I am opposed to all contraception." It might be code for "I am opposed to contraception that is abortifacient in nature," which they have been saying for way longer than 1999. I think they always have.

I think the left is over eager to whip up hysteria on this and similar matters. I don't like to say this, but it does call to mind hysteria a la Freud.

I also don't like to say this but it irritates me that young women never get to talk about anything except abortion, contraception, sex (always pro), childcare, and women's issues. In roughly that order-- although sex (since it went pro) seems to be making it's way up the list.

I can't imagine that anyone would voluntarily limit themselves to such a narrow slice of life. No wonder it's hysterical.

"it's time people started asking Republican opponents of birth control direct questions about on their positions and demand that they make their extremist positions clear to all the American people."

Oh, really. Because the media (1) does a really grand job of asking tough, serious questions, and (2) won't be deterred by the conservative reply, "How dare you question my religious beliefs, which you don't understand because you're an anti-religious liberal member of the MSM?" (granted, I'm blurring "people" above into "the media", and if that's *not* who we should expect to ask these questions, then some of my ire may be misplaced, but who else *does* ask questions and get press attention for them?)

I'd say it's time *Democrats* ran ads accusing conservatives of *holding* these beliefs, based on their *statements* and *votes*, but I won't be holding my breath, because Democrats are so eager to not insult any potential voter (as if there's a teeming mass of anti-contraception voters who'd *otherwise* vote Democratic, despite the protestations of professional anti-choice concern trolls like Melinda Henneberger), that they won't stand up for reproductive rights, even when they're widely accepted and taken for granted. The ideal ad might be: "Ask Mike Huckabee (or whoever) why he wants to ban condoms." -- which would ideally lead Huckabee (or whoever) to admit he endorses birth control of some sorts (thus displeasing his base), or that he actually does oppose condoms.

Seriously: this should be like Terri Schiavo, except about sex. Just because it might make some religious conservatives angry, and just because the media tells us the country is divided, does *not* mean that we should back off of the issue, and it especially does not mean that we should count on anyone else to shape the issue/message as we want.

The pill's primary mechanism of action is to prevent ovulation, not implantaion. As I said, there can be break-through ovulation -- as, for example, was experienced by a friend who got pregnant while on the pill. The odds are low but some women are just extremely fertile, it seems.

I don't think Huckabee would be opposed to barrier contraception, which is the traditional conservative Catholic position rather than the Baptist one.

Well, we ought to be able to get at least *one* of these guys to fall for that ("that" being the theory that *anything* that divorces sex from the risk of pregnancy/birth should be forbidden).

Maybe Brownback (as the conservative Catholic convert) is the better target for that particular question -- these guys don't seem inclined towards half-measures when it comes to pandering to the conservative anti-sex base. (though it *would* fit an implicit sexist double standard in a way to be bothered by the Pill/etc., but not by condoms; actually, I can imagine a number of gender-based hypocrisies that could apply)

As I said, there can be break-through ovulation -- as, for example, was experienced by a friend who got pregnant while on the pill. The odds are low but some women are just extremely fertile, it seems.

Of course, this is a counter-example to the idea that birth control pills prevent implantation of a fertilized ovum.

I understand that you understand how birth control pills et. all work, Garance; it's just that what you wrote in your post above makes it sound like you agree with (or at least don't question) the anti-choice propaganda about how these methods of contraception work.

Garance wrote:

"That is their position and "life begins at conception" is code for "I agree with them." But you're right -- someone should ask him."

This is one of the more unintentionally hilarious items I've read in a while. In other words, "Mike Huckabee definitely opposes some forms of contraception, and his line at the debate was code to the Christo-fascist underground movement that he is really on their side, but then again I have no idea what I am talking about, so yeah, maybe somebody should ask what his position actually is on contraception."

Solid analysis there Garance. Gee, how about looking at his record while he was Governor of Arkansas? Did he support legislation that would restrict the use of any kind of contraception?

Nope.

If you look at his website, he supports run-of-the-mill pro-life positions and the refunding of abstinence education (which I think is a bad idea). But nowhere does he mention that he would like to ban any kind of contraception.

'Life begins at conception' is an utterly banal observation that can found in your average embryology textbook, or is that a coded-message as well?

Garance is simply wrong about this. Many pro-lifers certainly do oppose contraception, and they certainly do have code phrases for that. But "life begins at conception" is not one of them.

"Life begins at conception" has been the stupid, simplistic, bumper sticker slogan of the pro-life movement since at least the mid-1970's. And when it was adopted, the pro-life groups that adopted it did ZERO work on contraception. I can see how one could argue that the phrase has IMPLICATIONS that extend to contraception-- but it isn't code. It's just their stupid slogan.

The blastocystophiles, upon whom irony is completely lost, have taken to heart George Orwell's observation that "The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one’s real and one’s declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish squirting out ink. In our age there is no such thing as 'keeping out of politics.' All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred and schizophrenia." Politics and the English Language, (1946).

To assert that "life begins at conception" leads to the further inquiry of how conception is defined. the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology takes the position that conception is the implantation of the fertilized ovum in the uterus. By this reasoning, contraceptive devices which block implantation do not destroy life.

Among other inquiries, Governor Huckabee and his fellow Republicans should be asked whether they contend that conception equals fertilization.

"Life begins at conception" is not code....it means he beleives that life begins at conception. I bet you are glad your mother didn't decide to have you sucked out after conception!