Rape victims should carry to term: Christian Medical Association

Published 8/25/06

In the reports of the FDA’s approval of the over-the-counter sale of Plan B, the “morning-after pill,” you get the usual and expected comments from various groups, mixed in with the typical hyperbole and occasional ignorance of the facts.

But among the comments that have been reported, there’s one that struck me as a bit more telling. It comes from Dr. David Stevens, executive director of the Christian Medical Association, in a press release sent by the organization.

It says what you would expect it to say, including vague references to studies and the general comments about how bad Plan B is.
But then there’s this:

“We also question the FDA’s enforcement authority and ability to ensure that this scheme is followed. How does the FDA plan to prevent Plan B from being purchased by child predators and rapists and used to cover their crimes? How will it prevent an adult from purchasing the drug for a minor?” (Emphasis mine.)

Wait. The logic behind that statement is that a man could rape a child or a woman, then force her to take Plan B so there was no possiblity of a child being born — a child whose DNA could be used as evidence against the rapist.

In other words, rape victims who get pregnant should carry the baby to term so it can be used as evidence against the rapist.

One more time: According to the executive director of the Christian Medical Association, Plan B should not be available so that rape victims who become pregnant will carry their babies to term.

Just so we’re clear.

I can certainly understand someone having ethical objections to Plan B, or to any other drugs for that matter. I may think those objections are unfounded or silly, but we each have our own moral compass. But we also have to realize the implications of our positions.

Further, as I posted before, if groups like the CMA would get past the knee-jerk reaction to anything involving sex, they would realize that Plan B could be a good thing. By preventing conception, it prevents the creation of a human life by any definition, and so avoids the ethical dilemma of an abortion decision.

The Fray

3 responses (add yours)

Len says:

From what I uderstand Plan B doesn’t prevent conception, the combining of the egg and sperm, but it does prevent the fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus. The CMA fails to understand that if the victim gets pregnant there will be other evidence that will have DNA too, besides a fertilized egg. So their argument is nothing but smoke and mirrors for their real agenda.

August 25th, 2006 at 9:22 PM

Esby says:

What the CMA seems to miss is the fact that rapists usually DON”T CARE if the victim gets pregnant. Here is WA state it’s been available over the counter for a while, don’t seem to see a huge surge in use by women or for that matter I’ve yet to see in the Times that a victim was force to take a Plan B after she was raped. That would definitely make it into the Stranger’s ‘Last Days’.

August 31st, 2006 at 2:47 PM

Kaethe says:

Len, you have it backward: Plan B does prevent conception, specifically, it prevents an egg from being released. Not only does it not interfere with implantation, but the same hormones are given to women using IVF to promote successful implantation. You can learn more here.

I’m unaware of any case, ever, where a rapist was convicted using the DNA of the offspring resulting from that rape; I suspect the CMA is reaching a bit. It’s interesting that the CMA believes all children and women are unresponsive and incapable of testifying, let alone able to visit emeregency rooms where forensic evidence may be gathered. While some rapists do use condoms, many do not, and there is no evidence to support the idea that rapists would administer Plan B after the fact (two separate doses? $30?).

Interestingly, I agree with the CMA on this: “This ‘dual status’ scheme that the FDA has devised appears to be an entirely new type of approval that neither has been authorized by Congress nor subjected to a formal rule-making process. We anticipate questions as to whether the FDA has any legal authority to approve any drug in this manner”

They are right. This is something the FDA pulled out of a hat, because the had no medical reason whatsoever to withold Plan B from OTC status. It is clear from reading the press release that one should rely on medicine-based physicians, rather than faith-based ones. The doctor in question was totally wrong about how Plan B works.

September 1st, 2006 at 10:35 AM