Mr Rees-Mogg, a practising Catholic who has previously expressed a strong anti-abortion viewpoint, replied: “The right honourable lady cannot expect me to speak in favour of abortifacients.”
He’s right that the morning after pill is an abortifacient. Also that, from his starting point, he’s not going to speak in favour.
Anything else?
“The end of the grossly sexist surcharge on emergency contraception, involving a huge mark-up on a product only women need, is a victory.” Surely BPAS need to get with the program don’t they realise men can get pregnant too. Surely they need to be cancelled
I have no problem with JRM sticking to his principles, what I don’t understand is why the demand Boots drops its prices. If you can buy for a quarter of the price elsewhere, just boycott Boots FFS and let the market do its thing.
“It’s not an abortifacient, it’s just a morning-after pill.”
“It’s not a fetus, it’s a product of conception”
“It’s not a baby, it’s a neonate”
Thank you Wack. +100%
I hadn’t thought of that one.
has previously expressed a strong anti-abortion viewpoint
What’s “strong” doing there? Can one have a mild anti-abortion viewpoint?
What happens if you take the “Morning After” pill immediately before sex? Or immediately after? Does it still work?
“He’s right that the morning after pill is an abortifacient.”
Citation needed. It prevents implantation by effectively starting a period. It doesn’t terminate an implanted and in-progress pregnancy because there is no implanted and in-progress pregnancy.
What’s “strong” doing there? Can one have a mild anti-abortion viewpoint?
Pvt Godfrey: My sister Dolly and I thought it might be awfully nice if you kept the baby.
Pvt Fraser: Abort that wee bairn and you’ll go te gaol. Aye, and then you’ll burrrn in hell for eternity.
What’s “strong” doing there? Can one have a mild anti-abortion viewpoint?
Yes: “Don’t you think this particular method of “contraception” has become wholly obsolete nowadays?”
@RlJ
What happens if you take the “Morning After” pill immediately before sex?
Somebody else gets pregnant. (cf God of Hangovers)
“ a product only women need” I think the father being responsible for support payments means they may well have a need for the product even if they aren’t the one taking it
@jgh
It’s commonly claimed by pro morning after pill people that “abortofacient” is a myth. https://onlinedoctor.lloydspharmacy.com/uk/contraception-advice/morning-after-pill-myths#myth-using-emergency-contraception-is-the-same-as-getting-an-abortion
The usual argument is that it prevents ovulation so that the egg doesn’t get fertilised. But if you go on to read the rest it also says it can work by preventing an egg from implanting after fertilisation. Now I know that’s what you said too, but you’re very much defining the start of pregnancy from implantation. I’m pretty sure OGH and JRM would define life as starting from conception.
Perhaps that makes them weird and the minority view. But if actively preventing a fertilised egg from coming to term isn’t an abortion what is it? It isn’t “emergency” contraception because conception has already happened in that case. (That tagline really refers to slowing or preventing ovulation, which is a mechanism that does prevent fertilisation. But that’s not the only way the morning after pill works.) And okay, we all know that not all fertilised eggs successfully implant and go on to become baby humans anyway, but JRM/OGH’s point of the morning after pill is that you’re actively trying to prevent that occurring even if conception has already occurred. In that sense the “abortofacient” label seems hard to argue with.
Thanks Anon for reasoning it out for me.