To the Editor:
I consider myself a fairly well-educated woman in the area of reproductive physiology and pregnancy prevention. Thus, I was a little surprised when Chris Galiardo '06 made the rather sweeping claim that "emergency contraception is actually a chemical abortion." (The Dartmouth, Feb. 12) I thought that the morning-after pill acted to prevent fertilization by delaying ovulation (the same mechanism by which the birth control his undercover reporter claimed to have already used works). Rather than immediately respond to his inflammatory editorial, I figured I should probably admit that there might be some validity to his claim and research it myself since there are apparently "medical studies" confirming this fact. A review of some of the literature available suggests that the morning-after pill can work through three mechanisms: prevention of ovulation, prevention of transport of sperm or ova, and prevention of implantation. Granting Galiardo the fact that some may consider fertilization to be the moment of conception (rather than implantation or maternal recognition of pregnancy which occur later), I'm willing to admit that prevention of implantation could be considered abortion. However, I still would argue that it is inappropriate, inaccurate and deceiving to equate all instances of morning-after pill use to chemical abortion. Chemical abortion, in most instances, refers to the use of RU-486 (mifepristone and misoprostol) or methotrexate. Although I don't agree with the premise of Galiardo's argument, I do believe that he is fully entitled to express his own view but he should not attempt to sway others by using false information or broad generalizations. Additionally, I would hope that the women of Dartmouth are smart and resourceful enough not to be "herded into abortion clinics or duped into swallowing dangerous poisons to induce a chemical abortion."
