To the Editors:
We would like to respond to Chris Galiardo's op-ed (The Dartmouth, Feb. 12). While we are in no way interested in starting a public debate about the relative merits of the "pro-life" and "pro-choice" camps, we are compelled to address a few of the more significant errors in Galiardo's article. Although his article raises some valid points about women's need for choices when facing pregnancy, such significant inaccuracies as we can only begin to address debilitate his argument and do an injustice to the larger issue.
He fallaciously claims that emergency contraception is a "chemical abortion." He is confusing, or deliberately confounding, these contraceptives with mifepristone (RU486), the abortion-inducing drug approved by the FDA in September 2000.
As its status as a "contraceptive" indicates, emergency contraception prevents conception. If conception has occurred before a woman receives help, taking the pills will neither abort, nor adversely affect the development of, her embryo. We believe that Galiardo needs to take a look at a biology text book; he will see that a woman does not, in fact, have unprotected sex one night and then wake up pregnant the next morning.
He criticizes the nurse for offering only emergency contraception to this young woman. The woman was not yet pregnant; talking to her about adoption, abortion, or childcare would have meant offering her treatment for a condition she did not have. The "morning-after" pill is an emergency dose of estrogen and progestin, the hormone components of common birth control pills. Offering such an emergency dose to a woman who was worried because she had recently stopped taking her birth control was the most logical (and the only available) course of action; she clearly was looking to avoid pregnancy and had no moral objections to hormonal contraceptives.
Galiardo's misrepresentation of pro-choice feminists borders on misogyny; he states that they are united by the chant "abortion, abortion, abortion," and presents a fantasy version of the history of the women's rights movement. To oversimplify the noble goals of equality and long history of steps taken in that direction that truly characterize the movement insults anyone with an interest in equal rights or a realistic perception of history.
In a perfect world, fail-safe contraception and a universal end to rape and incest would obviate the sad demand for abortions.
In the real world, however, the debate must continue.
Mr. Galiardo, refusing to educate yourself about the facts of the issue and instead relying on poorly-drawn metaphors (e.g. "diseased cattle") will never advance the debate towards your end. You should feel embarrassed.
