I’ve had college biology classes, and as part of my degree in education for those with special needs, I’ve had to learn, and have to keep abreast of new knowledge about human development from before the moment of fertilization. The technical term we used for fertilization was “conception.” I assumed that everyone (“laymen”) knew was “conception” is, being one of the few bits of jargon that’s in widespread use.

But recently, in conversations with two intelligent Catholic women who have had some college (but couldn’t continue due to finances), they used the term “conception” in a way that raised a flag for me.

I asked the younger woman (age 31) to define her meaning, and she quoted a dictionary that defines “conception” as “implantation of the fertilized ovum in the endometrium; pregnancy.”

The conversation I had with the older woman (age 59-60) began when I cautioned her that a certain product may have been developed through experimentation with fetal stem cells from the infamous Stem Cell Lines — research on which was promoted as beneficial for the purpose of preventing and curing disease,  but in this case was used commercially in anti-aging products. She asked if the product included aborted fetal cells, and I answered that as far as I knew the stem cells came from those stem cell lines that were derived from unused frozen embryos. She brushed off all concern at that and brought up the topic hormonal birth control pills including the morning after pill, and said, “People who say those are forms of abortion have it wrong, because abortion can’t occur if there’s not a conception, and even the morning after pill is taken before conception occurs because the egg hasn’t implanted!”

This indicates a need to start using the term “fertilization” so that laymen truly understand the Church’s position and actual biological fact.

Incidentally, all of my biology teachers were against hormonal birth control. The first point they brought up was the deception from the medical community and its impact not only on those of religious faith, but all women and men of conscience. Even the atheist promoted informed consent, in which a woman being prescribed the Pill would be informed explicitly that the Pill does NOT prevent conception (fertilization) and may act as an abortifacient if conception (fertilization) occurs. To the atheist biology professor, it was merely a matter of ethics to promote the individual’s right to freedom to use reason and be guided by conscience. To the Baptist and Catholic biology professors, it was a moral imperative to grant this right.

The secondary point was their primary concern: Women’s health, including the health of their young female students. Again, they discussed deception from the medical community, such as the caveat, “The Pill may increase the risk of blood clot and stroke, so if you use it, you should not smoke.” My professors claimed (and from what I’ve read in the research since then) SMOKING IS NOT A FACTOR — in other words, a woman who smokes while taking the Pill is not at higher risk than a woman who does NOT smoke while taking the Pill: their risk is about equal,  the difference being too negligible to be statistically significant. But by phrasing the warning as they do, the medical and pharmacology professions deceptively impart a feeling of security from risk among Pill users who don’t smoke. That’s especially dangerous, because those women won’t be as likely to take their symptoms seriously or obtain medical intervention in time. And all of my professors had students who had suffered debilitating stroke, even when hormone levels were supposedly “safe.” They also raised a concern about the accuracy of statistics, because not everything gets reported to CDC — they knew from experience how easy it is to “bury the bodies.” Their caution: assume about a 1/3 higher risk than is reported, especially when there’s a lot at stake.

This caution also applies to the “effectiveness” rate, claimed to be 95-99%. At the time I was taking college classes, I already knew a number of women who knew they hadn’t missed a dose and had taken it religiously at the same time each day, yet became pregnant. My bio profs noted this common experience, and discussed how it’s dismissed from official statistics as “anecdote,” on the basis that patients are unlikely to be truthful AND the real world isn’t a controlled laboratory setting, so you can’t count what really happens. But you CAN base advice to patients on what happens in the controlled world of the laboratory, and you can call it “reliable” and “factual.”

Since that time, I’ve known a lot more children who have come into the world despite their mothers’ use of the Pill. Sadly, I’ve also known more women who have been rendered infertile by hormonal birth control that stops ovulation for months at a time.

I see hormonal birth control as a war on women.

Clare & Pat