Skip to comments.Woman Kills Wrongly-Implanted Embryos with Morning-After Pill
Posted on 06/29/2010 4:02:55 PM PDT by wagglebee
HARTFORD, Connecticut, June 29, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) In a disastrous chain of events, a set of wanted embryos quickly became unwanted after an artificially impregnated women was informed by her fertility clinic that they had accidentally implanted the embryos of another woman by the same name.
The womans solution was to take the morning-after pill (which, ironically, pro-abortion forces insist is simply a form of contraception and cannot cause an abortion) and abort the nascent life within her.
The Associated Press reports that the Center for Advanced Reproductive Services at the University of Connecticut Health Center has agreed to pay a $ 3,000 fine over the incident, which took place last April, according to state health records.
Apparently, a lab technician had removed a batch of human embryos from the storage freezer without following proper procedure. She only matched the last name, but forgot to crosscheck with the last four digits of the womans social security number and the medical record number.
The lab technician discovered the error a day later but by then it was too late. The woman had already been implanted with another clients embryos, which had been on ice for approximately four years.
After being told about the error one hour after having the embryos implanted within her, the woman then decided she did not want to carry someone elses baby, and took the morning-after pill.
Bioethicist Wesley J. Smith commented on his blog about the event, saying it illustrates not only how children have come to be treated as a commodity through in vitro fertilization, but also how this process can sometimes snare would-be birth and biological parents in terrible, heart wrenching circumstances.
The center has insisted that the mix-up is the first ever in their 24-year history, calling it important and emotionally difficult for patients and center alike.
Smith, however, pointed out that mix-ups have happened before at IVF clinics although in at least one extraordinary case the birth mother made a painful, but life-affirming choice. Sean and Carolyn Savage of Ohio found out last year that their IVF clinic had transferred the wrong embryos. The Savages, however, refused to abort on account of their pro-life religious beliefs, and arranged to hand over the baby to his biological parents shortly after the birth.
When the mistake was discovered in that case, the birth mother and her husband chose life for someone elses baby, remarked Smith. Which choice reflects unconditional love?
Carolyn Savage told Meredith Vieira of the TODAY Show back in September that the hardest experience would be the delivery of the child, where she would only have a chance to say hello and goodbye.
Of course, we will wonder about this child every day for the rest of our lives, she added. We just want to know hes healthy and happy.
A follow-up with the TODAY Show in May, revealed that the baby Carolyn Savage carried to term was born Logan Morell, now approximately 8 months old. The Savages and the Morells have become friends through the painful experience. However the Savages declined to appear on the TODAY Show, saying that the months following Logans birth have been much more difficult for them to deal with than they expected, but they hope to write about their experiences in a book for 2011.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
Maybe this is why God is allowing us to reap the harvest we are sowing. James Dobson said one year, that the number of babies being sought by infertile couples was the same number as those being aborted [by a mother who didn’t want them-my comment].
So what about the mother of the children that were mistakenly implanted?
All in a day’s work in a culture of death.
“Woman Kills Wrongly-Implanted Embryos with Morning-After Pill”
Should read: “Woman Kills Living Human Beings with Morning-After Pill”
yes and what a handle....RU-486....as if a question mark belongs after the name.
A baby is murdered EVERY 24 SECONDS in the United States.
This going sound cold
Least she cut out the Middleman
Statistically, it is extremely improbable that the morning-after pill (which is a very high dose of hormonal birth control) could be abortive. The chance is not zero, but it is possible that it could be taken in such a way that it fails at preventing ovulation (depending on where the woman is) or preventing fertilization (the other most common effect) but somehow works to prevent the fertilized egg from implanting. This is technically possible, though only if taken very late relative to sex (near or past the end of the 72-hour window).
The morning-after pill has NEVER been stated to act on an implanted embryo, which is what this story claims. If this is true, this would be a scandal of massive proportions. The way this story is written makes the events impossible by known science. It’s most likely misreported and the truth is probably the woman took not the morning-after pill but an actual abortifacient like RU-486.
Well, she spared herself that.
I wonder if she the type that would sue the clinic for damages probably
If you take 3-4 birgh control pills, you have the morning after pill.
That’s what my then doctor girl friend said.
Way way back
See. I hope this “healthcare” is affordable.
I hear that that back in da day before RU 486
“University of Connecticut Health Center has agreed to pay a $ 3,000 fine over the incident”
pay a fine — that’s it — now move on, nothing to see here.
btw who gets fine monies, not the patient, the govt !!
Evil science evil medicine.
What a sad story...once again the innocent are expendable
Exactly, I can hear the clinic now, “unfortunately we put the ‘wrong’ baby in you, but we’re going to kill it at no charge.”
The morning after pill makes the woman shed the lining in her uterus because of the massive dose of hormones. If there is an embryo that is beginng to attach it would cause it to be shed too.
It doesn't. This woman wasn't pregnant, any more than the test tube the embyro had just come from was "pregnant". She just had an unimplanted embryo floating around loose inside her.
LifeSite is, as usual, distorting facts in the interest of maximum sensationalism. They use the term "implanted" repeatedly in the article, even though they surely know (unless they're just totally clueless about all of this stuff) that the embryo had only been *transferred*. Transfer comes first, and then the hope (in normal cases) is that implantation will subsequently occur (in a few days), but often it doesn't. Same as with natural conceptions -- a fertilized egg floating down the fallopian tube into the uterus may implant at which point the woman becomes pregnant; but very often it does not implant, and the woman never becomes pregnant.
*Nothing* causes abortion in a woman who isn't pregnant.
Sorry, Bud, but you are the one who’s wrong.
You are spouting the Planned Parenthood line, that pregnancy begins when the embryo attaches to the uterine wall.
That’s NEVER been the definition of pregnancy. It’s a cheap PP propaganda schtick.
Long before attachment to the uterus the woman’s body is doing all sorts of stuff in response to the fertilization of the ovum. Her body knows darn well that she’s pregnant, long before implantation in the uterine wall.
Be a mouthpiece for PP if you want to, but be honest about it and admit that’s what you are doing.
No, what's going on here is that LifeSite is deliberately misusing terms in order to excite their largely ignorant readership, which will then provide LifeSite with more revenue. Read the article again. The claim is that the clinic "implanted" the embryos, and an hour later, told her the wrong embryos had been used and offered her the morning-after pill. No clinic has the capability to "implant" embryos, and no embryo has the capability to implant within an hour of being transferred (or of arriving naturally) into the uterus.
The woman had a loose embryo floating around in her uterus, and the morning-after pill ensured that it would never implant (though there was a much better than even chance that it wouldn't have implanted anyway).
It was true then, and it still is (though since today’s birth control pills are lower-dose than those “way way back”, you’d need a couple extra for reliable effect).
Wonder if she will be charged with murder since, technically, it was not HER right to choose.
Actually, it's always been the definition of pregnancy, everywhere except extremist "pro-life" NON-medical circles. Refer to any obstetrics and gynecology textbook if you don't believe me.
Long before attachment to the uterus the womans body is doing all sorts of stuff in response to the fertilization of the ovum. Her body knows darn well that shes pregnant, long before implantation in the uterine wall.
No, her body knows nothing of the sort. You're showing your ignorance with this statement. If the lining of the uterus is *already* expressing a certain carbohydrate molecule (which is only expressed for a few days in each cycle), then a normal embryo will react to the presence of that carbohydrate by beginning the implantation process, and triggering further responses from the uterine lining. The woman's body has no reaction to the presence of the embryo prior to the initiation of the implantation process, and in the earliest stages the physical changes are still very localized to a tiny area of the uterine lining (which is not a permanent part of the body).
The presence of an embryo is not able to cause the expression of the necessary carbohydrate, and one element of the "rhythm method" of birth control is timing sex long enough after ovulation that the normal uterus will no longer be capable of implantation, even though the egg can still be fertilized for a bit longer.
If you really care about these things, why not read up on them from actual medical sources?
You do sound like Planned Parenthood. The definition of embryo.
human offspring in initial developmental stage: a human offspring in the early stages following conception up to the end of the eighth week, after which it is classified as a fetus
I have said it before, every one of your posts that I read sounds liberal.
Are you for eighty-sixing your child?
One thing that we have to unfortunately keep in mind is that they have defined pregnancy to begin at implantation, so technically, they can say that the morning after pill and some forms of birth control do not cause abortions because implantation occurs 2 weeks after onception. The life a person starts at conception, so these pills (the morning after especially) do end human lives.
“Are you 4, 8, 16, 32 . . . sick?”
That’s how it struck me. “You’re sick with the population explosion.”
They define pregnancy at implantation, so that is how they can dance around the fact that these pills can prevent a newly concieved life from implanting. If you believe that life begins at conception, then you believe these pills can end a human life.
This is exactly why this clinic gave her the morning after pill. If the embryos had implanted, they would have given her RU486 or an abortion at a clinic.
I’m a little off on the science. It’s not quite 2 weeks. It’s actually around 7-10 days. My bad.
I did not know (though I suspected) that fertility clinics do not have the ability to implant an embryo. You are correct, of course, and this would explain why fertility clinics have such a relatively low success rate. An embryo left by itself, as fertility clinics apparently do, will likely not implant anyway.
Things like this bother me because it’s largely sophomoric and sensational reporting that borders on (if not crosses into) ignorance. I oppose abortion in all cases and will acknowledge that in very rare cases even the morning-after pill can be abortive. I stress very rare, as I have attempted to break this down in other topics in the past.
I just think this sort of pseudo-tabloid reporting does a disservice to the movement in general.
I have acknowledged in the past (and even in this thread) that the morning-after pill can, in extremely rare cases, be considered abortive. I was taking issue with the article itself misusing the term implantation and the subsequent comments labeling the morning-after pill as something it is not.
The primary purposes of the morning-after pill are 1) the prevention of ovulation and 2) the prevention of fertilization. The morning-after pill is abortive if and only if it has failed to do its job on counts 1 and 2 but somehow does its job on count 3, which is the prevention of implantation. If you’re going to make a statement like “these pills do end human lives” then you should be making the same claim about any routine medical procedure involving anesthesia.
Just some medical clarification for those who are making wrong assumptions, INCLUDING the author of this article:
A doctor TRANSFERS the embryos into the woman’s uterus. He does not, nor can he, IMPLANT the embryos into the uterus.
Embryos in a uterus might be no good. Their chromosomes are often (roughly 50% of the time) not compatible with growth to the 13th week of pregnancy. Very often, they are not even able to implant for that reason or another, like poor uterine lining or other defects in the uterus. Most embryos finding themselves in a uterus do NOT become babies.
Implantation, or, rather, the hormones the embryo gives off thereafter is the first sign of pregnancy. While the woman being told she had the wrong embryos in her, was pregnant until proven otherwise, no test on earth in those 24 hours could have determined pregnancy in her. Technically, she really wasn’t yet.
The thing with the morning after pill is that no one will ever be able to know whether it caused an abortion or not. It is preventing the living embryo from implantation. I do not believe in such a thing, but I think people need to know the real scoop medically.
Implantation is one of the hardest tasks of an embryo. MOST DO NOT MAKE IT, even when naturally conceived.
You're splitting hairs.
Ethinyl estradiol and levonorgestrel are used together in this product as an emergency contraceptive (EC) to prevent pregnancy after contraceptive failure or unprotected intercourse. Ethinyl estradiol and levonorgestrel prevent ovulation (the release of an egg from an ovary), disrupt fertilization (joining of the egg and sperm), and inhibit implantation (attachment of a fertilized egg to the uterus).
At the very bottom of the page, after repeatedly stating that it won't terminate a pregnancy and isn't harmful if you're pregnant, it says: You should not take Plan B® One-Step if you are already pregnant.
Right, that’s the third function, so it is designed to end a human life if the first two mechanisms fail.
Shameful. I guess “any” baby wouldn’t do.
What a tangled web we weave, when we try to artificially conceive.
Actually, that's not true. For an embryo to be "left by itself" is exactly what nature does -- it's fertilized in the fallopian tube, and then is essentially dumped into the uterus, where it may or may not ever implant. IVF puts it in the same place, just via a different route.
The "relatively low" success rates of most fertility clinics are due to the fact that most of their patients are people who have been trying for a long time, both the natural way, and with non-invasive methods (e.g. just taking pills to promote ovulation), and have not been able to have a baby yet. Most of them have serious and/or complex problems impairing their fertility (sometimes involving a combination of male and female problems), and the science and technology haven't advanced yet to where these problems can be reliably overcome.
If you look at certain subsets of IVF patients/treatments, you'll see that the fertility clinics' success rates are right up there with nature's success rates (which are nowhere near as high as most people imagine). For women not beyond their early 30s, whose only "problem" is that they got their tubes tied (or blocked by a previous infection or tubal pregnancy), the overall success rate is virtually 100% -- usually takes 2-3 rounds of IVF to get a baby, but that's the same with natural conceptions. Most couples don't establish a viable pregnancy in the first month of actively "trying" the natural way, because the majority of naturally fertilized eggs don't progress all the way to the live birth stage -- most of the ones that don't either fail to implant or stop developing before the woman even knows she's pregnant. The IVF success rates are virtually identical for older women (even to age 50 and above) using donor eggs from younger donors. So IVF technology itself has reached a point where it's on a par with nature. But a majority of the patients doing IVF have little to no chance of having a baby the natural way, and thus statistically, IVF (even using their own eggs/sperm) provides a very significant boost in their success rates, despite the success rates being low in comparison to those of young healthy couples using either natural means or IVF.
Another interesting aspect is that some women have cycle irregularities that cause the implantation-receptive stage of the uterus to never coincide with the time when a naturally ovulated/fertilized egg will reach the uterus. This type of problem can be corrected by IUI or IVF (and sometimes by even less invasive methods). A narrower category of patients have what is known in Orthodox Jewish circles as "halachic infertility" -- i.e. they're only infertile due to following Orthodox Jewish law about the required delay between the end of the menstrual period and the resumption of sexual relations. If they'd have sex sooner after their period ends, they'd get pregnant the natural way, but they won't. There are some large Orthodox Jewish families out there whose children are entirely the result of IUI or IVF intervention to get around this problem (usually only IUI is needed). http://www.jewishwomenshealth.org/article.php?article=9 If you read through the gory details of the relevant Jewish law ( http://www.jewishwomenshealth.org/article.php?article=12 ), you'll marvel that Orthodox Judaism hasn't completely died out (and in fact, I strongly suspect that many individual lines DID die out on account of this, leaving few women in these communities who are naturally prone to cycle parameters that leave no intersection between following the mind-boggling law and capacity to reproduce).
Then obviously you don't read any of my posts about RKBA, or public schools, or prosecution/punishment of criminals, or federal income taxes, or "welfare", or private property rights, . . .
It's not that "they" have defined pregnancy as beginning at implantation. That's simply the biological reality. Pregnancy is a condition of a woman, not of a fertilized egg or embryo.
As demonstrated by IVF, conception can occur outside the body, and in fact the embryo can develop outside the body to as far as the blastocyst stage without any ill effects, because it is inherently an independent entity through that stage. Nobody is pregnant when an embryo is in a petri dish dividing up to the blastocyst stage. At that stage (with or without an interruption of decade or more, while it sits in a freezing nitrogen tank), you could still randomly transfer it into any one of a group of women whose uterine linings are at the right stage, and have an equal chance of any one of those *women* becoming pregnant. But until it forms a functioning connection to a uterine lining, none of the women are pregnant.
While I don't share the views of most here, that early embryos should be regarded as full-fledged human beings, I respect intelligent arguments in support of that position. What I don't respect is people throwing around baseless accusations in an attempt to promote that position. Defining pregnancy as beginning at implantation is not some conspiracy by people who don't think embryos should be considered as being on a par with fully developed humans who have been born and no longer have or require a physical connection to their birth mother. It's a biological fact that is fully understood, accepted, and taught by all well-informed biologists and physicians, including those who *do* believe that a just-fertilized egg has the ethical status of, and should have the legal status of a young child.
Beginning of pregnancy controversy
However, as often is the case in contentious issues, such as abortion and contra-ception, what is clear is made ambiguous. The dirty little word game is that when Family Planning advocates use the word “conception,” they mean the entire process from when the egg and ovum combine (fertilization) through the point at which the fertilized ovum attaches to the wall of the mother’s uterus (implantation). Under this definition, a “contraceptive” cannot only prevent sperm and ovum from meeting (as a condom clearly would) but also prevent a fertilized ovum from attaching to the uterine wall.
The word game here is that as long as the fertilized ovum has not attached to the uterus, the mother technically is not yet pregnant. Thus defined, some, hormonal contraceptives (including Barr Pharmaceutical’s “Plan B”) and Inter Uterine Devices (IUDs) simply “prevent pregnancy.” At least Barr Pharmaceutical’s web site is forthright in stating “Plan B may also work by preventing it [the fertilized ovum] from attaching to the uterus (womb).”
And he is right. What a horrible thing has happened here.
Why do you even care what causes abortion?
You don’t have any problems with abortion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.