What is Abolitionists United?

Contraception—from contra, meaning “against,” and ception, referring to conception—refers to methods intended to prevent pregnancy. Contraception is also commonly referred to as birth control. In the context of prenatal development, pregnancy is the biological process between conception (fertilization) and birth. Fertilization occurs when the father’s sperm fertilizes the mother’s egg, producing a new, genetically distinct human organism—an individual human being. Because human life begins at fertilization, our concern is not merely whether a method is labeled “contraception” or “birth control.” Our concern is how the method actually works.

There has been significant confusion in recent decades over the terms conception, pregnancy, and contraception. Historically and biologically (and still commonly today), conception has been understood to refer to fertilization. However, several modern organizations and bodies in favor of legalized abortion now frequently define pregnancy as beginning at implantation rather than fertilization. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) redefined pregnancy as beginning with implantation in 1965, which has led many modern sources to frequently use implantation-based definitions. Under that terminology, a method can still be described as “contraceptive” even if it may act after fertilization by preventing implantation. The Prenatal Rights Initiative rejects that framing. If a human being already exists at fertilization, then a method that prevents fertilization is morally different from a method that acts against an already-conceived embryo. We thus consider "contraceptives" that have a well-established and intended mechanism of inhibiting implantation to be abortifacients, and we oppose their production and availability within the context of pregnancy "prevention."

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

MECHANISMS OF ACTION

1. Preventing Ovulation: Stops the release of an egg from the ovaries. If no egg is released, fertilization cannot occur. This is non-abortifacient.

2. Preventing Fertilization: Prevents sperm from reaching or fertilizing the egg. This is non-abortifacient.

3. Inhibiting Implantation: Creates or contributes to a uterine environment in which an already-fertilized embryo cannot implant and continue living. Under PRI’s standard, this is abortifacient.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

METHODS WE SUPPORT

The following methods act before fertilization. They do not act by killing or endangering an already-conceived human embryo. They do not have any potential negative impact on implantation. These methods are properly contraceptive in the strict sense because they prevent conception rather than acting after conception. We support their availability and production.

• Abstinence

• Natural family planning / fertility awareness / cycle tracking

• Male condoms

• Female condoms

• Vaginal sponges

• Spermicide

• Cervical caps and shields

• Diaphragms

• Sterilization, including vasectomy and tubal ligation

• Levonorgestrel emergency contraception (Plan B One-Step)
  Levonorgestrel is a synthetic progestin used in emergency contraception. The best current evidence indicates that levonorgestrel emergency contraception works by delaying or inhibiting ovulation before fertilization can occur. If levonorgestrel worked by preventing implantation, it would be expected to reduce pregnancy rates when taken after ovulation. However, the current evidence indicates that levonorgestrel taken after ovulation does not reduce pregnancy rates compared with controls. In 2022, the FDA updated Plan B’s labeling to remove language suggesting that it may inhibit implantation, and a major review by Endler, Li, and Gemzell-Danielsson concluded that levonorgestrel emergency contraception taken after ovulation does not affect implantation and results in conception rates similar to placebo. Therefore, PRI does not oppose the availability of levonorgestrel-based emergency contraception, so long as the evidence continues to show that it does not function as an abortifacient.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

METHODS WE ADVISE CAUTION ON

The following methods are not proven abortifacients. Their primary and well-established mechanisms are pre-fertilization: preventing ovulation, thickening cervical mucus, impairing sperm movement, or otherwise preventing fertilization. However, because many of them may also alter the endometrium (which has been theorized to potentially hinder implantation in rare cases), and because some unresolved questions remain, PRI encourages informed caution and consideration of alternatives.

PRI does not support banning these methods solely based on theoretical or unproven implantation concerns. At the same time, users should be given honest information about mechanism of action, uncertainty, and available alternatives.

• Combined hormonal birth control pills
  Combined hormonal birth control pills primarily work by suppressing ovulation and changing cervical mucus. Some endometrial changes can occur, and some researchers have argued that these changes could theoretically contribute to post-fertilization effects. However, the evidence does not demonstrate that hormonal birth control pills function by killing or preventing the survival of an already-conceived embryo, even before implantation. Therefore, PRI does not classify hormonal birth control pills as proven abortifacients and does not support banning them solely on theoretical grounds. PRI encourages informed consent, caution, and consideration of alternatives for those who wish to avoid unresolved post-fertilization concerns.

• Progestin-only birth control pills (e.g., Opill)
  Progestin-only pills primarily work by thickening cervical mucus, and some formulations also suppress ovulation. Because ovulation may continue in some cycles—especially with some older or lower-dose progestin-only formulations—the theoretical implantation question is present. However, a theoretical possibility is not the same as a demonstrated abortifacient mechanism. Its effectivity in preventing sperm from meeting the egg (fertilization) in the first place is overwhelmingly high. Therefore, PRI does not support banning progestin-only pills, but encourages caution, honest disclosure, and continued review of the evidence.

• Hormonal shots (e.g., Depo-Provera)
  Hormonal shots such as Depo-Provera primarily work by suppressing ovulation, preventing follicular maturation, and thickening cervical mucus. Because ovulation is strongly suppressed when used correctly, the opportunity for fertilization is greatly reduced. Endometrial effects may occur, but current evidence does not demonstrate that Depo-Provera functions by causing post-fertilization embryo loss. Therefore, PRI does not classify hormonal shots as proven abortifacients, while still encouraging informed consent and continued research.

• Hormonal implants (e.g., Nexplanon)
  Hormonal implants such as Nexplanon primarily work by suppressing ovulation and thickening cervical mucus. Because ovulation is strongly suppressed, fertilization is rare. Although endometrial changes are sometimes listed as a possible secondary effect, the evidence does not show that implants commonly or intentionally function after fertilization. Therefore, PRI does not oppose the availability of hormonal implants under the current evidence, while supporting informed consent and continued review of new research.

• Hormonal vaginal rings
  Hormonal vaginal rings primarily work through ovulation suppression and cervical mucus changes. As with other hormonal methods, possible endometrial effects may be discussed, but the evidence does not demonstrate that these methods function as abortifacients. Therefore, PRI does not support banning hormonal vaginal rings solely on theoretical grounds, while still encouraging informed consent and caution for those who wish to avoid unresolved implantation-related concerns.

• Hormonal intrauterine devices (e.g., Mirena, Kyleena, Liletta, and Skyla)
  Hormonal IUDs, also called levonorgestrel IUDs, mainly work by thickening cervical mucus and impairing sperm function, thereby preventing fertilization. Ovulation often continues in users of hormonal IUDs, which means the post-fertilization question deserves serious attention. However, current evidence does not demonstrate that levonorgestrel IUDs function by preventing implantation, and laboratory evidence argues against a meaningful anti-implantation effect. Therefore, PRI does not support banning hormonal IUDs under the current evidence. Because they act locally in the uterus and because ovulation often continues, PRI places them in a caution category rather than treating them the same as barrier methods, abstinence, or levonorgestrel emergency contraception.

• Ulipristal acetate emergency contraception (e.g., Ella)
  Ulipristal acetate is an emergency contraceptive that delays ovulation, including later in the pre-ovulatory window than levonorgestrel. Some labeling and theoretical concerns have raised the possibility of implantation effects. However, the best current review evidence indicates that ulipristal acetate emergency contraception is not more effective than chance when used after ovulation and does not increase miscarriage rates, which argues against a clinically meaningful post-fertilization mechanism at the emergency-contraception dose. Because the evidence is less settled and more controversial than with levonorgestrel emergency contraception, PRI encourages caution and informed consent. Under the current evidence, however, PRI does not support banning ulipristal acetate unless stronger evidence shows that it commonly or intentionally functions after fertilization.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

METHODS WE OPPOSE

The following methods have the strongest evidence for possible or likely post-fertilization action. Because they have been shown to act after fertilization by preventing implantation, PRI opposes their legality, production, and availability.

• Copper intrauterine devices
  Copper IUDs do not suppress ovulation. They work primarily by impairing sperm function and preventing fertilization, but they also create a local inflammatory reaction in the uterus. The strongest concern is with copper IUDs used as emergency contraception, because they can be inserted after intercourse and, in some cases, after ovulation. If fertilization has already occurred, then preventing ovulation or preventing sperm from reaching the egg can no longer fully explain the method’s effectiveness. FSRH guidance recognizes both pre-fertilization and possible post-fertilization mechanisms for intrauterine contraception, and the copper IUD has the strongest evidence base for post-fertilization concern. Because of this, PRI opposes the manufacture, sale, insertion, and public funding of copper IUDs, especially for emergency contraception. However, PRI does not support forced removal from any person’s body; existing users should be given honest information and counseled toward voluntary removal, but the state should not physically compel an invasive procedure.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

CONCLUSION

The Prenatal Rights Initiative supports the responsible use of contraception when it truly prevents conception and does not act against an already-conceived human being. PRI supports abstinence, natural family planning, fertility awareness, barrier methods, spermicides, and sterilization. PRI also does not oppose levonorgestrel emergency contraception because the best current evidence indicates that it works by delaying ovulation and does not prevent implantation.

PRI urges caution with hormonal birth control pills, progestin-only pills, hormonal shots, hormonal implants, hormonal rings, hormonal IUDs, and ulipristal acetate emergency contraception. These methods are not proven abortifacients under the current evidence, but some involve unresolved questions or theoretical implantation concerns. Therefore, users should receive honest informed consent and should be encouraged to consider alternatives if they wish to avoid uncertainty.

PRI opposes the legality and availability of copper IUDs, especially when used as emergency contraception, because they have the strongest evidence for post-fertilization action and may inhibit the implantation of an already-conceived human being.

Overall, PRI’s stance depends on the type of “contraception” being discussed. If the purpose and strongly supported effect of the method is to prevent conception—fertilization—then PRI does not oppose it. If the purpose or strongly supported effect is to prevent implantation after fertilization, then PRI does oppose it. Where the evidence is uncertain or lacking, PRI believes we should be honest about that uncertainty and avoid claiming more than the evidence proves.

In vitro fertilization (IVF) is the process of creating multiple human embryos by extracting eggs, receiving a sperm sample, and manually combining the sperm and egg in a laboratory dish to form an individual human zygote (early-staged embryo). Usually, only a select few of the human embryos are chosen for implantation. The rest are often discarded, frozen for an indefinite period, or even used in experimental research. This careless and reckless treatment of human embryos — each of whom are human beings deserving of equal protection — is fundamentally incompatible with the values of a society that should cherish and protect life at all stages.

Moreover, IVF frequently leads to the practice of selective reduction, where some of the embryos are intentionally destroyed post-implantation to manage the number of babies in a pregnancy. This practice is nothing short of abortive, deciding life and death on a basis as arbitrary as convenience and medical preference. Eugenics is also becoming prevalent in IVF, where embryos deemed to be unfit or possess undesirable genetic traits are discarded.

Therefore, we oppose in vitro fertilization. We urge the development and support of reproductive technologies and methods that respect all human life, without resorting to the creation and subsequent destruction of innocent children. We support and promote alternatives such as adoption, which affirms life and provides children in-need with a loving home.

Commercial surrogacy is the practice of hiring and paying a surrogate to carry a child that will then be handed over to the adults outlined in legal arrangements. Whilst illegal in most countries, commercial surrogacy is currently legal in the United States.

Commercial surrogacy commodifies both the surrogate mother and the child, turning human life and parenthood into a transaction. Abolitionists United opposes this practice as it exploits women, particularly those in vulnerable financial situations, and it treats children as products for sale. Purchasing a woman's body to carry a child for 9 months to then deliberately take the child away has serious moral and ethical issues.

Instead of surrogacy, we promote alternatives like adoption that respect and uphold the dignity of all human life. This supports both the well-being of women and children, and it provides loving homes for children in-need.

Euthanasia, also referred to as assisted suicide, is the termination of life by a physician at the patient's request. It is most often used in cases of severe and incurable illness to supposedly alleviate suffering. Euthanasia is banned in most countries.

We oppose euthanasia. We believe it is contrary to the medical profession's duty to heal and protect life. Euthanasia devalues the dignity of human life, and it portrays an alarming message that killing yourself is the answer to being severely disabled or ill. We reject the notion that suicide is the best solution for those who are suffering from a severe illness. We fear that euthanasia will become more common and accessible to a wide variety of people, not just the severely ill. With the advancement of "suicide pods" and laws in jurisdictions such as Canada that broaden the eligibility for physician-assisted suicide, it is clear that euthanasia is becoming a dangerous industry that will normalize and promote suicide as a solution to mental or physical problems.

It is important to distinguish, however, between euthanasia and the decision to forego extraordinary or burdensome medical treatment. Respecting a patient’s right to refuse excessive life support or invasive procedures that offer no real hope of recovery is consistent with respecting the natural course of life. Such decisions should be made based on the patient’s wishes and ethical medical guidance, focusing on comfort and the quality of life, rather than an intent to hasten and directly induce death.

Capital punishment, also referred to as the death penalty, is the state-sanctioned practice of killing an individual as a punishment for a crime. It is used primarily for severe crimes such as murder or rape, although certain countries use capital punishment for a wider variety of acts.

We are hesitant to approve of or support capital punishment due to its various concerning moral and ethical implications. We are concerned about the alarming percentage of innocent people on death row, and we are disturbed by the many instances of people being discovered as innocent after already being executed. We also believe that capital punishment by the government is a slippery slope, and it isn't too far-fetched to believe that the government could one day expand its usage to people that speak or protest against the government's actions. We tend to believe that capital punishment is a rather easy escape in many cases, and we instead prefer life imprisonment without parole in most cases where capital punishment is applicable.

We oppose the current application of the death penalty in the United States. Death-row inmates serve an average of 10-20 years on death row before execution, and on-top of the expenses that come with methods such as lethal injection, American taxpayers will spend more money than if someone were to spend life in prison instead.

We acknowledge and emphasize that whilst capital punishment is not an adequate type of criminal justice, it should not be equated to abortion. To equate capital punishment to abortion is to equate an evil criminal with an innocent child that has not done anything wrong. Such a comparison is disingenuous and fallacious, and it further dehumanizes and neglects the unborn.

We accept a diversity of viewpoints on capital punishment in our community. We believe that capital punishment should be significantly limited and regulated, only being used in extreme cases such as child rapists, serial-killers, or mass-shooters.