There is a new morning after pill that prevents a fertilized embryo from attaching to the mother’s womb, an abortifacient that pro-deathers want made available over-the-counter. What I’d like to concentrate on, though, is this reporter’s framing of the issue. Consider especially this last sentence:
via New ‘morning-after’ pill, ella, raises debate over similarity to abortion drug.
A French drug company is seeking to offer American women something their European counterparts already have: a pill that works long after “the morning after.”
The drug, dubbed ella, would be sold as a contraceptive — one that could prevent pregnancy for as many as five days after unprotected sex. But the new drug is a close chemical relative of the abortion pill RU-486, raising the possibility that it could also induce abortion by making the womb inhospitable for an embryo.
The controversy sparked by that ambiguity promises to overshadow the work of a federal panel that will convene next week to consider endorsing the drug. The last time the Food and Drug Administration vetted an emergency contraceptive — Plan B, the so-called morning-after pill — the decision was mired in debate over such fundamental questions as when life begins and the distinction between preventing and terminating a pregnancy. Ella is raising many of those same politically charged questions — but more sharply, testing the Obama administration’s pledge to keep ideology from influencing scientific decisions.
That last sentence betrays staggering ignorance about both science and morality. Science can tell us how the chemical works. But it can’t tell us whether or not to sell it over the counter. With any drug it studies, the FDA has to make a decision about whether it “should” be made available. This is never just a scientific matter. A drug might prove harmful or ineffective. Therefore it “should” not be sold, on the moral principle that we should not harm or defraud other people. Anytime we are in the realm of “should,” we are in the realm of ethics. “Keeping ideology from influencing scientific decisions” is a dishonest formulation, not to mention in practice an exercise in imposing pro-death ideology in virtually every case. A “decision” involves the will, and the will, of its very nature, will tend to engage the moral realm.