Date: 2010-01-30 08:32 pm (UTC)
Are you sure about this? Here's where I'm getting a lot of my information: http://humupd.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/11/3/293 As far as I know, HBC is not an abortifacient, it does not harm an existing pregnancy. On page 301-2, the researchers state that "The progestin levonorgestrel may also delay or inhibit ovulation if administered early enough in the follicular phase. However, once fertilization has taken place, levonorgestrel is not efficient in preventing ongoing pregnancy."

I acknowledge that ulipristal acetate is not exactly like mifepristone. But they are alike in important ways. If you use mifepristone as an abortifacient it works differently than if you use it as an ECP. The dosage for an abortion is higher, and as an ECP mifepristone, like levonorgestrel and ulipristal acetate, delays ovulation.

Levonorgestrel is a progestin. Mifepristone is an antiprogesterone. Ulipristal acetate is a selective progesterone receptor modulator. So they all work differently.

This article talks at length about progesterone antagonists and selective progesterone receptor modulators. It talks specifically about mifepristone but not ulipristal acetate. Check out page 302 for information about mifepristone as emergency contraception. Check out page 293 and 300 for comparison/contrast of PAs and SPRMs.

I suppose that even if ulipristal acetate can be used as an abortifacient, the fact that it isn't currently known as such (where mifepristone is) would make a difference on its acceptance by the public.
This account has disabled anonymous posting.
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
No Subject Icon Selected
More info about formatting

February 2019

S M T W T F S
     12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
242526 2728  

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags