According to the results of a survey held among university students, while only 14.4 per cent of those interviewed expressed agreement with abortion, those who said "yes" to the morning-after pill were 49.1 per cent.

This news follows the recent other announcement that a special sitting of the Youth Parliament passed a resolution saying it should not be illegal to prescribe the morning-after pill to rape victims.

The morning-after pill is a chemical product, of the hormonal type, which has frequently been presented by many in the field as well as by different sectors of the international mass media as a mere contraceptive or, more precisely, as an "emergency contraceptive", which can be used within a short time after a presumably fertile act of sexual intercourse, should one wish to prevent the continuation of an unwanted pregnancy.

There were inevitable critical reactions by those who saw serious doubts about how this product works, namely, that its action is not merely "contraceptive" but "abortifacient". These reactions very often have found awaiting them a swift reply that such concerns appear unfounded, since the morning-after pill has an "anti-implantation" effect, thus implicitly suggesting a clear distinction between abortion and interception (preventing the implantation of the fertilised ovum, i.e., the embryo, in the uterine wall).

Considering that the use of this product concerns fundamental human values, to the point of involving the origins of human life itself, in 2000 the Holy See's Academy for Life offered some considerations on the subject, reaffirming moreover already well-known ethical positions supported by precise scientific data and reinforced by Catholic doctrine. The Academy's statement included the following points:

• The morning-after pill is a hormone-based preparation (it can contain oestrogens, oestrogen/progestogens or only progestogens) which, within and no later than 72 hours after a presumably fertile act of sexual intercourse, has a predominantly "anti-implantation" function, i.e., it prevents a possible fertilised ovum (which is a human embryo), by now in the blastocyst stage of its development (fifth to sixth day after fertilisation), from being implanted in the uterine wall by a process of altering the wall itself. The final result will thus be the expulsion and loss of this embryo.

Only if this pill were to be taken several days before the moment of ovulation could it sometimes act to prevent the latter (in this case it would function as a typical "contraceptive"). However, the woman who uses this kind of pill does so in the fear that she may be in her fertile period and therefore intends to cause the expulsion of a possible new conceptus; above all, it would be unrealistic to think that a woman, finding herself in the situation of wanting to use an emergency contraceptive, would be able to know exactly and opportunely her current state of fertility.

• It is clear that the proven "anti-implantation" action of the morning-after pill is really nothing other than a chemically induced abortion. It is neither intellectually consistent nor scientifically justifiable to say that we are not dealing with the same thing. Moreover, it seems sufficiently clear that those who ask for or offer this pill are seeking the direct termination of a possible pregnancy already in progress, just as in the case of abortion. Pregnancy, in fact, begins with fertilisation and not with the implantation of the blastocyst in the uterine wall, which is what is being implicitly suggested.

• From the ethical standpoint the same absolute unlawfulness of abortifacient procedures also applies to distributing, prescribing and taking the morning-after pill. All who, whether sharing the intention or not, directly co-operate with this procedure are also morally responsible for it.

In May 2007 the news came out that a scientific study on Levonorgestrel, the essential component of the "morning-after pill" or "emergency contraceptive," confirmed that the drug does indeed have a third effect on users, which consists in preventing the implantation of a fertilised ovum in the womb of the mother. The study was conducted by doctors Mikolajczyk and Stanford of the Department of Medicine in Public Health of the University of Bielefeld (Germany). Their report clearly indicated that the pill's "real effect" includes mechanisms that prevent implantation.

When in April 2009, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced that it has expanded over-the-counter access to the morning-after pill, Levonorgestrel or what is known as "Plan B," for 17-year-old minors as well as to adults, the US Conference of Catholic Bishops' Secretariat of Pro-Life Activities objected to the move. In its statement on the matter, the Secretariat also said as follows:

"Much to the surprise of the morning-after pill's early advocates, five years of research in Europe and the US shows that increased access to emergency contraception has failed to reduce rates of unintended pregnancy and abortion. But it has led to greater sexual risk-taking among adolescent populations, in turn leading to higher rates of sexually transmitted disease. In the unlikely event a teenager will bother to read the Plan B package insert all the way to the end, she will find sound advice: 'Of course, not having sex is the most effective way to prevent pregnancy and stay free of STDs'."