Marion, it is my opinion, based on my experience, that larger organizations such as emedicine and ACOG are sometimes prone to careful obfuscating on subjects that may be controversial, as birth control always is. Public accountability includes not offending that very public. This is quite understandable, given their aim is to be trusted and of service to the broadest possible public audience, which aim would be impeded if they were thought to be partisan on such issues.

I am in total agreement with your point 1, as you will see from my previous post.

On point 2., I believe the physiology is also important, especially given point 1, and I also believe that too much weight has been given to the uncertain science behind the anti-implantation effects of the birth control methods at issue. The site I linked to is not the only (or most recent) source for my information, but I've lost my original resource list to the side-effects of transfer to a new computer.

There is a tendency in medicine, I think, to abandon research on procedures once it is established that they do what it is desired that they do. In this instance, there is no doubt that IUDs and Plan B perform as intended: they prevent pregnancy. My old research pointed out that the theories about IUDs causing inflammation and therefore preventing implantation, for example, were educated theories only, and were never actually confirmed. Just because something is broadly accepted does not mean it is correct, or entirely correct.

Keeping religion out of law is certainly important, but so is making sure that women, including women whose religious principles are at stake, are truthfully informed about their variety of choices, and that includes bringing older birth control science up to date with modern studies if necessary.