Read here, and decide for yourself:
In order to reach high effectiveness rates, hormonal contraceptives rely on two main mechanisms: prevention of the fertilization of a woman’s egg (prefertilization effect), and prevention of the implantation of an embryo by the modification of the lining of the uterus (postfertilization effect). The second mechanism is what we’re concerned with here. If ovulation occurs and if the egg is fertilized by a sperm, which sometimes happens, especially with today’s low-dose pills[iv], the resulting embryo will travel to the uterus and attempt implantation. However, scientific literature shows that oral contraceptives, implants, the shot, the patch[v] and IUDs make the lining of the uterus inhospitable to it. It is also clearly stated in the labels of these contraceptive methods[vi].
by 
What do you think of the abortion advocates who claim that, if we start reducing access to abortion, we will eventually outlaw these forms of contraception? Does extending personhood to conception mean that contraception should be verboten? Or is the question moot, as we’re never going to get anywhere near extending the rights of the prenatal child anywhere near conception?
I’m of a mixed mind about putting this information out there. On the one hand, women should have this information available to them so that they can make informed decisions about whether or not to use contraception, and what kinds of birth control they want to use. On the other hand, it does play into the hands of abortion advocates who claim that we want to take away birth control and enslave women. (Which is not the case of course, but maybe it would be best not to give them the ammo to make that claim.)