Submitted by Elaine Magliaro, Weekend Contributor
Back in March of this year—during oral arguments in the Hobby Lobby case—Sahil Kapur (Talking Points Memo) said he thought that the conservative Supreme Court Justices “appeared broadly ready to rule against the birth control mandate under Obamacare.” He added that “their line of questioning indicated they may have a majority to do it.” Kapur reported that Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia and Alito “expressed no sympathy for the regulation while appearing concerned for the Christian business owners of Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood who said the contraceptive mandate violates their religious liberty and fails strict scrutiny standards under the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).”
During oral arguments, Justice Scalia said, “You’re talking about, what, three or four birth controls, not all of them, just those that are abortifacient. That’s not terribly expensive stuff, is it?”
There are a couple of things I think Justice Scalia should know. First, the four contraceptive methods that Hobby Lobby objected to paying for—Plan B, Ella, and two intrauterine devices—are not abortifacients. They do not prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg into the uterus—which the owners of Hobby Lobby consider to be abortion. Instead—according to the Food and Drug Administration—the four contraceptive methods in question prevent fertilization of an egg. Second, the cost of intrauterine devices can be quite considerable—especially to a woman working for minimum wage or for a company like Hobby Lobby.
Plan B is also known as the morning-after pill. Ella, the week-after pill, actually works for just five days after unprotected sex. Both of these drugs are classified by the Food and Drug Administration as contraceptives. Neither is the same as the abortion drug RU486, or Mifeprex—which isn’t considered a contraceptive and isn’t covered by the new insurance requirements.
Plan B, Ella and the Cost of IUD’s
Susan Woods, a professor of health policy at George Washington University and a former assistant commissioner for women’s health at the FDA, has been frustrated by the constant references to Plan B and Ella as abortion-causing pills. She said, “It is not only factually incorrect, it is downright misleading. These products are not abortifacients. And their only connection to abortion is that they can prevent the need for one.”
Jamie Manson (National Catholic Reporter) said that the “reality is that there is overwhelming scientific evidence that the IUD and Plan B work only as contraceptives. Since Ella is new to the market, it has not been studied as extensively. But as of now, there is no scientific proof that Ella acts as an abortifacient, either.” He added that there is only one drug approved to induce abortion—RU-486, which is not on the FDA’s list of approved contraception. He continued, “It is available only by prescription and no employer is forced to pay for it as part of an employee health plan.”
Manson said that it’s important to understand the biology of conception in order to “understand why scientists believe that the IUD, Plan B and Ella are not abortifacients.”
Manson:
…In order for a woman to become pregnant after sexual intercourse, her ovaries must release an egg (ovulation). Sperm can remain viable inside her reproductive tract for five days. Therefore, if intercourse takes place up to five days before ovulation or within two days after, both sperm and egg are viable and the egg cell can be fertilized.
Now, just because an egg is fertilized doesn’t necessarily mean that it will develop into an embryo. For that to happen, the fertilized egg must be implanted into the endometrium that lines the uterus. Implantation happens seven days after fertilization, if it happens at all. Scientists estimate that, at a minimum, two-thirds of fertilized eggs fail to implant. Some scientists estimate that the number may even be as high as 80 percent, according to Discover Magazine.
For this reason, according to the medical definition, a woman is not considered pregnant until the developing embryo successfully implants the lining of the uterus.
Regarding the cost of an IUD (New York Times):
The cost of an IUD, one of the most effective forms of birth control, is considerable. It requires a visit to the doctor, and a procedure to have the device put in place. Medical exams, insertion, and follow-up visits can run upward of $1,000. Without insurance coverage, it’s likely that many women will be unable to use them.
Writing for SCOTUSblog, Dawn Johnsen, a professor of law at Indiana University School of Law-Bloomington, said the following:
Hormonal IUDs can be forty-five times more effective than oral contraceptives and ninety times more effective than male condoms in preventing pregnancy, based on typical use. Finally, cost concerns often drive women away from a preferred method to less effective methods. Almost one-third of women report that they would change their choice of contraceptive method if cost were not a factor. That’s tens of millions of women.
Religious Beliefs Trump Scientific Research in Hobby Lobby Ruling
In July, Kapur wrote about the Hobby Lobby case again following the Court’s ruling. He said that when Supreme Court Justices had suggested back in March “that certain forms of birth control were abortion-inducing, nobody stood up to point out that the claim by Hobby Lobby lacked support within the medical community.” He added that “it came as little surprise that the 5-4 ruling against the Obamacare contraception mandate ignored the scientific research about whether those contraceptives actually cause abortion. The religious owners of Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood believed it, and that was enough.” Justice Alito wrote for the Court, “If the owners comply with the HHS mandate, they believe they will be facilitating abortions”—“decreeing it a ‘substantial burden’ on free exercise of religion and thus in violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.” He also wrote, “The owners of the businesses have religious objections to abortion, and according to their religious beliefs the four contraceptive methods at issue are abortifacients.”
After the Hobby Lobby ruling, Erika Eichelberger and Molly Redden of Mother Jones pointed out that the five justices who ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby weren’t just overruling an Obamacare regulation, they were also overruling science.
But—as Kapur noted in his TPM article in July—“the justices weren’t legally required to consider the science. Quite the opposite: RFRA, a statute passed by a Democratic Congress and signed by President Bill Clinton in 1993, grants special treatment under the law to religious people regardless of whether their beliefs are substantiated by evidence.”
On a segment of The Daily Show back in March, John Stewart said, “So let me get this straight.Corporations aren’t just people, they’re ill-informed people. Whose factually incorrect beliefs must be upheld because they sincerely believe them anyway.”
It isn’t just the Hobby Lobby folks and some Supreme Court Justices who appear ill-informed about certain contraceptives. After the Hobby Lobby ruling, Katie McDonough (Salon) wrote that some of the right’s talking points on Hobby Lobby were wrong and showed a misunderstanding of health insurance and sex.
McDonough:
On Fox News, Bill O’Reilly and Megyn Kelly tried to see who could out-ignorant the other by shouting misinformation about how birth control works and the supposedly narrow scope of the ruling. Also on Fox News… Brit Hume concluded — with zero supporting medical evidence — that the four forms of contraception no longer covered by Hobby Lobby “amounted to abortion.”
While over at the National Review Online, editor Jonah Goldberg wrote that Hobby Lobby “objected to paying for what it considers to be abortifacients, which don’t prevent a pregnancy but terminate one. The pro-abortion-rights lobby can argue that ‘abortion’ and ‘birth control’ are synonymous terms, but that doesn’t make it true.” I’d respond to Goldberg by saying that the owners of Hobby Lobby may believe that the four contraceptives that it objected to are abortifacients—but that doesn’t make it true.
After returning from a two-week hiatus from The Daily Show on July 14th, Jon Stewart did a segment on the Hobby Lobby ruling. He found it interesting that the owners of Hobby Lobby consider Plan B to be an abortifacient—even though the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists say it isn’t. “But what would they know about vaginas?” said Stewart. “Compared to a corporation that sells foam cones and glitter.”
SOURCES
Morning-After Pills Don’t Cause Abortion, Studies Say (NPR)
What an abortifacient is — and what it isn’t (National Catholic Reporter)
Science Was Irrelevant In Hobby Lobby And That’s Congress’s Fault (Talking Points Memo)
Conservative Justices Appear Ready To Strike Birth Control Mandate (Talking Points Memo)
5 myths about the Hobby Lobby case, debunked (MSNBC)
How Hobby Lobby Ruling Could Limit Access to Birth Control (New York Times)
Swueeky, The carpet bombing has commenced. Congrats on your freedom. Stay well.
ACOG is a professional association–not a government entity.
@NickS
Thx for the heads up! I was figuring she would stampede a bunch of duplicative links down the arroyo, so I am climbing a tree until they pass. JAust three hours or so and I get out of lock -up! Back to my kitties and my books and my laptop . . .
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Squeeky, Look for a link bombathon by the author of this polemic.
Well, like good ‘ol Bertrand Russell once said, “Collective fear stimulates the herd instinct.” Sooo, I guess that is why the lefties here all gather together in their little herd and moo and bleat about those horrible Christians who just drop kicked their messiah through the goal posts of Hobby Lobby. All about not wishing to aid in an unintentional abortion.
And as Megyn points out above, it is the government itself which provides the scientific basis, not divine revelation. Oh, head ’em up! and moooove ’em out!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
The craziest thing about the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby decision
http://www.latimes.com/local/abcarian/la-me-ra-craziest-thing-about-hobby-lobby-20140630-column.html
Excerpt:
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists filed a friend-of-the-court brief supporting the contraceptive mandate. On its website, here is how ACOG replies to a question about whether emergency contraception like Plan B and Ella, the “morning-after” pills to which Hobby Lobby so strenuously objects, can cause an abortion:
“Emergency contraception will not disrupt an established pregnancy. Women often are exposed to exogenous hormones in early pregnancy without adverse outcome. Some women undergoing assisted reproductive technology procedures to achieve pregnancy are routinely prescribed progesterone to support the pregnancy. It is also a common occurrence to interview patients in early pregnancy who were not aware that their missed pills had resulted in contraceptive failure and who thus had continued taking their pills.”
As for whether IUDs cause abortion, here is the opening paragraph of a 1989 Population Council publication, IUDs are Contraceptives, not Abortifacients, by Irving Sivin, a senior associate in the council’s Center for Biomedical Research:
“Prevalent social myth holds that IUDs are abortifacients. Even U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, in dissent from the majority opinion in Webster v Reproductive Health Services, subscribed to this belief. Scientists, including developers of IUDs, have believed it. The key element underlying this myth is that IUDs act only at the uterine level, either to prevent implantation or to destroy developing embryos in the uterus before implantation. Today, however, the weight of scientific evidence indicates that IUDs act as contraceptives. They prevent fertilization, diminishing the number of sperm that reach the oviduct and incapacitating them.”
So why would the Supreme Court blindly accept the assertion by the Greens and their fellow plaintiffs that these contraceptive methods cause abortion?
Because all that matters, in this religious freedom case, is that the Greens believe it.
The weekends here are nostalgic, reminds me of my youth in the 60’s.
Inner city black voters are exclusively Dem voters. They often vote 100% Dem in certain districts. Their culture is anti-intellectual. Dems have a unique combo of both extreme intellectual and anti-intellectual. Republicans have less elite intellectuals and less anti-intellectual. NEITHER party has a monopoly on smart or stupid. Do I need to name names?
More “faith based analysis” from the GOP and their black-robed minions at SCOTUS. Squeeky may think that Repub anti-intellectualism is benign (Rick Santorum called Obama a “snob” because the President thinks everyone should go to college) but it’s a hallmark of tyrannical regimes. The Khmer Rouge have executed people for simply wearing glasses – a sign of intelligence. Anti-intellectualism has its roots among the faithful who view any challenge to long held beliefs as apostasy. Since science is premised on challenging accepted beliefs, the systems of faith and reason were always on a collision course despite occasional truces throughout the centuries. Hobby Lobby show as that tension between rational thought and religious dogma and the secular authority’s struggle to accommodate beliefs with no basis in fact or in some cases even in reality.
With God on our corporation’s side.
Elaine M provided an educational service with this post.
One which The Supreme Five failed.
Once again, for whatever reason, I am glad they did it. iud’s are not good science.
almost half (45%, or about 21,500 women) of the complaints are about IUD expulsion
pain during or after the IUD placement makes up 25% of the complaints (or 11,700 women)
complaints about more bleeding make up 21% (or 10,100 women)
complaints of less bleeding or no period account for 6% (or 2,800 women)
complaints of pregnancy with the IUD make up 5% (or 2,200 women)
perforation of the uterus accounts for 3% of the complaints (or 1,300 women)
http://bedsider.org/features/287
You all already saw what I posted before. IUD’s should be taken off the market.
I am with Barking Dog, if any business deserves a boycott it is Hobby Lobby.
Here we are again with “Oh those mean ‘ol Republicans and Christians are sooo anti-scientific unlike us super smart Democrats who just luuuvvvvve us some science!” Megyn responds so well here, why not link it:
http://www.lifenews.com/2014/07/18/megyn-kelly-eviscerates-pro-abortion-john-stewarts-left-wing-anti-hobby-lobby-rant/
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
If altar boys could get pregnant, abortifacient’s would be a sacrament.
iirc ? from Ann Landers
Q: How effective is the rhythm method ?
A: 99% effective
ergo, sex 2 x a week = only 1 baby a year
Thanks, Elaine. That’s a thorough covering of the topic. It was needed. One has to wonder HL would spend millions to save tens of thousands. Now we know.
The American people could do one progressive thing in response to the Supreme Court decision: boycott Hobby Lobby. There was a movie years ago which many people still watch on TCM on late night tv. Gone With The Wind. There was a character in there who reminds me of the Supreme Court Justice Roberts guy. When asked to help in the delivery of a child at birth time she said: I don’t know nuthin bout birthin babies. Some may think it crude to bring such history into the discussion here. I think it is appropriate.
On another note though. It seems that Congress could resolve the problem by requiring all employers to sign up for a health care provider and pay a set fee. The employee could then choose which aspects of health she or he wanted. Young folks might opt out of the enema provisions. Men might opt out of birthing provisions entirely. Women who are devout Catholic might opt out of birth control and leave it up to Jesus. But the choice would be that of the person involved and not some Hobby artFay who does not know itShay from Shinola. Hobby Lobby could be extended. No pork served in the corporate cafeteria. Veils worn by all women. No work on Saturday. Crosses must be worn around the neck when one enters the factory gate. Prayers must be said before the computers are turned on in the office or before the conveyor belt goes on in the factory.
Gary,
Here’s an excerpt from the Mother Jones article:
Alito and the four other conservative justices on the court were essentially overruling not just an Obamacare regulation, but science. According to the Food and Drug Administration, all four of the contraceptive methods Hobby Lobby objects to—Plan B, Ella, and two intrauterine devices—do not prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg into the uterus, which the owners of Hobby Lobby consider abortion. Instead, these methods prevent fertilization.
Yet this scientific determination did not guide the five justices. In his opinion, Alito contends that these four contraception methods “may have the effect of preventing an already fertilized egg from developing any further by inhibiting its attachment to the uterus.” He does not cite any science to back this up. Instead, in a footnote, Alito concedes that Hobby Lobby’s religious-based assertions are contradicted by science-based federal regulations: “The owners of the companies involved in these cases and others who believe that life begins at conception regard these four methods as causing abortions, but federal regulations, which define pregnancy as beginning at implantation, do not so classify them.” Still, he and the other conservative justices are saying that in a conflict between a religious view and scientific research, religion wins.
No matter what anyone said or didn’t say the conservative men on the Court had already decided that corporations have a religious faith and that it follows that no matter what that faith leads them to beleive no matter how wrong, how damaging to other humans, that is women, their beliefs trump science, reality and the law. I have on question for the conservative majority on the Court: will corporations go to the same heaven as humans or is the a corproate box in heaven?
Not logical or on topic – why respond?
Did the government introduce the facts that that the four contraceptives that were objected to are not abortifacients? Was the case made and the court rejected the info?
Great job Elaine describing how deficient the Supreme Court majority is on the idea of contraception. It is amazing that a comedian can have more wisdom than 5 Supreme Court justices. Hobby Lobby was an abomination.