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)
Thanks Elaine.
Paul,
I fixed that link.
Elaine, I just had a comment eaten too, any chance of retrieval?
@annie
Well, you are right that it is not about the science of it. That is just a tool to reinforce lefty ‘s self image while trying to score partisan points. But why does it bother you so much that some people have a belief system outside the political???
Face it, you and others are just jealous of God. You want to be him and tell people what is right and wrong while being put on a pedestal and worshipped as the smartest bestest thing in the whole dang universe. Plus, some of you want the tithe to come to you.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Elaine, Guess I need to slow my reading down. I got that bass-akwards. Thanks for the correction. Squeeky, we got it wrong.
Why did Catholic organizations allow IUDs and even birth control pills in their health insurance plans years ago? What changed? I worked for the Alexian Brothers hospital system in the 80’s, I was provided women’s reproductive health care which included a prescription for birth control pills. These religious corporations are less than sincere, it’s more about inserting religons into our government and schools. Hobby Lobby is pushing for religion to be brought back into public schools. The camel just got it’s nose in the tent.
Paul,
I retrieved your comment. Thanks for letting me know about the link to the National Catholic Reporter article.
Well, Elaine, I want to thank you for the article, although I disagree with your stance and conclusion. I think it’s good to debate these issues and learn more.
In my research on Plan B, I found that it is designed to be a “morning after pill (MAP).” These MAP’s are considered abortion pills. The SC said that the four methods that Hobby Lobby was arguing to be disallowed in their case does in fact prevent an already fertilized egg from progressing. Our own government refers to these pills as a form of abortion.
The FDA calls it a contraceptive, but how do we know whether or not the FDA is biased or misused a word? How do we know whether or not Susan Wood of GWU, is not biased and insisted on the FDA calling these preventative medications in question “contraceptives” to appease women and women organizations.
It is factual that Plan B ends a fertilized egg from developing. The company who manufactures it even refers to it as a pill that prevents a fertilized egg from developing.
Ella is also a MAP and works up to 5 days after unprotected sex. It is therefore a form of aborting a fertilized egg.
Hobby Lobby used their religious freedom rights to fight for their belief in the court system and won. Sometimes we win and sometimes we lose, but having a court system is our only means of presenting our beliefs and arguments to defend them.
the morons on the SC believe contraception equals abortion, just like the owners of Hobby Lobby. As Jon Stewart has said, a corporation, as a person, has the right to impose its unscientific viewpoint on millions of women just because it believes it is true. The founding fathers are turning in their graves.
It’s more than the forms of birth control, or abortifacient that is being objected to by Hobby Lobby, et al, it’s using religion to control other people are secular or not of that faith. No rightists concerned in the least about the unintended consequences of this decision? Pretty darn short sided of them.
Help Help Help the Vortex of Doom has swallowed my comment.
Elaine – the link to Catholic Reporter is not working. As per usual the rest of your links are to left and far left organizations. ‘Scientifically’ things get redefined all the time. As I follow the supposed science behind a lot of claims, I see the shifting of opinion rather than a change in facts.
“There is simply a disagreement on whether conception begins at fertilization or implantation.”
What we’re talking about here is how the four contraceptives that Hobby Lobby objected to covering work. The ACOG and FDA say they PREVENT fertilization of an egg.
Just wanted to add my voice and thank you for this very well written, well-reasoned piece. Some will refuse to believe it, no matter what, but that’s what the five Catholic male justices did, so no surprise there.
@bettykath at 8:30
You are exactly right in your first sentence above. Which puts this whole brouhaha war on women stuff into the political theatre arena. There is simply a disagreement on whether conception begins at fertilization or implantation. Which also means all the “anti science” canards are just pure BS, just like Megyn Kelly says above.
Thx!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Would the decision allow closely held corporations whose religion favors a woman’s right to choice, to pay for abortions in its self-insured health care plan even though it violates some regulation or other? (Obviously I didn’t read the decision.)
http://ec.princeton.edu/questions/ecabt.html “No, using emergency contraceptive pills (also called “morning after pills” or “day after pills”) prevents pregnancy after sex. It does not cause an abortion. (In fact, because emergency contraception helps women avoid getting pregnant when they are not ready or able to have children, it can reduce the need for abortion.)
Emergency contraceptive pills work before pregnancy begins. According to leading medical authorities – such as the National Institutes of Health and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists – pregnancy begins when the fertilized egg implants in the lining of a woman’s uterus. Implantation begins five to seven days after sperm fertilizes the egg, and the process is completed several days later. Emergency contraception will not work if a woman is already pregnant.
The way emergency contraceptive pills work depends on where you are in your monthly cycle when you take them. EC works primarily, or perhaps exclusively, by delaying or inhibiting ovulation (release of your egg). It is possible that EC may affect the movement of egg or sperm (making them less likely to meet), interfere with the fertilization process, or prevent implantation of a fertilized egg. The copper in Copper-T IUDs can prevent sperm from fertilizing an egg and may also prevent implantation of a fertilized egg.
For more discussion about how emergency contraception prevents pregnancy, click here. You can also read more about the difference between EC and medical abortion on this fact sheet from the American Society for Emergency Contraception.
Read a thorough and up-to-date academic review of the medical and social science literature, including research into how emergency contraception works, by clicking here .”
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/hobby-lobby-vote-senate-109001.html “The procedural vote to take up the bill failed 56-43, four short of the 60 votes needed. Three Republicans, Susan Collins of Maine, Mark Kirk of Illinois and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, joined the Democrats in support of the measure sponsored by Patty Murray (D-Wash).
Democrats see contraception — which most women use at some point in their lives — as a winning issue in the 2014 elections. Red-state Democrats in tough races have been wary of taking positions on new abortion restrictions, but none defected on the Hobby Lobby vote.
Both Sens. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Mark Pryor of Arkansas voted for the Murray bill, along with Sen. Kay Hagan of North Carolina, who was a co-sponsor. The only Democrat to vote against it was Majority Leader Harry Reid, but that was in a procedural move that allows him to bring it to the floor again. He said Wednesday that he intends to hold another vote on the legislation later this year.
“Now is the time for our colleagues to answer a few basic questions: Who should be in charge of a woman’s health care decisions?” Murray said. “Should it be her and partner and her faith, or should it be her boss? To me and the vast majority of people across the country that answer is obvious.”
BK, Miscarriage=Nature. Abortion Pill=Chemically induced. Got it? It’s quite simple science. I thought liberals were smart.
For those who believe that the fertilized egg prior to implantation constitutes a pregnancy, the contraceptives in question do cause “abortion”. I would point out that the supreme abortionist is their god which doesn’t allow most of the fertilized eggs to implant, and which causes great numbers of abortions (called miscarriages). The hypocrisy is amazing..The men in black robes have established their creds as anti-people, especially when the people are women.