One of the "interesting" aspects of the Hobby Lobby case is that it is based on the false assertion that the birth control methods in question are "abortifacient." Apparently this is a widely held belief. I keep reading comments to the effect that, "Hobby Lobby shouldn't have to pay for abortions," or "Hobby Lobby is fine with covering regular birth control pills, just not the abortifacient ones." Surprisingly, SCOTUS did not even address the scientific evidence underlying this assumption, but rather, chose to accept Hobby Lobby's "belief" as being sufficient. But, what does science tell us about the situation?
Read more here.