Well, this is certainly an "interesting" development: As I have discussed in my blog and numerous posts, Hobby Lobby's "sincere belief" that the 4 birth control methods in question are "abortifacient" has no basis in scientific fact. But, the Supreme Court said "the facts are irrelevant" and ruled in H.L.'s favor based purely on their "belief." OK.
However, people uneducated in medicine are now telling me: "But, it MUST be TRUE or else why would the Supreme Court rule in their favor?!" WHY indeed?!
So once again, just to try to clear up the FACTS here - as distinguished from "beliefs" - please read this blog post. And please especially note, in paragraph 3, the link from the PRO-LIFE DOCTORS who have done the most thorough analysis of the data I have ever seen on this subject, and concluded that the drugs are NOT ABORTIFACIENT in any sense of the word, including they do NOT prevent implantation!! Again, these are PRO-LIFE OB/GYN doctors who have a serious commitment against abortion, therefore if THEY say the methods are NOT abortifacient, then I think we can believe them.
As discussed in my previous post Down The Rabbit Hole, I found it quite disorienting, to say the least, when the Supreme Court ruled that the facts in the Hobby Lobby case were "irrelevant." What I did not anticipate was that people would then interpret the decision to mean that Hobby Lobby's argument was TRUE. But, I guess it makes sense, right? After all, surely the Supreme Court would not have ruled in Hobby Lobby's favor if their premise - that these medications prevent implantation - was false! If we can't trust the Supreme Court...?!
Maybe the Justices really didn't know the facts?? Not if they read the amicus brief that was submitted by ACOG (American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists) which said, among other things:
there is no scientiﬁc evidence that emergency contraceptives available in the United States and approved by the FDA affect an existing pregnancy.” Instead, they prevent ovulation, so there is no egg to fertilize. That includes the longer-acting Ella: “There is no evidence that [Ella] affects implantation.This is from rhrealitycheck.org in January 2014, "Will the Supreme Court Ignore the Evidence?":
The Greens may be sincere in their religious beliefs, but to the extent that their “religious beliefs” are actually scientific claims, courts should require them to provide evidence to support those claims just like any other factual question. And in this case, the Greens’ supposed religious beliefs are actually no such thing—they are sincerely held, but wrong, scientific views. And should the Supreme Court rule in their favor, it will have signaled to every subsequent litigant that science has no place in the courtroom. That should scare us all.They did. And it does.