The Supreme Court Should Adhere to Scientific Definitions When Hearing Anti-Contraception Lawsuits
There are a number of important issues at play in these cases, but a central one should be this: must the law accommodate those whose religious beliefs lead to conclusions that are scientifically incorrect?
The plaintiffs in Hobby Lobby and Conestoga do not object to covering contraception per se. Instead, they object to covering emergency contraceptive pills and intrauterine devices because they believe those items cause abortion.
Their assertions, however, concern matters of science rather than faith and, as such, must be supported by verifiable evidence. And an examination of their claims shows that they get the science wrong in two critical ways.
First, they mischaracterize any drug or device that interferes with the implantation of a fertilized egg as an abortifacient. Second, they incorrectly claim that emergency contraceptive pills such as Plan B One-Step(r) and ella(r) prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg.
Let us consider each in turn.
More: The Supreme Court Should Adhere to Scientific Definitions When Hearing Anti-Contraception Lawsuits