Let's be clear: SCOTUS ruling is about contraception, not abortion

When Catholic bishops objected to the Obamacare mandate that required employers to include contraception in their health insurance plans, the lines were clear. Regardless of the fact that most Catholics use birth control, the church has a strong position against it.

But that was not the case that Hobby Lobby made to the Supreme Court. They were clear that they have no religious objection to birth control in general - just four kinds (two "morning after pills" and 2 IUD's). Their contention is that these birth control methods work by preventing a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus and are therefore abortifacients.

The truth is that science is never going to answer the question of when "life" begins. That one is always going to be left to us as human beings to struggle with. In those instances, many people turn to their religion. For the owners of Hobby Lobby, their belief is that life starts the moment an egg is fertilized. I don't agree with that conclusion, but I support their right to that belief and would hope that they would support my right to decide differently.

But ultimately those differences should never have come into play in the recent SCOTUS decision. That's because the scientific consensus is that the "morning after pills" (Plan B and Ella) do NOT work by preventing a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus (the science on IUD's is not as conclusive). The International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetric's statement on this was unequivocal:

LNG ECPs [Plan B and Ella] do not interrupt a pregnancy (by any definition of the beginning of pregnancy). However, LNG ECPs can prevent abortions by reducing unwanted pregnancies.

So what are we to make of the fact that Hobby Lobby included these two forms of contraception in their case and that 5 Supreme Court Justices validated their claims?

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.

There are only two possible answers to that question. Either this is another example of a rejection of science or it is an assault on women's right to access contraception in general. The subsequent Supreme Court ruling seems to indicate the latter.

There are many areas of the Hobby Lobby (and now Wheaton College) case that are open to discussion. For example, when does "life" begin? When does pregnancy begin? Do the rights of corporations trump the rights of workers? But the one thing we should all be able to agree on is demonstrated science. Regardless of your position on the other questions, that is where the Court's decision is an abomination.