Below are some sources that may be of interest regarding what we know about how these forms of contraception actually work. Clearly some uncertainty, due to difficulties of testing and great difficulties of proving a negative (that ella and IUDs never can work post-fertilization). But the primary mechanisms of action (how they usually work) clearly are not what anyone believes is an abortion - so the overall effect of making them available is to reduce the number of abortions (by anyone's definition, not just the scientific/medical definition) if you take into account pregnancies prevented. That's especially the case because IUDs, which again almost always work by preventing fertilization (and perhaps always, as long as the IUD was implanted before intercourse, though again, hard to prove a negative) are extremely effective but very costly and for that reason used less than women would like to use them (making insurance particularly helpful, again in reducing the number of abortions by any definition). The hormonal IUD is 45 times more effective than oral contraceptives and 90 times more effective than male condoms based on typical use, as described in the first source (an amicus I coauthored with Walter Dellinger and O'Melveny for the Guttmacher Institute). Also, I've added at end a link to my scotusblog post on the case. Best, Dawn
http://www.guttmacher.org/media/guttmacher_scotus_amicus_brief.pdf http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/13-354-BRIEF-OF-AMICI-CURIAE-PHYSICIANS-FOR-REPRODUCTIVE-HEALTH-et-al....pdf http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/06/health/research/morning-after-pills-dont-block-implantation-science-suggests.html?_r=0 http://boingboing.net/2014/04/19/hobby-lobby-iuds-and-the-fac.html http://balkin.blogspot.com/2013/12/hobby-lobby-part-ii-whats-it-all-about.html http://www.guttmacher.org/media/guttmacher_scotus_amicus_brief.pdf http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/07/hobby-lobby-symposium-corporations-who-worship-1-women-who-work-0/ From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Jean Dudley Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2014 12:43 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: How Far Does Hobby Lobby Decision Potentially Reach? On Jul 2, 2014, at 9:24 AM, Michael Peabody <peabody...@gmail.com<mailto:peabody...@gmail.com>> wrote: (and indeed there's no scientific consensus as to whether the contraception causes abortion) Problem with this sentence on two levels: First, contraception is a pretty broad term, and includes things like abstinence, barriers, hormone therapy. Literally defined, contraception prevents or impedes conception. Abortion, on the other hand is medically defined as the premature exit of the product/s of conception. Abortion can be induced or spontaneous. BTW, about 1/2 of all conceptions are aborted spontaneously, and if one believes it was God's will, then that makes one's God the busiest abortion provider in the universe. As for the claim that there's no scientific consensus as to whether "the contraception" (Plan B? The Pill? IUD? Condoms? Pulling out? ) causes abortion, that's because it's damn hard to conduct ethical, empirical tests whether or not a zygote was prevented from implanting in the uterine wall tissue, or if it was ejected during induced menses. Remember, there can be no consensus unless there are multiple, peer reviewed experiments under rigorous scientific processes. Not many women are willing to have their menstrual effluvia collected for scientific examination. Not many scientists think it important enough to find out, either. Not many sources of funding for any kind of scientific research of any kind, much less something so female-centric. Carry on. I'm just providing some uterine perspective here. Jean. TMI? Yeah. Deal with it.
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
