Why the Supreme Court Ignored Science in Hobby Lobby

Some friendly pointers for the justices in the wake of their decision.

WASHINGTON, DC - JUNE 28: Obamacare supporters and protesters gather in front of the U.S. Supreme Court to find out the ruling on the Affordable Health Act June 28, 2012 in front of the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, DC. The Supreme Court has upheld the whole healthcare law of the Obama Administration. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)
National Journal
Lucia Graves
July 10, 2014, 11:48 a.m.

There seems to be some con­fu­sion over at the Su­preme Court about what can and can’t in­duce abor­tion. In their rul­ing in the Hobby Lobby case last week, justices ig­nored the over­whelm­ing sci­entif­ic evid­ence that the con­tra­cept­ive meth­ods in con­ten­tion do not in fact cause abor­tion, as defined by the med­ic­al com­munity.

“If the own­ers com­ply with the [Health and Hu­man Ser­vices] man­date, they be­lieve they will be fa­cil­it­at­ing abor­tions,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the Court’s ma­jor­ity opin­ion. This, the justices de­term­ined, con­sti­tuted a “sub­stan­tial bur­den” on Hobby Lobby’s re­li­gious rights.

At is­sue are four types of con­tra­cept­ives: two of them, Ella and Plan B, are clas­si­fied as “morn­ing-after pills,” and two oth­ers, Mirena and ParaGard, are clas­si­fied as in­trauter­ine devices.

“There are med­ic­a­tions that pre­vent preg­nancy and there are med­ic­a­tions that cause abor­tions,” said Dr. Lin-Fan Wang, a fel­low with Phys­i­cians for Re­pro­duct­ive Health, an or­gan­iz­a­tion that aims to bring med­ic­al ex­pert­ise to dis­cus­sions of pub­lic policy. The meth­ods be­fore the Court, she ex­plained, “clearly worked to pre­vent preg­nancy,” not ter­min­ate it.

Even us­ing re­li­gious con­ser­vat­ives’ defin­i­tion of when life be­gins — the mo­ment an egg is fer­til­ized — three of the four con­tra­cept­ives can be proven not to lead to abor­tion, and sci­ent­ists are al­most as cer­tain the fourth doesn’t, either. (The New Re­pub­lic has a use­ful graph­ic and ex­plain­er on the mat­ter.)

Wang’s group was one of more than a dozen in the med­ic­al com­munity to sign on to an amicus brief de­tail­ing the sci­entif­ic dis­tinc­tions between con­tra­cept­ives and so-called abor­ti­fa­cients. But all that mattered to the Court from a leg­al stand­point was simply that Hobby Lobby be­lieves these con­tra­cept­ive meth­ods could some­how lead to abor­tions. As Talk­ing Points Memo ex­plained at some length Thursday, a stat­ute of the Re­li­gious Free­dom Res­tor­a­tion Act pro­tects re­li­gious be­liefs re­gard­less of evid­ence. Call it an art­icle of faith.

The Court also chose to ig­nore the health im­per­at­ives sur­round­ing birth-con­trol pills. As I high­lighted last week, the pill is used to treat a vari­ety of med­ic­al con­di­tions, in­clud­ing en­do­met­ri­os­is, which will af­fect an es­tim­ated 11 per­cent of wo­men in their life­times, and Poly­cyst­ic Ovary Syn­drome, which af­fects 5 per­cent to 10 per­cent of the fe­male pop­u­la­tion. For all wo­men, the pill is the best pro­tec­tion there is against ovari­an can­cer, one of the dead­li­est can­cers wo­men face, short of re­mov­ing your ovar­ies or be­ing born a man.

But you’d nev­er know that from read­ing the Court’s or­al ar­gu­ments, or ma­jor­ity opin­ion. Cor­por­a­tions and their re­li­gious be­liefs about the way abor­tion works trumped all that.

In the days since I wrote about the health im­per­at­ives of birth-con­trol pills, there’s been some de­bate about how use­ful those themes are to the fem­in­ist cause. But that these sci­entif­ic find­ings aren’t be­ing in­cluded in the Court’s ar­gu­ments should be troub­ling.

Here, for the Court’s con­sid­er­a­tion, are sev­er­al things wo­men have been known to do that don’t in fact cause abor­tion, no mat­ter your be­liefs: wear Spanx Un­der­wear; take long, sweaty bike rides; watch Rachel Mad­dow; read Nora Eph­ron; and — wait for it — take birth-con­trol pills.

What We're Following See More »
STAFF PICKS
These (Supposed) Iowa and NH Escorts Tell All
2 hours ago
NATIONAL JOURNAL AFTER DARK

Before we get to the specifics of this exposé about escorts working the Iowa and New Hampshire primary crowds, let’s get three things out of the way: 1.) It’s from Cosmopolitan; 2.) most of the women quoted use fake (if colorful) names; and 3.) again, it’s from Cosmopolitan. That said, here’s what we learned:

  • Business was booming: one escort who says she typically gets two inquiries a weekend got 15 requests in the pre-primary weekend.
  • Their primary season clientele is a bit older than normal—”40s through mid-60s, compared with mostly twentysomething regulars” and “they’ve clearly done this before.”
  • They seemed more nervous than other clients, because “the stakes are higher when you’re working for a possible future president” but “all practiced impeccable manners.”
  • One escort “typically enjoy[s] the company of Democrats more, just because I feel like our views line up a lot more.”
Source:
STATE VS. FEDERAL
Restoring Some Sanity to Encryption
2 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

No matter where you stand on mandating companies to include a backdoor in encryption technologies, it doesn’t make sense to allow that decision to be made on a state level. “The problem with state-level legislation of this nature is that it manages to be both wildly impractical and entirely unenforceable,” writes Brian Barrett at Wired. There is a solution to this problem. “California Congressman Ted Lieu has introduced the ‘Ensuring National Constitutional Rights for Your Private Telecommunications Act of 2016,’ which we’ll call ENCRYPT. It’s a short, straightforward bill with a simple aim: to preempt states from attempting to implement their own anti-encryption policies at a state level.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
What the Current Crop of Candidates Could Learn from JFK
2 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

Much has been made of David Brooks’s recent New York Times column, in which confesses to missing already the civility and humanity of Barack Obama, compared to who might take his place. In NewYorker.com, Jeffrey Frank reminds us how critical such attributes are to foreign policy. “It’s hard to imagine Kennedy so casually referring to the leader of Russia as a gangster or a thug. For that matter, it’s hard to imagine any president comparing the Russian leader to Hitler [as] Hillary Clinton did at a private fund-raiser. … Kennedy, who always worried that miscalculation could lead to war, paid close attention to the language of diplomacy.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Hillary Is Running Against the Bill of 1992
2 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

The New Covenant. The Third Way. The Democratic Leadership Council style. Call it what you will, but whatever centrist triangulation Bill Clinton embraced in 1992, Hillary Clinton wants no part of it in 2016. Writing for Bloomberg, Sasha Issenberg and Margaret Talev explore how Hillary’s campaign has “diverged pointedly” from what made Bill so successful: “For Hillary to survive, Clintonism had to die.” Bill’s positions in 1992—from capital punishment to free trade—“represented a carefully calibrated diversion from the liberal orthodoxy of the previous decade.” But in New Hampshire, Hillary “worked to juggle nostalgia for past Clinton primary campaigns in the state with the fact that the Bill of 1992 or the Hillary of 2008 would likely be a marginal figure within today’s Democratic politics.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Trevor Noah Needs to Find His Voice. And Fast.
3 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

At first, “it was pleasant” to see Trevor Noah “smiling away and deeply dimpling in the Stewart seat, the seat that had lately grown gray hairs,” writes The Atlantic‘s James Parker in assessing the new host of the once-indispensable Daily Show. But where Jon Stewart was a heavyweight, Noah is “a very able lightweight, [who] needs time too. But he won’t get any. As a culture, we’re not about to nurture this talent, to give it room to grow. Our patience was exhausted long ago, by some other guy. We’re going to pass judgment and move on. There’s a reason Simon Cowell is so rich. Impress us today or get thee hence. So it comes to this: It’s now or never, Trevor.”

Source:
×