# I Pit HOBBY LOBBY **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [November 28, 2012, 2:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335 "2012-11-28T02:45:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 54
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2014, 7:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1061 "2014-07-08T07:09:46Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > It doesn’t, but the Religious Freedom Restoration Act applies to contraception anyway – when contraception runs counter to the exercise of religion. Oh, so the main thrust of the RFRA was about contraception, then? Was this made explicit, so that we can relax, knowing that it won’t be applied to other matters? How about that “prayng away the gay” crapola? Somebody just passed a law making that illegal therapy, seeing how it was condemned as stupid and counterproductive, earning the scorn of doctors and psychiatrists everywhere. So, this law means that practitioners of this lie can sue to be permitted to fuck over gay people to their hearts content? They certainly claim that this is an “exercise of religion”. That isn’t “contraception”, so we don’t have to worry about that? Or destructive faith healing in general, only faith based contraception is affected? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2014, 8:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1062 "2014-07-08T08:49:11Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > It doesn’t, but the Religious Freedom Restoration Act applies to contraception anyway – when contraception runs counter to the exercise of religion. > [@elucidator](#): > > Oh, so the main thrust of the RFRA was about contraception, then? Was this made explicit, so that we can relax, knowing that it won’t be applied to other matters? No. As I clearly said, and have repeated above, and will repeat again here, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act **applies to contraception**. But I did not say it applies to only contraception. It applies to every single federal law. The main thrust of the RFRA is to limit every single single federal law. So if a federal law requires contraception, the RFRA applies. If a federal law requires anything at all, the RFRA applies. If a federal law forbids anything at all, the RFRA applies. > [@](#): > > How about that “prayng away the gay” crapola? Somebody just passed a law making that illegal therapy, seeing how it was condemned as stupid and counterproductive, earning the scorn of doctors and psychiatrists everywhere. So, this law means that practitioners of this lie can sue to be permitted to fuck over gay people to their hearts content? They certainly claim that this is an “exercise of religion”. Is it a federal law? If it is, then the RFRA applies to it. > [@](#): > > That isn’t “contraception”, so we don’t have to worry about that? Or destructive faith healing in general, only faith based contraception is affected? Every single federal law. This does not mean that the RFRA will result in some given effect. The RFRA says that federal government cannot substantially burden the exercise of religion, unless the burden is narrowly tailored to advance a compelling federal government interest. Plenty of RFRA challenges to federal laws have failed, because the government’s interest was held to be compelling and the government solution was the least restrictive way of advancing that interest. Other challenges have failed because the asserted religious exercise was held to be grounded in an insincere belief. And of course, where the challenger was able to show that the government did burden a sincere religious exercise, and that the scheme used by the government was not narrowly tailored, then the challenge was successful. Once more: I said, “The Religious Freedom Restoration Act applies to contraception.” You asked, “Oh, so the main thrust of the RFRA was about contraception, then? Was this made explicit, so that we can relax, knowing that it won’t be applied to other matters?” The RFRA applies to _all federal laws._ The ‘main thrust’ is to ensure that all federal laws are limited in how they may burden religion. The law is quite explicit. It literally says: > [@](#): > > Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability… ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2014, 9:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1063 "2014-07-08T09:17:47Z")
Your confusion on this point is especially puzzling, **elucidator** , because of this exchange: > [@Let The Slippery Slope Begin: Government Contractors Using Hobby Lobby Ruling To Deny LGBT Rights](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-the-slippery-slope-begin-government-contractors-using-hobby-lobby-ruling-to-deny-lgbt-rights/692238/64): > > Is reproductive health some special category of health care, inherently suspect, and therefore subject to restrictions that do not apply to blood pressure medication or vaccinations? And what “burden to religious practice” are we talking about? The dreadful burden of knowing that other people do not adhere to my religious opinions? > [@Let The Slippery Slope Begin: Government Contractors Using Hobby Lobby Ruling To Deny LGBT Rights](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-the-slippery-slope-begin-government-contractors-using-hobby-lobby-ruling-to-deny-lgbt-rights/692238/74): > > Well, the RFRA applies to all acts of Congress. So back on July 5th, you were aware that the RFRA applied to all Acts of Congress, not just contraception. Yet today, you asked essentially the same question, wondering if contraception was some special case, even though I had just told you that the RFRA applied to every single act of Congress, every single federal law. Asking the question a second time, with seemingly no recollection of the first time, is a puzzling approach. How did this happen? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2014, 10:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1064 "2014-07-08T10:56:00Z")
I have rarely seen so many people trying so hard NOT to understand something. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2014, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1065 "2014-07-08T16:15:39Z")
Ms. Ginsburg seems to share our confusion, perhaps you should take the time to clarify the issues for her so that she would not worry her pretty little head about it? Or perhaps if she took the time to read friend **Bricker’s** cogent and clear analysis, she would reverse her opinion. (Can she do that? Can she file a writ of “my bad!” and expunge her written dissent?) > [@](#): > > …“Would the exemption…extend to employers with religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah’s Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus); and vaccinations[?]…Not much help there for the lower courts bound by today’s decision.”… > > …“Approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be ‘perceived as favoring one religion over another,’ the very 'risk the [Constitution’s] Establishment Clause was designed to preclude.”… - _excerpts from Justice Ginsburg’s dissent_ To my befuddled mind, these appear to be valid criticisms, but that may simply be because she and I both fail to grasp the Olympian clarity of such minds as Alito, Thomas and Scalia. And, while we’re about it, **Bricker** , your answer to my question about contraception omits the actual question. Once again, you answer the question you would prefer to answer rather than the one actually posed. My question centers on the example of “gay restorative therapy”, which is universally and unanimously regarded by professional therapists as quackery and humbug. However, many sincerely religious people refuse to accept that, just like Scientologists refuse to accept psychiatry and psychiatric medicine. Can a sincerely religious Scientologist refuse to pay for health insurance that covers such treatment? Can a sincerely religious person refuse to permit his closely held corporation to pay for insurance that does not accept “gay restorative therapy” as a valid and useful therapy? And if not, why not? \* Your answer was about contraception, my question was not. Since you are not a stupid man, I immediately and justifiably expect that your answer is a rhetorical evasion, hence, the snark. Perhaps you and John can collude on an open letter to disabuse poor Ms Ginsburg of her misunderstanding of what is so starkly clear to you both? - Keeping in mind that the Hobby Lobby objected to four forms of birth control that it regards as abortion. The science on that has been muddled, but if the medical and scientific community does not classify them as “abortifacients”, does sincere religious belief trump that? > [@](#): > > If you’ve read the Supreme Court’s ruling in Hobby Lobby or the reaction to it, then you know what sparked the lawsuit. The Affordable Care Act says that employer-provided insurance must include essential health benefits, including all medically authorized forms of contraception. The owners of Hobby Lobby objected to this requirement, because they believe that four common forms of birth control—two versions of the “morning-after pill” and two kinds of intrauterine devices (IUDs)—are “abortifacients.” In other words, the owners of Hobby Lobby think these contraceptives end pregnancies rather than prevent them. And they believe that is tantamount to ending a life. > > The claim, which you can find on virtually any conservative website, has been making the rounds for a long time. It’s stuck because the science on how these particular drugs and devices work wasn’t that great. But recent advances in medical diagnostics and some ingenious studies have changed that. We know a lot more about how the contraceptives work. We can be very confident that three of the four contraceptives do not lead to abortion, even using the conservative definition of when life begins, and we can be almost (although not quite) as sure that the fourth does not, either… > **[The Facts About Birth Control and "Abortifacients"](https://newrepublic.com/article/118547/facts-about-birth-control-and-hobby-lobby-ob-gyn)** > > Conservatives have some serious misconceptions about how contraception works. An OB/GYN sets the record straight. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2014, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1066 "2014-07-08T16:26:32Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > It doesn’t, but the Religious Freedom Restoration Act applies to contraception anyway – when contraception runs counter to the exercise of religion. Just to emphasize, you are accepting Hobby Lobby’s claim that these four methods are not, in fact, contraception but abortion? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2014, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1067 "2014-07-08T16:36:48Z")
Doesn’t matter - they only have to \*believe \*it hard enough. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2014, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1068 "2014-07-08T16:44:10Z")
Nonsense! The decision clearly outlines the objective criteria to certify sincere religious opinion. Only befuddled minds, like yours, or drug addled minds, like mine, fail to see that. Perhaps **Bricker** will point those objective criteria out for us, if we ask politely enough. Please proceed, Counselor. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2014, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1069 "2014-07-08T16:45:45Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Ms. Ginsburg seems to share our confusion, perhaps you should take the time to clarify the issues for her so that she would not worry her pretty little head about it? Or perhaps if she took the time to read friend **Bricker’s** cogent and clear analysis, she would reverse her opinion. No. The points Justice Ginsburg raised in her dissent fall into two categories: predictions of future problems with the Court’s ruling (which you quoted) and her rationale for feeling the Court should have ruled differently (which you have neither quoted nor echoed.) In short: she does not share your confusion. > [@](#): > > To my befuddled mind, these appear to be valid criticisms, but that may simply be because she and I both fail to grasp the Olympian clarity of such minds as Alito, Thomas and Scalia. They are criticisms, but criticisms which the majority opinion answers. > [@](#): > > And, while we’re about it, **Bricker** , your answer to my question about contraception omits the actual question. Once again, you answer the question you would prefer to answer rather than the one actually posed. My question centers on the example of “gay restorative therapy”, which is universally and unanimously regarded by professional therapists as quackery and humbug. > > However, many sincerely religious people refuse to accept that, just like Scientologists refuse to accept psychiatry and psychiatric medicine. > > Can a sincerely religious Scientologist refuse to pay for health insurance that covers such treatment? Can a sincerely religious person refuse to permit his closely held corporation to pay for insurance that does not accept “gay restorative therapy” as a valid and useful therapy? And if not, why not? \* A Scientologist employer who harbors a sincere religious belief that procuring psychiatry or psychiatric treatment for other burdens his exercise of religion is, under the RFRA, entitled to make a claim. How that claim pans out depends upon the government’s answer to two questions: “Is their interest in seeing psychiatric treatment covered by insurance a compelling government interest?” And “Does the government’s proposed method constitute the least restrictive means of accomplishing that interest?” I can give you my speculation for the answers, but HHS has not been asked to provide their answers to those questions. You’re asking me for my opinion, which is not the same as asking HHS to supply their best arguments. In the Hobby Lobby case, of course, HHS was able to marshal their best defense of their position. But in my opinion, there’s probably a less restrictive means, analogous to the Hobby Lobby solution: shift the cost to the Third Party Administrator (TPA). Can a sincerely religious person refuse to permit his closely held corporation to pay for insurance that does not accept “gay restorative therapy” as a valid and useful therapy? Here, I think the answer is “no.” The employer is not objectioning to providing other therapies. He is welcome to shop around until he finds insurance that will cover “gay restorative therapy,” if any such insurance exists. But he must also purchase insurance to cover the HHS mandated list, because he has not identified any religious exercise that is burdened by covering the HHS list. He simply wants insurance that does HHS-mandate PLUS gay restorative therapy, and the government is not blocking him from doing that. (As an aside: you mentioned in your prior post that laws have been passed forbidding that kind of therapy. Although you do not fully develop this argument, I wonder if you might have been vaguely picturing an RFRA challenge to those laws: “My religious exercise involves curing gays, and your law is stopping me!” If you were picturing such an argument, you can stop: the RFRA binds only federal laws; the bans against gay conversion therapy are from California and New Jersey, respectively). > [@](#): > > - Keeping in mind that the Hobby Lobby objected to four forms of birth control that it regards as abortion. The science on that has been muddled, but if the medical and scientific community does not classify them as “abortifacients”, does sincere religious belief trump that? > > [The Facts About Birth Control and Hobby Lobby, by an OB-GYN | The New Republic](http://www.newrepublic.com/article/118547/facts-about-birth-control-and-hobby-lobby-ob-gyn) Yes. At best, the science now says it’s extremely unlikely that three of the four will cause a failure of implantation. (The FDA still has not adopted this view, by the way, and still carries abortifacients warnings for each one of the four), But a moment’s thought will make this clear: the Jewish prohibition against mixing meat and dairy together arises from the Biblical prohibition against seething the flesh of the cow in the milk of its mother. In today’s world, the chances of a given piece of dairy coming from the milk of the mother of a given piece of beef are…even more miniscule than the chances of any of the four contraception methods causing a failure of implantation. But that rule of Jewish practice cannot be vitiated by the observance that it’s extremely unlikely. In the same way, the Hobby Lobby beliefs cannot be vitiated by the observation that it’s extremely unlikely. They get to define the lines, not you. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2014, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1070 "2014-07-08T16:51:30Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Just to emphasize, you are accepting Hobby Lobby’s claim that these four methods are not, in fact, contraception but abortion? That’s not precisely Hobby Lobby’s claim. Hobby Lobby acknowledges that each method is contraceptive. But, they say, each method also has a chance, albeit a small one, of causing the fertilized embryo not to implant. That’s not the medical definition of an abortion, but Hobby Lobby’s position is that the fertilized embryo is a human life, which is, of course, not a popular medical position either. So, yes, I accept Hobby Lobby’s actual claim: that the four treatments in question have a slight chance of causing a failure of the embryo to implant in the uterine wall. That is a view consistent with the science. Note: [http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda\_docs/label/2009/021998lbl.pdf](http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2009/021998lbl.pdf) > [@Page 4 of FDA info sheet](#): > > Emergency contraceptive pills are not effective if a woman is already pregnant. Plan B One-Step is believed to act as an emergency contraceptive principally by > preventing ovulation or fertilization (by altering tubal transport of sperm and/or ova). In addition,\*\* it may inhibit implantation (by altering the endometrium). \*\*It is > not effective once the process of implantation has begun. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2014, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1071 "2014-07-08T16:51:52Z")
> [@](#): > > They get to define the lines And when government agrees, that’s the problem, actually. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2014, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1072 "2014-07-08T16:53:12Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Ms. Ginsburg seems to share our confusion, perhaps you should take the time to clarify the issues for her so that she would not worry her pretty little head about it? Or perhaps if she took the time to read friend **Bricker’s** cogent and clear analysis, she would reverse her opinion. Is it possible that Ginsburg has caused your confusion? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2014, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1073 "2014-07-08T16:57:50Z")
> [@](#): > > …the Jewish prohibition against mixing meat and dairy together arises from the Biblical prohibition against seething the flesh of the cow in the milk of its mother… No, my question has little if anything to do with Talmudic law. My question is (to oversimplify): if the scientific and medical community is of one opinion and sincere religious belief demands another, who wins? And this: > [@](#): > > …They are criticisms, but criticisms which the majority opinion answers… Not quite sure what you mean here, and you are oftimes a bit slippery. Do you mean that the majority opinions so definitively rebut those criticisms that we may safely ignore them? Or only the five is more than four, so “neener-neener”? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2014, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1074 "2014-07-08T17:03:59Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > Is it possible that Ginsburg has caused your confusion? No, I doubt it. Justice Ginsburg’s opinion is quite clear. Many commentators who have reported on her opinion have made great efforts to confuse it, but her opinion is pretty clear. I suspect that **elucidator** ’s confusion comes from other sources. She says that, notwithstanding the plain text, Congress never intended to extend RFRA protections to for-profit companies. She points to the fact that no decision of the Court prior to Hobby Lobby had ever extended RFRA protections to for-profit companies, and she would read the RFRA to draw a line between non-profit religious organizations and for-profit corporations. She argues persuasively, although ultimately not persuasively enough for the majority, that this distinction is what Congress intended all along, and that this is the proper “context” that the Dictionary Act evokes. And that’s a perfectly defensible position. It’s not a textualist one, but of course she’s not a textualist. She says, in effect, if we interpret the RFRA to include for-profit corporations, all sorts of bad effects may ensue, and Congress never intended to protect for-profit corporations anyway, so the decision should be to craft a line onto the RFRA that stops at non-profit, religious corporations. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2014, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1075 "2014-07-08T17:08:17Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > No, my question has little if anything to do with Talmudic law. My question is (to oversimplify): if the scientific and medical community is of one opinion and sincere religious belief demands another, who wins? But I gave you an example in which the scientific and medical community is of one opinion, but Talmudic law runs counter to that opinion. Why, then, isn’t Talmudic law relevant to your question? To answer you: sincere religious belief wins. Catholics are entitled to believe in the Real Presence, despite the weight of scientific evidence that says, “It’s still bread and wine.” And Hobby Lobby is entitled to say, “We don’t like the risks of ‘only a very tiny chance,’ that the scientific and medical community is saying.” > [@](#): > > Not quite sure what you mean here, and you are oftimes a bit slippery. Do you mean that the majority opinions so definitively rebut those criticisms that we may safely ignore them? Or only the five is more than four, so “neener-neener”? I mean the majority opinion provides an answer for how each of those criticisms will be handled by the framework constructed by the majority opinion. Since they were questions, not statements, they cannot be “rebutted.” ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2014, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1076 "2014-07-08T17:09:03Z")
For what it’s worth, any attempt to force Hobby Lobby to hand out contraceptives at work will get no support from _me_, no-sir-ree, bob, that’s for sure! ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2014, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1077 "2014-07-08T17:12:02Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > …So, yes, I accept Hobby Lobby’s actual claim: that the four treatments in question have a slight chance of causing a failure of the embryo to implant in the uterine wall. That is a view consistent with the science… So, then, the Supremes have tacitly (albeit obliquely) validated the extreme “pro-life” dogma that human life begins at conception? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2014, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1078 "2014-07-08T17:14:52Z")
The FDA’s page on Plan B (linked above): > **[021998lbl.pdf](https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2009/021998lbl.pdf)** > > 3.99 MB On Ella: > **[022474s000lbl.pdf](https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2010/022474s000lbl.pdf)** > > 331.57 KB > [@](#): > > When taken immediately before ovulation is to occur, ella postpones follicular rupture. The likely primary mechanism of > action of ulipristal acetate for emergency contraception is therefore inhibition or delay of ovulation; however, **alterations to > the endometrium that may affect implantation** may also contribute to efficacy. IUD: > **[021225s027lbl.pdf](https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2009/021225s027lbl.pdf)** > > 697.96 KB > [@](#): > > The local mechanism by which continuously released levonorgestrel enhances contraceptive effectiveness of Mirena has > not been conclusively demonstrated. Studies of Mirena prototypes have suggested several mechanisms that prevent > pregnancy: thickening of cervical mucus preventing passage of sperm into the uterus, inhibition of sperm capacitation or > survival, and alteration of the endometrium. Copper IUD: > **[018680s060lbl.pdf](https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2005/018680s060lbl.pdf)** > > 517.44 KB > [@](#): > > The contraceptive effectiveness of ParaGard® is enhanced by copper continuously released into the > uterine cavity. Possible mechanism(s) by which copper enhances contraceptive efficacy include > interference with sperm transport or fertilization, and \*\*prevention of implantation. \*\* ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2014, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1079 "2014-07-08T17:15:04Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > … Since they were questions, not statements, they cannot be “rebutted.” Oh, I see! So it wasn’t actually a _dissent_, but a series of questions seeking clarification? A pity Ms Ginzburg was so ill-informed… ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2014, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335/1080 "2014-07-08T17:17:21Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > So, then, the Supremes have tacitly (albeit obliquely) validated the extreme “pro-life” dogma that human life begins at conception? No. They adopt no position on that question. They decide that since Hobby Lobby _believes_ that life begins at conception, and that since that belief is sincere, a Congressional requirement to pay for insurance that includes the types of contraception that also interfere with implantation is a substantial burden to their religious exercise. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335.md?page=53) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-hobby-lobby/642335.md?page=55)