Some celebrated the US Supreme Court ruling (Image: Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AP/Press Association Images)

Religion 1, science 0. Yesterday the US Supreme Court ruled that forcing some companies to provide women with free contraception was a violation of their religious freedom. Anti-abortion campaigners celebrated but others have criticised the decision for not taking the scientific evidence into account.

One of the mandates of President Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act is that companies must provide health insurance that offers free birth control. This was challenged by Hobby Lobby, a craft store chain, and Conestoga Wood Specialties, a furniture maker.

The Supreme Court ruling states that these companies – and other closely held businesses, which have more than 50 per cent of their shares owned by five or fewer individuals – may opt out of providing their employees with birth control coverage if the methods conflict with their religious beliefs.


The two companies that brought the case believe that life begins when a sperm and egg meet. They are not opposed to birth control methods that prevent fertilisation, but condemn those that prevent the implantation of a fertilised egg – believing this amounts to abortion – citing the morning-after pills Plan B and Ella, and two intrauterine devices as examples.

Limiting options

If the Supreme Court had consulted the accepted body of scientific knowledge, however, they would have found that the companies’ religious beliefs were not in conflict with the birth control methods they opposed, says Pratima Gupta, a doctor at the San Francisco Medical Center and former board member of the pro-choice network Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health.

“There is no confusion in the scientific community regarding the mechanisms behind each contraceptive option and the medical community is in agreement that none of them equate to abortion,” says Gupta. She adds that making women pay for their own contraception limits their options to less effective methods that ultimately yield more unwanted pregnancies and abortions.

Also left out of the Supreme Court conversation was evidence on the health effects of different birth control options, and other medical uses of contraceptives beyond the prevention of pregnancy.

When this article was first published, it described the kind of company affected by the ruling incorrectly. It also misquoted US Food and Drug Administration information about how certain contraceptives work.