Ella: Ella (ulipristal acetate) is a synthetic progesterone agonist/antagonist. 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.
Plan B One Step: Plan B One-Step (levonorgestrel tablet) 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).
Mirena (IUD): The local mechanism by which continuously released LNG enhances contraceptive effectiveness of Mirena has not been conclusively demonstrated. Studies of Mirena and similar LNG IUS 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.
Paragard (IUD): The contraceptive effectiveness of ParaGard® is enhanced by copper continuously released into the uterine cavity. Mechanism(s) by which copper enhances contraceptive efficacy include interference with sperm transport and fertilization of an egg, and possibly prevention of implantation.
Stupid woman needs to do even 5 minutes of research before writing. Oh, I forgot, she's a journalist (i.e., one who works by reprinting press releases from leftist advocacy groups like Planned Parenthood)
It isn’t nor wasn’t about ‘science’ at all. It IS about belief systems and religion and the freedom from interference with them by government.
How plain do we have to make it for them? Use the Constitution to protect our freedoms, or do we force them at the point of a gun? Take your pick, liberals.
Sore losers will never stoop wailing and gnashing their teeth. Not to mention that this woman and all liberals miss the point of the decision, which is that government should not be able to coerce you into going against your religious beliefs.
My wife works for a catholic hospital. They certainly cover the use of othwise uncovered BCP when they are indicated for things other than contraception. I know this because she and my two post teen daughters get them.
All on the up and up. It took a note from the Doctor. This writer does not know what she is talking about.
And she writes as if these items were banned from the country.
My goodness, this moron not only misses the entire point of the decision, but doubles down on misinformation.
I do hope that they igored science in deciding whether the freedom of religion exists or not.
What is the implication of the article? That if my science doesn’t support your religion, then your rights are void.
Her “science” is more doctor-who-believes-in-abortion-lies-to-support-abortion.
The MANUFACTURER of these products list abortion as a possibility while using these products. So....
More importantly, once she attempted to equate regular birth control pills, which can treat other medical problems, with these four devices (which are NEVER used to treat any other ailments), you knew she was completely full of CHIT!!
If you don’t want a child, don’t have sex...science fact.
She doesn’t believe in Freedom of Religion.
Pray America wakes up
It wasn’t a Science test you moron. It was a LEGAL challenge to enforce the US Constitution.
When I see a FR post about about about abortion I’ll post this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4rJwgAQkSM&feature=youtu.be
Science shouldn't even be a factor in this decision. (Although it should have been when the Supremes made abortion legal throughout pregnancy.)
Pregnancy starts at implantation; therefore none of those four methods are abortifacients. Also, the regular birth control pill was NOT among any of those methods, although the author [purposely] confused that fact.
The bigger issue here isn't even Hobby Lobby's religious rights. The issue is whether a business should be forced to provide certain benefits to its employees. It should be a business decision whether to provide *any* health insurance coverage. And if the business decides to do that, then it is up to the business to decide what coverage to offer. Government has no right to force a business to offer benefits or to dictate what those benefits should be.