Yeah...that story is a whole other level of terrible. Not sure how keeping a dead fetus in a person fits anyone's religious beliefs....
But while there are abortifacients on the market, this isn't that simple an answer.
It seems logical that a company such as hobby lobby ( the company the case was over) could simply state that they will only allow insurance to cover drugs which inhibit egg release and not those which inhibit implantation. That covers a very large number of drugs.
And his statement, in summarizing the case, implied that their disagreement was with the abortifacients only, yet the ruling he gave was across the board all oral contraceptives. That implies he either does not understand the function (which is scary because it means he is judging based on a poorly understood concept) or he likes the religiously weighted and inaccurate term.
victor809 wrote: