Hobby Lobby Ruling

[Phatscotty]

Its sad that we've come so far that people believe not having someone else provide them things somehow violates their rights.

The coverage was part of the employees health insurance plans. Most decent companies put money toward their employes health insurance. Is any portion of your health insurance covered by the company u work for? How would u feel if they said we are not going to cover any prescription drugs because they don't believe u should take meds. All these freaking tea partiers chanting about socialism I don't see any of their old asses sending back their social security checks or refusing medicare and Medicaid benefits. Hobby Lobby sure doesn't mind filling their shelves full of Chinese goods for the public to purchase. Hummm whats the Chinese record on abortion.

Man, you are wingnutted out.

Why would anyone give back their social security check, WHEN THEY PAID INTO IT THEIR ENTIRE LIVES?

nut

[Phatscotty]

I think this issue is the perfect example of how the Left wing is nutzo. I've never heard more ridiculous things spoken. Hey, if you have a problem with religion and the first amendment, just come out and say so, and shove religion in the closet while hypocritically arguing not even the most private of other things should be kept in the closet. Sounds a lot like "everything I agree with good, everything else bad"

Bottom line, in a Free country, a religious rooted company should not be forced to provide abortions. It's really that simple

[TA1LGUNN3R]

Its sad that we've come so far that people believe not having someone else provide them things somehow violates their rights.

The coverage was part of the employees health insurance plans. Most decent companies put money toward their employes health insurance. Is any portion of your health insurance covered by the company u work for? How would u feel if they said we are not going to cover any prescription drugs because they don't believe u should take meds. All these freaking tea partiers chanting about socialism I don't see any of their old asses sending back their social security checks or refusing medicare and Medicaid benefits. Hobby Lobby sure doesn't mind filling their shelves full of Chinese goods for the public to purchase. Hummm whats the Chinese record on abortion.

1. If they decided to change the coverage, that's a contractual violation. If you signed the contract and health coverage knowing that it doesn't provide prescription drugs, then that's your own problem.
2. You mean the benefits they paid into for years? 'Sfunny how people would want their money back.

-TG

[oVo]

Bottom line, in a Free country, a religious rooted company should not be forced to provide abortions. It's really that simple

They aren't selling Bibles or providing abortions. Legislating from "The Bench" is not a good thing, even in a free country. This Supreme Court decision opens the door for all sorts of religious discrimination and dissent.

The Corporate leadership of Hobby Lobby is absurdly hypocritical
in their choices and methods of operation.

[patches70]

A lot of people don't understand how insurance works in the US. For instance, in the case where employers provide insurance, in many cases that insurance is self insured by the company itself. I'm sure that is the case for Hobby Lobby.

What does "self insured" mean? Well, the insurance company, the company that handles the claims, has the network of doctors, etc etc, they don't actually pay the medical bills by the employees of the company in question. The insurance company merely administrates the company's employee healthcare. The actually costs are paid by the company itself.

For example, lets take Hobby Lobby. They have 21,000 employees or so. Each employee pays for exactly one half of their monthly premiums, Hobby Lobby pays the other half. Those premiums go into a pool, a portion of which is taken by the insurance company for their services. The rest is used to pay medical claims. That pool is owned by Hobby Lobby, it's their money.

Employee A gets sick, is diagnosed with cancer. The costs of those treatments are paid by Hobby Lobby directly. The insurance company doesn't pay those bills. No matter what is in the pooled collection of premiums, the costs of the healthcare are paid by Hobby Lobby. If here isn't enough money in the pool, Hobby Lobby has to contribute more money into the pool, not the employees for that given year.

After a while, with rising costs, if the pool collected cannot cover the medical costs of the employees, the company has to change their coverage plans. That's why the coverage is usually just a contract for a year's worth of time, at the end of the year a new contract is made taking into consideration the previous and estimated future costs.
Sometimes companies will charge greater premiums, half of which is paid for by the employee, I.E. the employee's premiums go up. Sometimes the companies will pay out less for coverage, I.E. the employee is saddled with greater out of pocket costs. Sometimes certain things are no longer covered, I.E. the loss of benefits for employees.
It all has to do with what the costs to the company in question is.

For instance, in my own experience, I worked for a printing company. My company was self insured. When I first started I paid my premiums as usual, had a nominal co-pay for seeing doctors or medical procedures, and the rest was 100% covered by insurance, I.E. paid for by the company.
However, after two years, the company's healthcare costs had soared to $30 million in a single year. That exceeded what was paid into by the the monthly premiums of all the employees company wide. Thus, the company had to change the insurance to where our premiums increased a little bit and for many things there was a 80%/20% split. Instead of covering 100%, the company could only cover 80%.

It got worse, each year the costs to the company kept going up, until the last year I worked there where there was still the 80%/20% split but also a $3,000 limit that had to be paid first by the employee before the company would even begin to pay for medical costs. To offset that $3,000 the company was at least able to fund every employee around $1,500 in individual FSA accounts for each employee. This change was a big shock to the employees.



The bottom line is there is never any free ride, no such thing as "free healthcare". Someone pays. It's like people think insurance is some sort of money tree where it's all free money and gravy. Or getting taxpayers to pay is free money when it's anything but.
And of course there is the issue of inflation, that is debasement of the currency by increasing money supply causes everything that currency is used for to increase in price. And since healthcare is paid for in dollars, by borrowing and printing we are only increasing the price of healthcare along with everything else.

This debasement of the currency, this inflation, is the single greatest cause of rising healthcare costs. This outpaces regulation, supply and demand, abuse, fraud and every other thing that causes prices to increase. We always try to address all those other causes but no one pays attention to the money supply. The Fed no longer publishes exactly how much currency is currently in the system anymore. They did away with providing that information years ago.

Until we address the problem with the unsound currency we use, there is no way to actually fix the problem because we are ignoring the single greatest impacting force to the rising costs.
<shrugs> It's easier to blame everything and everyone else than to try and deal with that issue, because to deal with that particular issue means a whole lot of short term pain for the very people who benefit most from this unsound system.
One way or another that issue will be dealt with. It all depends on exactly how much pain we want to endure as a society. A lot of pain for a short while now, or a whole hell of a lot more pain for a lot longer later. Either way, it's going to be a painful pill to swallow for a lot of people who aren't prepared for such things. Not prepared in the slightest.


This stuff about who is going to pay for what is just a symptom, a consequence of, unstable currency reaching it's breaking point. It's a deflection from the real problem, that our currency system is beginning to buckle under the unstable nature of fiat currencies.

This has always, and will always happen with any fiat currency system. It is an unstable method that has a 100% failure rate. Though there are short term benefits to fiat currency, the end result is always exactly the same. Massive price instability, inflation, deflation and collapse.

Our current system began in 1971 and is very old for a fiat currency system in the historical sense. 43 years is a long time for such currencies where the average fiat currency lifespan is about 31 years. It usually takes just one generation to destroy such a system and our current system is no exception.
Everything we are seeing is just a symptom of this reality.

[Woodruff]

Anyone who supports the recent Supreme Court ruling AND feels that abortion should be illegal really needs to take a serious look at their values. The ability for a woman to have easy access to contraceptives helps to prevent unwanted pregnancies which LITERALLY helps to keep down the need for abortions. Thus, this ruling actually acts to INCREASE future abortions due to unwanted pregnancies.

When your interviewed by hobby lobby they explain that they are deeply rooted in the catholic community and if you dont like it , you can get the f*ck out. A win for religious LIBERTY.

Did you feel any of this actually counters what I said? Because it doesn't, at all. Did you have a response to my point?

[Woodruff]

What access to easy contraceptives have been taken away by the ruling? All I see is that one person can't be forced to pay for someone else's contraceptives simply because the one person owns a business.

This clearly makes it more difficult for women to access contraceptives. How does it NOT make it more difficult?

Again, if you are anti-abortion, you should have a serious problem with this. If you like seeing abortions, then this ruling is for you.

[DaGip]

I watch abortions every day. I don't have cable anymore, so I have to keep myself entertained.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

What access to easy contraceptives have been taken away by the ruling? All I see is that one person can't be forced to pay for someone else's contraceptives simply because the one person owns a business.

This clearly makes it more difficult for women to access contraceptives. How does it NOT make it more difficult?

And? Should everything be handed to a person? It's difficult for me to buy a car, should my employer buy that for me?

-TG

[oVo]

For example, lets take Hobby Lobby. They have 21,000 employees or so. Each employee pays for exactly one half of their monthly premiums, Hobby Lobby pays the other half. Those premiums go into a pool, a portion of which is taken by the insurance company for their services. The rest is used to pay medical claims. That pool is owned by Hobby Lobby, it's their money.

Employee A gets sick, is diagnosed with cancer. The costs of those treatments are paid by Hobby Lobby directly. The insurance company doesn't pay those bills. No matter what is in the pooled collection of premiums, the costs of the healthcare are paid by Hobby Lobby. If here isn't enough money in the pool, Hobby Lobby has to contribute more money into the pool, not the employees for that given year.

By this description the pool is half "their money," Hobby Lobby is getting shorted by "their insurance company" or needs to keep the employees healthy. Makes The Affordable Care Act sound like a good thing.

Indigent people get free healthcare at local hospitals
and county taxes pick up the tab.

[Woodruff]

Seriously, how many places of employment not affliated with one religion or another actually say they'll buy you birth control (of any kind) in the first place? And although I'm not exactly a fan of abortions (don't get me wrong, I can see why some are favorable to it like in cases of rape and such, just not a fan of it overall), the clinics don't charge anything for their "services". We often hear how people don't want religion in government and what not here, but shouldn't it also go both ways?

Is Hobby Lobby a religion? All this time, I thought it was a business.

It's not like their policy is actually hurting people (surprise surprise), just some seem butt hurt because they won't pay for birth control, especially kinds that would go against their beliefs.

You don't believe more difficult access to birth control can hurt people? So you DO favor abortions then, despite what you said? Because that is a typical end-result to a lack of birth control.

Edit: After looking at it more closely, Hobby Lobby actually pays for 16 kinds of birth control. The others they don't pay for because it goes against their religious beliefs. They won't stop employees from buying the other kinds on their own, so what the hell is the problem here?

Sometimes, health reasons are the problem. There are certain types of birth control that my wife cannot use, for instance.

[Woodruff]

What access to easy contraceptives have been taken away by the ruling? All I see is that one person can't be forced to pay for someone else's contraceptives simply because the one person owns a business.

This clearly makes it more difficult for women to access contraceptives. How does it NOT make it more difficult?

And? Should everything be handed to a person? It's difficult for me to buy a car, should my employer buy that for me?

And...it goes exactly back to my original point. If you are anti-abortion, then you should see this ruling, and Hobby Lobby's stance, as a very bad thing, because it leads to more abortions. My issue with this situation has nothing to do with "giving women something", it has to do with the hypocricy of the combination of views that "Abortions are bad" and "We want to make abortions more likely" that is going on here.

[patches70]

By this description the pool is half "their money," Hobby Lobby is getting shorted by "their insurance company"

No, it's all Hobby Lobby's money. The employee is paying for a service, medical care. They pay it to Hobby Lobby. All that money is pooled and used to pay for healthcare used by the employees. In the case of self insured companies, insurance companies just administer the accounts. Because insurance laws are done like that in the US. Hobby Lobby isn't an insurance company, thus an insurance company is needed to run Hobby Lobby's program. It's not hard to understand and it's not a bad system really. Until costs start affecting the profitability of the company.

or needs to keep the employees healthy.

That's always a plus, but what can Hobby Lobby really do to keep people healthy? They can offer incentives, gym memberships, or any other thing, but it's up to the individuals to actually do those things. Hobby Lobby can't do it for them, like exercise nor can the government for that matter.
It's up to individuals to stay healthy, ultimately. Some do, some don't, it is what it is. Unless you wanna hold a gun to some one's head and say "Stay healthy!" I'm not really sure what your point is.

Makes The Affordable Care Act sound like a good thing.

It's a good thing if you want to get rid of self insured companies. It's a good thing if you want to increase the profitability of drug companies, insurance companies and corporations and especially good for insurance companies.
But government isn't a good alternative because government doesn't care about costs. If things cost more, then government just borrows, prints or takes more money from everyone. There is no incentive for government to improve or innovate.

Indigent people get free healthcare at local hospitals
and county taxes pick up the tab.

And the ACA changes that?
Should self insured companies pay for the care of these people as well as their own employees?

And it's funny, you say "free healthcare" and then say county taxes pick up the tab. Where is the free healthcare you mentioned?
Hahaha!

Sure, the indigent person thinks it's free, but it still costs the indigent person. If they don't pay the hospital then they pay for it in anything else they buy because it mere contributes to inflation which traverses across the board, certainly into things the indigent person will purchase with their meager means. It's just that the indigent person will simply be able to purchase even less of those things.



The ACA is a great thing for corporations. Because they are going to have the ultimate backer to pay them for services, Uncle Sam. And Uncle Sam thinks he has unlimited pockets and so do a lot of the citizens. One day we'll wake up and realize that Uncle Sam's pockets aren't nearly as deep as we all thought they were.
And then where will we be?

Up a shit creek and scratching our heads "How did this happen?" when all the while it's all right there in front of us. Our money we use to purchase everything from healthcare to widgets is simply worth less and less and less until it's virtually worthless. The bayonet only works for a little while. And that's the only thing that is keeping our currency alive as it stands now, the bayonet.

This is the one point no one ever talks about. It's the elephant in the room because far to many people have zero idea of what money is, where it comes from and the price of money.
In our current economic reality, debt is wealth, debt is good and saving is a mortal economic sin. Do you understand why that is?

It would be very helpful if you understood this dynamic and why it affects the very things you all seem so concerned about but still ignore this core foundation upon what everything is built.
It's like trying to patch crumbling walls while ignoring the sandy foundation upon which the walls you are trying to fix are built upon. Can anyone else see the futility of the action of trying to repair such walls?
I can't be the only one.

[patches70]

And...it goes exactly back to my original point. If you are anti-abortion, then you should see this ruling, and Hobby Lobby's stance, as a very bad thing, because it leads to more abortions. My issue with this situation has nothing to do with "giving women something", it has to do with the hypocricy of the combination of views that "Abortions are bad" and "We want to make abortions more likely" that is going on here.

And it's still just a red herring to the core issue at hand, woodruff. Concentrating on such things while ignoring the fundamental weakness of the currency system is an argument to the irrelevant.

And what is the opposite of "anit-abortion"? Being pro-abortion is like being pro-cancer. That's why even the abortion advocates never use the phrase "pro-abortion" because that's absurd. Your "anti-abortion" rhetoric is sophistry. Just as "pro-abortion" is more sophistry. It's merely a means to demonize one who has different opinions than one's self. You should be better than that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_d ... erminology

[oVo]

Indigent people get free healthcare at local hospitals
and county taxes pick up the tab.

And the ACA changes that?
Should self insured companies pay for the care of these people as well as their own employees?

And it's funny, you say "free healthcare" and then say county taxes pick up the tab. Where is the free healthcare you mentioned?
Hahaha!

I said "Indigent people get free healthcare" and they do. It is also the most expensive way to treat health problems in this country and it is mostly paid for with local tax dollars, many folks just don't realize it. The bite out of my property tax that goes to Parkland Hospital is around half.

[danfrank666]

Anyone who supports the recent Supreme Court ruling AND feels that abortion should be illegal really needs to take a serious look at their values. The ability for a woman to have easy access to contraceptives helps to prevent unwanted pregnancies which LITERALLY helps to keep down the need for abortions. Thus, this ruling actually acts to INCREASE future abortions due to unwanted pregnancies.

When your interviewed by hobby lobby they explain that they are deeply rooted in the catholic community and if you dont like it , you can get the f*ck out. A win for religious LIBERTY.

Did you feel any of this actually counters what I said? Because it doesn't, at all. Did you have a response to my point?

I support the ruling and I`m pro choice. The Kermit Gosnells of the world will be dealt with accordingly. Increase future abortions for Hobby Lobby Employees ?. Hobby Lobby is one of the highest paying entry level retailers . I believe their diligent when hiring .In the end, It all comes down to personal responsibility. What they cover is sufficient . The gov`t doesn`t cover all . Politically , it`s another scheme to divide and conquer.
Just because i quoted you doesn`t mean i disagree . I support the ruling , If your logical you should too.

[oVo]

I support the ruling , If your logical you should too.

If you're logical you will realize that this means "religious moral grounds" can be used to legally circumnavigate existing law.

What Woodruff has been attempting to express: He thinks Pro-Lifers who are anti-abortion should support all forms of birth control and women's healthcare so that less abortions are necessary.

Pro-Lifers should be known as Pro-Birthers, since their actions show they care little about what happens to people after they enter this world. Once they're here food, clothing, healthcare and a place to live is their problem and of no concern to Pro-Lifers.

[patches70]

I said "Indigent people get free healthcare" and they do.

No, they don't, the costs are merely transferred somewhere else. They still pay, there is no such thing as free healthcare. I wish people would stop using that term.

We all pay through being able to purchase fewer goods with the same dollars. Indigent or not. The problem is that it is the poor that is hurt the most because they can least afford it.
The poor getting their healthcare subsidized still won't be able to make ends meet because everything just keeps costing more due to monetary policy. It doesn't matter if they aren't having to spend their little amounts of money on healthcare, they still have to pay more at the grocery store, the gas pump or anywhere else currency is used.

The ACA is just another thing that makes this problem worse because that problem, the devaluation of our currency, is the root of the reason why people can't afford health care. It's the same reason why people can't afford college, rent, mortgage, clothes, food.

It is in this way that we are paying, all of us. It doesn't matter about taxes, it doesn't matter about wages, insurance, government entitlements, or anything else. Inflation is killing everyone except the wealthy who have the exact opposite problem. The high value assets are deflating. Homes, cars, boats, planes, things that ordinary people don't buy or buy once in a lifetime.
This problem with deflation, which is a godsend to the poor BTW, brings mortal fear to those in debt. Inflation is a good way to deal with high debt but it kills savings.

So we have two competing interests here, those who need prices to increase, and those who need prices to decrease.

The poor, the so called "middle class" need the latter. Deflation to this group is like getting a dividend check everyday on the cash they have in their pocket.
The rich and the government need the former. The rich are in debt often times, or their assets are in stocks, which they need to increase in value. The devaluation of their assets means they lose money. The government needs inflation, badly, because Uncle Sam is over $16 trillion in debt and the only possible way he can pay off that debt is to inflate it away. And only able to do that if he stops spending like a drunken sailor on shore leave in Thailand.

So the government pays lip service to the middle class but in policy do everything to protect themselves and those who contribute to the political machine. That's why things just keep getting worse, despite the promises, despite the legislation, despite the name calling and blame games everyone keeps engaging in.

It's all in the money and how it works. It's a catch 22, by borrowing and spending we are consuming tomorrows resources today. The problem is that tomorrow always comes and the resources we could have counted on at that time have already been consumed, which leads to more printing, more borrowing, more devaluation and keeps extending the pain.

No legislation in the world can change that so long as we keep using a debt based currency system. That is reality, one that has been carefully ignored and rarely ever mentioned or considered in all these issues we all argue about, like the ACA, healthcare, the war on terror, immigration, taxes, entitlements. Everything.
It's like trying to pull a splinter out of one's eye by pushing the tweezers up one's rectum for fear of seeing the tweezers coming toward the eye.

It is also the most expensive way to treat health problems in this country and it is mostly paid for with local tax dollars, many folks just don't realize it. The bite out of my property tax that goes to Parkland Hospital is around half.

This is correct. And you said the ACA is a good thing and I asked-

Does the ACA change this?

You quoted the question but still didn't answer it.

[Night Strike]

What access to easy contraceptives have been taken away by the ruling? All I see is that one person can't be forced to pay for someone else's contraceptives simply because the one person owns a business.

This clearly makes it more difficult for women to access contraceptives. How does it NOT make it more difficult?

And? Should everything be handed to a person? It's difficult for me to buy a car, should my employer buy that for me?

And...it goes exactly back to my original point. If you are anti-abortion, then you should see this ruling, and Hobby Lobby's stance, as a very bad thing, because it leads to more abortions. My issue with this situation has nothing to do with "giving women something", it has to do with the hypocricy of the combination of views that "Abortions are bad" and "We want to make abortions more likely" that is going on here.

Hobby Lobby's stance is a very bad thing even though they provide 16 of the 20 mandated forms of birth control? Hobby Lobby's stance is that the other 4 forms actually cause abortions after conception, not preventing conceptions, which means they are already adhering to your demands of "support contraceptives because abortions are bad.

And to answer your original fallacy answer: if making people purchase their own goods and services makes it difficult to acquire something, then I guess we should just force either the government or employers to pay for everything we ever need or want. Because it's too difficult for us to earn our own damn money and then go spend it on the things we want or need.

[Metsfanmax]

What access to easy contraceptives have been taken away by the ruling? All I see is that one person can't be forced to pay for someone else's contraceptives simply because the one person owns a business.

This clearly makes it more difficult for women to access contraceptives. How does it NOT make it more difficult?

And? Should everything be handed to a person? It's difficult for me to buy a car, should my employer buy that for me?

And...it goes exactly back to my original point. If you are anti-abortion, then you should see this ruling, and Hobby Lobby's stance, as a very bad thing, because it leads to more abortions. My issue with this situation has nothing to do with "giving women something", it has to do with the hypocricy of the combination of views that "Abortions are bad" and "We want to make abortions more likely" that is going on here.

Hobby Lobby's stance is a very bad thing even though they provide 16 of the 20 mandated forms of birth control? Hobby Lobby's stance is that the other 4 forms actually cause abortions after conception, not preventing conceptions, which means they are already adhering to your demands of "support contraceptives because abortions are bad.

Except there's not really evidence that these other medications actually cause abortions after conception.

[oVo]

I said "Indigent people get free healthcare" and they do.

No, they don't, the costs are merely transferred somewhere else. They still pay, there is no such thing as free healthcare. I wish people would stop using that term.

My words stand as Free healthcare does exist to for the poor & indigent. Yes, it costs somebody, but not them. Fact is, for them it is free of charge.

It is also the most expensive way to treat health problems in this country and it is mostly paid for with local tax dollars, many folks just don't realize it. The bite out of my property tax that goes to Parkland Hospital is around half.

This is correct. And you said the ACA is a good thing and I asked-

Does the ACA change this?

You quoted the question but still didn't answer it.

The Affordable Care Act has the potential to change this by getting some return from those who can pay at least something, instead of depending totally on tax dollars to cover hospital care expenses. With preventative health care --that the ACA makes possible-- it's likely that medical treatment costs will be drastically reduced by not waiting for critical emergency room treatments of patient health problems. Americans fear the concept of "Socialized Healthcare" but the reality is billions of dollars could be saved with a better system than what is in place now. Health Insurance CEOs are paid multi-million dollar salaries without even meeting the needs of the general public and that money is coming out of somebody's pocket.

I'd just like to see The Affordable Care Act given a chance to work. Social Security got off to a shaky start and took time to get the bugs out. So it's no surprise that the ACA also had difficulties at start up and may take also need some time to function in a way that seems normal and that people can feel comfortable with. The political crossfire, half truths, mis-information and absolute lies about the program certainly didn't help/

[GabonX]

Its sad that we've come so far that people believe not having someone else provide them things somehow violates their rights.

The coverage was part of the employees health insurance plans. Most decent companies put money toward their employes health insurance. Is any portion of your health insurance covered by the company u work for? How would u feel if they said we are not going to cover any prescription drugs because they don't believe u should take meds. All these freaking tea partiers chanting about socialism I don't see any of their old asses sending back their social security checks or refusing medicare and Medicaid benefits. Hobby Lobby sure doesn't mind filling their shelves full of Chinese goods for the public to purchase. Hummm whats the Chinese record on abortion.

Man, you are wingnutted out.

That's really all there is to it Scott. There's no real point in trying to engage these people...

[DaGip]

How is all this conservative fear mongering and women-hating answering to the point the OP made in the beginning? By eliminating access to birth control choices for one's employees (because one does not believe in humans getting abortions) will inevitably lead to said employees getting abortions because they were not allowed access through their employer's insurance to obtain contraception?

[GabonX]

[Night Strike]

How is all this conservative fear mongering and women-hating answering to the point the OP made in the beginning? By eliminating access to birth control choices for one's employees (because one does not believe in humans getting abortions) will inevitably lead to said employees getting abortions because they were not allowed access through their employer's insurance to obtain contraception?

Because the OP's point was a complete fallacy. 1) Hobby Lobby already provides 16 of 20 forms of Obamacare-mandated birth control, so no employee has lost access to birth control. 2) It is impossible for Hobby Lobby to ban their employees from buying any type of birth control on their own, so exactly 0 people have lost access to birth control.

Except there's not really evidence that these other medications actually cause abortions after conception.

That depends on the definitions you're using. If you believe an abortion occurs as soon as fertilization occurs, even before implantation, then yes, some of the drugs do cause an abortion.

By the way, I believe life starts at implantation because that's the only time the fetus can actually grow, so I don't have a problem with any contraceptives (other than allowing children to use them without their parents knowing). But I do protect the right for other people to have different beliefs and to stop the government from telling people they're beliefs can't exist in public.