Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Friday, July 04, 2014

Erin Brodwin, The Mic: On Monday, the Supreme Court in their controversial Hobby Lobby ruling equated contraception to abortion. The problem with their decision is this: There's absolutely zero science to back it up. ... Of the four methods Christian company Hobby Lobby claims cause abortion (Plan B, ella, and two IUDs), exactly zero prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus. All four methods work by stopping fertilization from happening in the first place. Unfortunately, this isn't the first time the Supreme Court has ignored science.

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Advertisement

Subscriptions

Author Info

Dave

 

Advertisement

MORE STORIES

 

Advertisement

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

You expect lawyers to understand science? Not part of the law school curriculum. No science or math, for that matter.

#1 | Posted by morris at 2014-07-02 12:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

Yeah, but there is plenty of $$$$ to back up their ideology.

#2 | Posted by 726 at 2014-07-02 12:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

I don't think the author understands that they could give crap about reality or science. The justices in question were put in place by the party that, on the state level, pushes for creationsim to be taught in schools. This is the party who, in all seriousness, openly voiced contempt for reality the last time they were in the White House. The religious stuff is just a smokescreen anyway. The important part was expanding corporate personhood. These justices know exactly what crowd they are playing to and who their masters are....

#3 | Posted by Sully at 2014-07-02 12:41 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

If it was key to the ruling, the information should have been provided to the SCOTUS. It appears it was not.

That said, the author makes some broad and inaccurate statements. Hormonal IUDs not only work to prevent fertilization, they also prevent attachment of fertilized eggs. www.webmd.com

The morning after pill works 3 ways, one of which is to prevent attachment of fertilized eggs to the uterus. That is true of both Plan-B type pills and Ella. www.morningafterpill.org bedsider.org

#4 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2014-07-02 12:42 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

From SCALIA's majority opinion, in 1993, explaining why members of the Native American Church could be fired for failing a drug test because they had peyote in their systems: "To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. The rule respondents favor would open the prospect of constitutionally required religious exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind, ranging from compulsory military service, to the payment of taxes, to health and safety regulation such as manslaughter and child neglect laws, compulsory vaccination laws, drug laws, and traffic laws; to social welfare legislation such as minimum wage laws, child labor laws, animal cruelty laws, environmental protection laws, and laws providing for equality of opportunity for the races."

#5 | Posted by morris at 2014-07-02 12:44 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

#5- Scalia is a joke. This was may favorite from him:

You can execute children for capital crimes because a child should know you can't kill someone.

Then....

A minor must inform their parents prior to an abortion because a child doesn't know you can't kill someone.

#6 | Posted by kanrei at 2014-07-02 12:47 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

#5 | Good eye, Morris.

"Science? Could you spell that for me?" - Scalia

#7 | Posted by Corky at 2014-07-02 12:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Science? Could you spell that for me?" - Dave

#8 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2014-07-02 12:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

Since "Santorum" has been redefined recently, how about we re-christen the stuff that falls out of a bull's butt "Scalia"?

#9 | Posted by morris at 2014-07-02 01:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

The pro-war, draft-dodging chicken-hawk coward Antonin Scalia is a vile nauseating and repulsive individual. IMHO

#10 | Posted by SammyAZ_RI at 2014-07-02 02:36 PM | Reply | Flag:

Did Dave spell it Scienece on purpose? Is that part of the joke?

Even if it weren't, I would say it was.

#11 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-07-02 03:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

#1 |

A bachelors degree is a prerequisite to law school admission.

#5 |

Found something to copy and paste that appears to support your meme.

Now, can you differentiate between the First Amendment claim in that case and the broader statutory claim made by Hobby Lobby?

#12 | Posted by et_al at 2014-07-02 03:14 PM | Reply | Flag:

#1 A bachelors degree is a prerequisite to law school admission.
#12 | Posted by et_al

A scientific literacy is not a prerequisite for a bachelor's degree.
Scientific illiteracy is a real problem for the courts. The legislature isn't helping.

#13 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-07-02 04:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

Scientific illiteracy is a real problem for the courts.

It is beyond the scope of law school curriculum to teach science and technology. It is impossible for courts of general jurisdiction, meaning they must take whatever case is filed, to be literate in the myriad of scientific and technical claims that can be made. If science and technology are important to the case is up to the parties, who presumably are literate in their area, to educate the court.

#14 | Posted by et_al at 2014-07-02 04:54 PM | Reply | Flag:

If science and technology are important to the case is up to the parties, who presumably are literate in their area, to educate the court.
#14 | Posted by et_al

That doesn't really address the problem when both parties "experts" provide opposite "education."

#15 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-07-02 05:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

That doesn't really address the problem when both parties "experts" provide opposite "education."

Well, which problem do you want to address; your first goalpost, the scientific and technological illiteracy of courts or your second, the use of experts on disputed facts in an adversarial system?

Or, perhaps, your utopian dream of perfection in every system?

#16 | Posted by et_al at 2014-07-02 06:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

The first one. The second problem is only problem because of the first problem.

What else are judges permitted to utterly ignorant of, I wonder?

#17 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-07-02 07:49 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Perhaps a technology court is warranted. If separate courts are good enough for spies and traffic violations...

Or do the judges on those courts not have to know anything beyond what regular judges know about those fields?

#18 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-07-02 07:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

What else are judges permitted to utterly ignorant of, I wonder?

You assume too much. Judges have the same general science and technology education as anyone else that graduates college, some maybe more depending what they did in undergraduate school.

Or do the judges on those courts not have to know anything beyond what regular judges know about those fields?

There are some specialized courts but that is not the issue you raised. We are talking about courts of general jurisdiction. They hear whatever case is filed. Some, such as a suit on a promissory note or breach of contract to perform a service, raise no scientific issues. Others, such as what caused the car wreck or why the patient died, raise issues involving one or more scientific disciplines. Others, such as the Deep Water Horizon explosion, raise issues involving many, sometimes conflicting, scientific disciplines. The point is, as I previously said, it is impossible for general jurisdiction judges to be educated in the hundreds of scientific and technical disciplines they may encounter in the course of a career on the bench. It is unrealistic to expect that they could or should be. It's reasonable to assume they learn a lot over the course of that career.

#19 | Posted by et_al at 2014-07-02 09:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

and maybe less...

#20 | Posted by YAV at 2014-07-02 10:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

There are some specialized courts but that is not the issue you raised.

I'm suggesting specialized courts are indicated, based on some of ignorant commentary we've seen from the courts on technology.

The Myriad decision for example is full of cringe-worthy inaccuracies.

#21 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-07-02 11:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

Judges have the same general science and technology education as anyone else that graduates college

That's one problem; insufficient education. The other problem is that whatever education they did get was decades ago and a lot has happened since then. Think Moore's Law. Other fields don't advance that rapidly.

#22 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-07-02 11:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

I'm suggesting specialized courts are indicated...

So, you pick as an example a patent case. There exists a specialized process for patents. Yet, that specialized process, presumptively according to science, failed to satisfy the parties. Courts decided the issue according to established patent law. www.scotusblog.com But that ain't good enough for you or science, apparently.

Nevertheless, how does your idea of specialized courts work with courts of general jurisdiction? Given there are hundreds of scientific and technological disciplines how many "specialized" courts are needed. (I'll put aside that the judiciary is the "red headed step child" in the budgetary process.) How would those courts handle a case that involved five or ten of those disciplines? Would the case be shuffled back and forth between the various "specialized" courts for interlocutory rulings according to the various disciplines? What court would decide which issues go to which "specialized" court, what is that court's scientific qualifications to make those decisions? What if there were fact disputes within each discipline, would each of the five or ten "specialized" courts hold separate jury trials? Which court would issue the final judgment or would that go to another court that specializes in reconciling the opinions of the various courts specializing in the disciplines?

#23 | Posted by et_al at 2014-07-03 01:15 AM | Reply | Flag:

Courts decided the issue according to established patent law. www.scotusblog.com But that ain't good enough for you or science, apparently.

My belief is that any opinion suffers when what's being presented as "fact" turns out to be wrong.

As for your litany of questions, I suspect answers to those can reasonably be construed from the way specialized courts operate today.

#24 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-07-03 01:38 AM | Reply | Flag:

So, you stick with the outlier but the question is the general.

I suspect...

You can't defend your radical ideals.

"Hey, I got the perfect idea! Somebody else figure out what it means."

#25 | Posted by et_al at 2014-07-03 02:35 AM | Reply | Flag:

I see you've declared victory and my commentary on the technological illiteracy of the court has died the death of a thousand petulant cuts.

Congratulations!

#26 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-07-03 02:52 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Commentary" implies explication. So far you have state observation and conclusion. Sorely lacking in evidence or analysis. The bar remains open.

Good luck to you!

#27 | Posted by et_al at 2014-07-03 03:30 AM | Reply | Flag:

I really would love to discuss this but I'm headed out for the weekend.
Old fuddy duddies don't grok technology. It's a stereotype, sure, but as with most stereotypes there's a grain of truth to it.

#28 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-07-03 04:04 AM | Reply | Flag:

Old fuddy duddies don't grok technology.

I do alright, and suspect most judges do also, thanks.

May your weekend be well, enjoy!

#29 | Posted by et_al at 2014-07-03 04:13 AM | Reply | Flag:

Fertilization takes place in the fallopian tube. Plan B works on the uterus so, in the sense that the fertilized ovum is prevented from implanting in the uterus, it can be considered to cause an abortion albeit a very early one. Ella works by altering hormone production. The IUD type one changes the condition of the uterine lining. IUD two has a hormonal effect. If the people that are so in favor of those agents, why didn't they inform the justices about it. Lawyers are not really expected to be fully informed about medical matters, although it would have been wise for them to inform themselves. The women on the court should have been up on women's matters and they could have passed the word on to the men. Consult some nationally know gynecologist if you do not believe what I have written.

#30 | Posted by Donald at 2014-07-04 09:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

Notice how the two sides use a different definition of "viable fetus" to shape the argument. This pattern illustrates how Conservatives and Liberals talk around each other using different definitions of the same word.

#31 | Posted by nutcase at 2014-07-05 09:55 AM | Reply | Flag:

#6 | Posted by kanrei

You libs never cease. It is just fine to perform an abortion but don't you dare execute a convicted killer. WTF did the fetus do to deserve being killed?

#32 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-07-05 10:46 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

That's one problem; insufficient education.

#22 | Posted by snoofy

Are you saying colleges are failing to educate people? I can't argue that one with you, they have failed!

#33 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-07-05 01:12 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Not illiteracy, just upholding the Constitution of the United States, are they are sworn to uphold.

#34 | Posted by MSgt at 2014-07-05 08:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

Ironic thing is had the Supreme Court contact the Pontifical Academy of science they'd have likely been told it doesn't cause abortion.

#35 | Posted by Tor at 2014-07-05 08:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

It is just fine to perform an abortion but don't you dare execute a convicted killer.

While the conservatives prefer the view of Christ as a "fisher of men" don't kill a fetus throw that one back it doesn't meet the size limit we'll kill it when it gets bigger.

Convenient how the sanctity of life is important to conservatives when it comes to abortion but not to anyone out of the womb specifically brown people who live on top of oil, accused murderers or children shot by psychos with 2nd amendment rights.

#36 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2014-07-05 09:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

#35

Couple things, first the SC is an appellate court that rules on legal dispute not factual disputes. It does not hear evidence, that is done in the trial court. If the parties don't think in important enough to put it in the trial court record it doesn't exist.

Also, how far into the factual basis for the religious beliefs of these parties should the court delve? Do you really want courts exploring what you hold as religious beliefs, if any?

#37 | Posted by et_al at 2014-07-05 10:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

Advertisement

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2014 World Readable

 

Advertisement

Drudge Retort