dante ruffalo alicia moritzToday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Hobby Lobby Stores v. Sebelius.

Very much as expected, the questions from the Justices were divided down party lines with the holding in Citizens United being in large part, the premise for Hobby Lobby’s claim to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the right of a ‘person’ to exercise his or her religious beliefs free from encumbrance by government regulation unless to pursue ‘a substantial government purpose.’

But why debate interpretation of Citizens United when the flaw in the appellant’s argument is glaring.

If Justice Scalia wanted so much to be a doctor, why didn’t he go to medical school instead of law school.  Again, the bellicose textualist misread the appellant’s brief.  It very clearly says, Hobby Lobby’s ‘religious beliefs prohibit them from providing health coverage for contraceptive drugs and devices that end human life after conception.’

As a textualist, Justice Scalia knows the importance of each word better than anyone, why he chooses to ignore them is the prerogative afforded only to Supreme Court Justices.

Here is his deliberate mistake.

Stedman’s Medical Dictionary (the dictionary of choice for doctor’s everywhere, but clearly not for Supreme Court Justices anywhere), defines conception as ‘the onset of pregnancy, marked by implantation of the blastocyst into the endometrium.’  The translation of this is- conception is when a fertilized egg is implanted in the wall of the uterus.

Problem solved, end of story.

Plan B is contraception not the pharmaceutical abortion pill RU-487.

Plan B effectuates change in the uterine mucosa preventing release of an egg, fertilization of an egg or implantation in the uterine wall of an egg.


Therefore, Hobby Lobby needn’t be concerned about ‘ending human life after conception’ because that will NEVER happen with Plan B.

I am sure Mr. Scalia is a whiz with Black’s Law Dictionary but when it comes to a textualist interpretation of anything pertaining to medicine (ie abortion), Justice Scalia drops the pretext of strict constructionist and favors his own interpretation of scientific data.