PZ Myers who writes with Science Blogs, and is a biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota Morris, writes about the HHS proposal to redefine contraception as abortion;

Federal endorsement of the opinion that life begins at ‘conception’ (in reality, as we know,
the matter is not so easily settled) is a grim development, not only
because of what it could mean for abortion rights, but because of how
some forms of contraception are reputed to function. Although the
indisputable primary effect of oral contraceptives, including EC, is to inhibit ovulation,
it has been widely accepted that a secondary mechanism by which these
treatments prevent pregnancy is through changes to the uterine lining
that decrease the likelihood of successful implantation. Further,
interference with the implantation process has long been thought to be
the principle mechanism by which IUDs prevent pregnancy. It is thus not
surprising that those who believe a pre-implantation embryo is a
fully-vested human life consider the above mechanisms forms of
abortion, and health-care workers holding this view would, under this
new policy, be acting within their rights to freely hold and express
their religious beliefs when denying these treatments to patients. The
kicker, though, is that there are precious few studies investigating
the hypothesized implantation-blocking properties of either oral
contraceptives or IUDs, and the few published data that are available do not support these claims.

Previous studies of Levonorgestrel
have concluded that, while ovulation is effectively suppressed if
administered in a timely manner, it appears to have a negligible
effect on post-ovulatory events. A 2007 review
of multiple studies investigating the presence of viable gametes and
pre-implantation embroys in IUD users concluded that the inflammatory
response resulting from the presence of an IUD, as well as the actions
of synthetic hormones released from the device, have significant
effects on the reproductive process prior to fertilization.

Interestingly, many of the studies investigating these contraceptive mechanisms have taken place in Chile,
a conservative country where all abortions–even therapeutic ones–are
illegal. It is troubling to think that increasing restrictions on
reproductive rights could necessitate similar studies by researchers in
the US. It is more troubling still to realize that, given the
diminishing currency of science in this country, even the most
conclusive and rigorous studies may not affect policy changes if they
do not align with popular opinion.

 

The commenting on his post is refreshing to read. Grolby had one of the most cogent:

It is thus not surprising that those who believe a
pre-implantation embryo is a fully-vested human life consider the above
mechanisms forms of abortion, and health-care workers holding this view
would, under this new policy, be acting within their rights to freely
hold and express their religious beliefs when denying these treatments
to patients.

I disagree with this interpretation. The right of the patient to
receive legal and essential health care (birth control is legal and
essential) trumps the right of the health care employee to "express"
his or her freedom of religion by refusing said care. The provider is
under contract to provide that care. If an employee denies treatment,
they are not only breaking their contract and not only not doing their
jobs, they are also unconstitutionally denying the patient their
rights to freedom of religion. After all, what is allowing health care
workers to deny treatment to patients based on personal beliefs, but
the state endorsing the notion that the provider’s beliefs are more
important (and more "real," apparently) than the patient’s? That’s NOT
how health care is supposed to work. That interpretation is
ass-backwards. A patient having their rights infringed upon may have no
recourse. The health care worker DOES: work a different damn job. A
patient’s right to expect competent, complete health care trumps a
health care worker’s right to keep a particular job.

I know we’re on the same side, but I really think that the facts of
conception and implantation are irrelevant to the interpretation of
rights. "Life begins at conception," is just code for ensoulment
anyway. It’s a strictly religious belief, and the practice of medicine
has no obligation to give any time to such nonsense. It interferes with
practicing the best medicine possible.