How did scientific consensus differ from the Green family’s belief about the four contraceptive methods at issue?

In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., the Green family challenged a federal mandate requiring employer-provided health insurance to cover 20 Food and Drug Administration-approved contraceptive methods.1

The scientific consensus holds that the four methods at issue—two types of "morning-after" pills and two types of intrauterine devices (IUDs)—function as contraceptives rather than abortifacients. In contrast, the Green family maintained a sincere religious belief that these specific methods were abortifacients, meaning they believed these drugs and devices caused abortions.1

Based on this belief, the Greens argued that providing insurance coverage for these methods would force them to facilitate abortion, which they viewed as inconsistent with their Christian faith. They contended that the government's requirement to include these methods in their employee health plans imposed a "substantial burden" on their exercise of religion under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).1