Originally Posted by Piobaire
Actually, that's not quite right. What the HL case is about would not be abortifacients but rather things that prevent implantation in the first place. Plan B works on several levels but the final level is preventing implantation. Since the fertilized egg never becomes implanted it definitionaly cannot be "aborted." RU 486 was a true abortifacient but Plan B is not. Same with IUDs, i.e. they prevent implantation.
Those may be the accepted technical definitions of pregnancy and abortion, but it's not the position taken by Hobby Lobby (the people, not the decision). They said that "contraceptives" that prevent implantation are abortifacients. The supreme court said it doesn't matter whether it's technically an abortion because the label [or even the rationality] is not what's important.
What I said was that I'm not sure whether it's a zygote at the point where the "abortion" would occur, or slightly more developed; but I don't think it substantially undermines the argument presented by the picture at issue here either way.