Leaked Roe v. Wade draft opinion puts future of birth control, some fertility treatments in question

Many Republican-led states are expected to take action to restrict abortion if the leaked U.S. Supreme Court draft opinion stands.

Should that happen, abortion rights supporters warn that access to birth control could be at risk on two fronts: Legal and legislative.

Defenders of the high court’s decision disagree.

In 1965, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Griswold v. Connecticut that states could not ban birth control because the Constitution protects a right to privacy. The opinion of the court was that the Constitution "protects a general right of privacy."

The decision in Roe v. Wade was based on that same right to privacy.

In Monday’s leaked decision, Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the court that there is no Constitutional right to privacy. Conservatives argue it’s unlikely that states would try to restrict birth control. Also, Alito said in the ruling that it applies only to abortion, not contraception.

However, many abortion opponents believe some forms of birth control are equivalent to abortion. They argued in the Hobby Lobby case in 2014 that IUDs and morning-after pills kill embryos. Specifically, Hobby Lobby successful sued for a conscience exception to the Affordable Care Act's requirement that all employer health plans must cover an array of contraceptive options.

However, Dr. Katherine Farris says that’s medically inaccurate.

“Birth control does not cause an abortion, it prevents a pregnancy,” Farris said.

Farris is the chief medical officer at Planned Parenthood. She said the medical definition of the beginning of pregnancy is implantation.

“If we all kind of go back to our sex [education], sperm meets egg, egg is fertilized, then egg needs to be implanted, and a large percentage of eggs will just never implant and just pass on through,” Farris said.

However, some are trying to redefine the beginning of pregnancy. The Louisiana state house will soon vote on a bill that would classify abortion as murder. It defines pregnancy – and life – as beginning when an egg is fertilized. Anything that could prevent an egg from implanting, including many types of birth control, could be outlawed.

Farris says that would make it impossible to treat ectopic pregnancies. It would also complicate in vitro fertilization. IVF works by using a combination of medicines and surgical procedures to help sperm fertilize the egg, and help the fertilized egg implant the uterus.

“You can write a law that says anything you want, but it doesn't match science,” she said. “And, it doesn't make it ethically or morally right."

The reason the Louisiana bill could be problematic for IVF is because the procedure generally involves fertilizing multiple eggs. The eggs that aren't implanted are often discarded.

Several anti-abortion groups declined to speak with WRAL News for this story.

North Carolina Values Coalition Executive Director Tami Fitzgerald issued the following statement:

"The leaked draft opinion written by Justice Alito in Dobbs only applies to abortion,” Fitzgerald wrote. “ Justice Alito explicitly states, 'Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion,' and he specifically noted that the right to contraception is undisturbed by his opinion.

“Justice Alito’s draft opinion also specifically says that 'abortion is fundamentally different' from other rights established by precedent because 'abortion destroys…the life of an ‘unborn human being.’'"

Susan B. Anthony List Vice President of Communications Mallory Carroll also issued a statement.

“Justice Alito addressed in his draft opinion that, ‘Roe’s defenders characterize the abortion right as similar to the rights recognized in past decisions involving matters such as intimate sexual relations, contraception, and marriage, but abortion is fundamentally different,’” Carroll said. “Abortion is fundamentally different than matters of contraception because it destroys an unborn human life.”