Indiana's proposed consent law

In Indiana, where I live, there has been a lot of talk about a proposed abortion-related law, which would -- the Washington Post reports -- require women seeking an abortion to be informed in writing that "human life begins when a human ovum is fertilized by a human sperm."  According to some who oppose the proposal, it "blurs the line between church and state":

"To put our religion or faithful beliefs into a statute that's going to be law, without being able to back it up scientifically, I have real hard questions about doing that," said state Rep. John D. Ulmer (R), who voted against the bill.

Let's concede, for the moment, that reasonable people can disagree about the merits of a proposal like this one, and also that the purpose of the law is to dissuade women from having abortions.  That said, in what sense is the statement that "human life begins when a human ovum is fertilized by a human sperm" anything other than a "scientific[]" claim?  After all, the proposal is not to require women to be informed that "it is always immoral to cause the death of human beings", or that "human beings are endowed by their Creator with an inalienable dignity from the moment of conception", or that racial discrimination is wrong, or that recycling is good.  The information required by the proposal is relevant (many think) to moral arguments about abortion, but how is it a "religious belief[]"?