There are a number of points which I have not seen clearly stated relating to the question of exempting organization and individual from supplying their employees with contraception coverage as part of their health insurance benefit.  While my knowledge of constitutional law is limited I do know that the Supreme Court has found that the protection of the exercise of religious practices is not absolute.  Mormons, for example have not successfully argued that they can practice polygamy because it is a part of their religion nor have arguments that cannabis could be smoked as part of a religious ceremony succeeded.   Therefore it is clear that common sense should be applied to this issue in the context of the first amendment.  Briefly these points, primarily appealing to common sense, are as follows.

1) The discussion is about the employer paying for insurance coverage which allows the employee to have the option to get contraception service or not, the moral/religious decision to get such services is actually made by the employee.  If the employer denies that option to the employee he is imposing his religious view on that employee, denying her the right to make that moral/religious decision for herself.  Do we want to allow an employer to impose his religious views on his employees?

2) In addition to people who believe contraception is not religiously acceptable,  there are those (among the Jehovah’s Witnesses) who believe that transfusions are not religiously acceptable and in fact there are those (among The Church of Christ, Scientists) who believe that medical treatment in general is not religiously acceptable.  Do we want to get into a situation where every employer is customizing the medical options of his employees to exclude any or perhaps even all coverage’s?

3) Purchase of individual private insurance in general does not allow for the exclusion of birth control coverage, even if the person would on religious grounds not ever use it.  Is there a real reason to feel that paying for the contraceptive option for ones employee is religiously wrong while paying for that option for oneself is religiously acceptable,  given that in both cases that payment will go into a pool used by the insurer to pay for some contraceptive services somewhere?

4) Government regulations frequently require that people pay for things they don’t believe to be religiously right.  For example, the use of Quaker tax dollars for wars.  How does it make sense to make special provisions for those concerned about  contraception, on which the Christian, Muslim, and Jewish sacred writings are silent, while ignoring those concerned about killing in war when the very clear directive “Thou Shalt Not Kill” has been on the books of these religions for thousands of years?