"So it is clear - it compels them to pay for services they consider a moral wrong."

I think it's worth noting that the tax system already does this for a lot of people.

Those opposed to war are required to fund war, those opposed to abortion pay taxes which help fund abortions. A large number of people find themselves paying taxes some of which goes to funding things that they may be strongly opposed to (or consider abhorrent).

R0bert

To define the provision of human contraception and abortion services as health care, is plainly disingenuous. Yet defining them as health care is the devious rationale used for getting governments to fund those services. As a taxpayer I find it galling that I have to indirectly subsidise the behaviour of those who seek those services, services that involve the killing of innocent babies.

In this age where people just think of their selfish selves, it is fitting that those people take full responsibility for their actions and pay for provision of those services.

I agree with your point R0bert - but the tax system is considerably less direct than health insurance.
Everyone pays taxes, they go into a common pool (Consolidated Revenue) and are then apportioned out to various programs where the taxes are spent. There is a real disconnect between the tax you pay and what it eventually gets spent on.
As I understand it here the employer pays an insurance company which must provide certain health services - including the repugnant ones. Presumably as the employer you know precisely what you are paying for - much more direct.

*To define the provision of human contraception and abortion services as health care, is plainly disingenuous*

Not really, Raycom, because it is all part of healthcare. When a
woman wants advice about various contraception and how it fits in
with her lifestyle and health, she goes to see her doctor. The
doctor generally knows her health background, other drugs she might
be taking, etc. The doctor might suggest a tubal litigation. The
doctor might issue a script for the pill. The doctor might suggest
a long term injection. All these are matters of health and to deny
that is plainly disingenuous.

There is another difference between paying taxes (to fund war etc against our will) and providing health insurance.

"Employers will (again, as I understand it) be compelled by federal law to provide health insurance coverage that MUST include contraceptives."

The key word here is "employers". If the Church chooses to be an employer, then they must follow the law. It has every right to say, 'these laws contradict my beliefs' but this means that either they must change their beliefs, or not be an employer. It does not mean we much change the law.

Think of it this way. If an islamic hospital were to open, would we be inclined to change our laws to allow them to perform procedures inline with their beliefs? I think not. So why would we change the law to pander to another religious minority?

I'm sorry, but I still don't see a problem with all US employers providing the same healthcare insurance to their employees as any other employer.

If a radical Christian (or any other contraception or abortion objector) is an employee who is offered the same healthcare insurance as anyone else, it doesn't make it mandatory for them to USE contraceptives or have an abortion does it?

At the end of the day, all health insurance payers pay indirectly for health conditions that we don't have, or that we are unlikely to have.

For example, young people pay insurance premiums that help support the hip replacements in the elderly,
while the elderly pay health insurance that helps pay for younger women accessing pregnancy and labour services.

There is no difference really.