>>However, all employers should have to offer it if they reside in the U.S. and fall into state or federal law requiring it. (Frankly I am surprised that it is the LAW that it must be offered at all, but it now appears to be a law). There are a lot of religious views in the Bible and other religious sources that are not legal in the U.S. nor do they excuse employers or educational institutions, etc from having to abide by the laws. Exemptions should only exist for true health reasons, not beliefs.

Jefferson: Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.

Free exercise thereof?

FWIW, this week's CBS poll says 57 percent of Catholic voters agree that religious employers should cover the full cost of birth control for their employees. The proportion of for and against is not significantly different from non-Catholics. In this survey the only group substantially against it is white evangelicals.

Also FWIW, most religious schools, churches and bishops will be exempt. The main employers caught in this will be the big charities and healthcare institutions that don't confine services to their own denomination. IME such facilities are pragmatically more interested in increasing healthcare coverage for all.

Finally FWIW, this only arises because US employers have ended up playing such a big role in healthcare for employees. In most first world countries where the secular state takes more of a role, religious types still may decry what happens but they never would be forced to provide it themselves.