Interesting case. A sixteen year old has sex and goes to a public health clinic to get a pregnancy test, but is told they aren't being given that day. She returns shortly afterwards to get a morning after pill ... which suggests she had sex more than once. The pills only work within seventy-two hours or so of sexual intercourse, and I was not aware that you could tell you were pregnant so quickly. The girl later noted that she thinks use of the pill to prevent implantation of a fertilized egg -- which might occur in some cases -- is abortion. This seems to me a stretch, but if you are soooo concerned, I suggest you don't have repeated intercourse! Obviously, she is okay with contraceptives generally.
Anyway, she was given the pills after a short counselling session, but had a negative reaction that led to vomiting and "sub-conjunctive hemorrhaging in her eye" from said vomiting ... who knew? Anyway, this eventually led to a federal lawsuit. She and her parents claimed she was pressured, her parents wanted to be informed and claimed a constitution right to be involved (right to raise children) and interfered with her Free Exercise rights. But, the Supremes have noted teens have the right to access of contraceptives and abortion services -- the power of the state to require some parental involvement is not akin to an obligation to so supply. Second, the teen voluntarily acted here, there was no coercion. And, thus, the state did not violate her religious beliefs, which she did not make clear at the time at any rate.
An issue of definition factored in respecting the third point. The teen (depending on her birthday, she still is one ... or 20 ... who wants these facts on public record?) thinks abortion includes preventing implantation of a fertilized egg. She was told that the pills would prevent "pregnancy." She apparently took this to mean fertilization. But, this is a leap. Conception itself is often seen as a process that ends with implantation. This is one reason why the morning after pill (and regular birth control pills, which can act the same way) are still called "contraceptives" and not "abortifacients."
One of the judges (usefully, the matter was dealt in a footnote ... no separate opinion for a minor point) thought that it was possible in some cases for the state to infringe of free exercise via coercion or deception. But, this does not arise when regularly used terminology is at stake, even if certain people might object. The various shades of understanding, especially when such relevant beliefs are not even raised (a forgivable thing, especially for a sixteen year old, but the state is not a mind reader), are almost infinite ... too broad for the state to be required to take them all into consideration, though a reasonable attempt is good policy.
The lack of coercion and the absence of an obligation to assist the parents are at the core of the ruling. But, it also noted there was also an affirmative right of minors to make decisions here on their own. Thus, parents do not have absolute power over their children, as shown by the "best interests of the child" check of the state. This includes medical decisions in various cases. The state has the power to teach sexual education even if parents rather them not (parents need not send their kids to public school); it also has the power (and obligation imho) to supply family planning services to needy teenagers.
The case suggests the care that needs to be taken, but just as all drugs and procedures might negatively affect a small subset, that just comes with the program.