Parade of horribles?

At one point in Hobby Lobby, Justice Alito noted:

It is HHS’s apparent belief that no insurance-coverage mandate would violate RFRA—no matter how significantly it impinges on the religious liberties of employers—that would lead to intolerable consequences. Under HHS’s view, RFRA would permit the Government to require all employers to provide coverage for any medical procedure allowed by law in the jurisdiction in question—for instance, third-trimester abortions or assisted suicide. The owners of many closely held corporations could not in good conscience provide such coverage, and thus HHS would effectively exclude these people from full participation in the economic life of the Nation. RFRA was enacted to prevent such an outcome.

I don't think that is HHS' "apparent belief" -- we can imagine some sort of insurance coverage regime that is blatantly discriminatory one gathers. Note also the previous paragraph notes there is not evidence provided by the government that "any significant number of employers" sought such and such exemption (note it took recent events for some to ask for this one) so maybe some small number doesn't matter on some level. A few closely held corporations, employing thousands, apparently don't, right?

But, let's deal with it. The companies provide salaries now that could be used for that third trimester abortions and assisted suicide. If a teacher in a parochial school privately uses her paycheck to pay for a first trimester abortion I gather Justice Alito thinks the employer can fire her for violating the tenets of the institution. This might be wrong for secular employees like janitors, not that I'm sure he would think that. So, yeah, why not a general rule that insurance coverage is provided (or you get no tax break) and the employee, including those times where the choice might violate the beliefs of corporate ownership, uses it as he or she sees fit to meet medical needs?

There are various reasons to treat third trimesters as different than Plan B. This does not mean that they never should be allowed and even very conservative states allowed them pre-Roe in limited cases. The fact the employer thinks the threat to your life is not severe enough (only "somewhat" severe!) should not generally speaking allow them to deny you the right to use your compensation in this fashion. Tricky end of life decisions bring forth the same principles. Alito's apparent belief notwithstanding.

Religious exemptions are appropriate in our constitutional democracy, at least it was always part of our nation's approach, and even those who don't like religion that much tend to agree to some degree. But, it has to be applied with a certain amount of finesse. Allowing individual employees of for-profit corporations, who get special privileges from the state and in a key fashion are "public" in nature, to use their insurance as their health and religious views deem appropriate is part of that. And, overall, it promotes religious liberty in the process.  Such is my view.