The Hobby Lobby ruling made no mention of whether or not birth control kills a human being, only that the personal beliefs of the owners of a closely held company were enough to deny insurance coverage for those prescriptions.
True, they couldn't rightly do that without re-opening a huge can of worms, could they?
But surely part of the unspoken context would be that this involves something very important and controversial: if owners of the closely-held company refused to pay for all forms of birth control would the court have reached the same decision?
I was coming at this more from a theological or moral point of view, rather than a legal or political one, though. If you believe something is wrong, is it wrong just for you or wrong for everybody?
My first thought was live-and-let-live, but on reflection, it does look like the stronger your convictions the more likely you are to believe that your belief should apply to everyone, whether or not you want that belief enshrined in law.
Of course, that has nothing to do with what the court ruled actually ruled in the case, but hypothetical questions can get us moving in different and unexpected directions.
not true...Hobby Lobby still covers 16 birth control pills/methods....they objected to the 4 that cause a fertilized egg (child) to be aborted.