Yep. So instead of discussing law, they’re now offering roadmaps to get around even their tepid decisions?
I found it particularly galling that they’re willing to pick religious winners and losers. So a company whose owners have a sincere belief that it shouldn’t provide abortifacients are protected, but a company that has a sincere belief that transfusions shouldn’t be provided (e.g. Jehovah’s witnesses) would not be.
To steal a phrase from Orwell; all religions are equal, but some are more equal than others.
My guess: JWs only apply the no transfusion rule to themselves. Everyone else is already a lost heathen to them, so they don’t care.