Since when is forcing religious entities to purchase insurance that provides services that goes directly against their teachings not forcing them? The mandate is both forcing insurance companies to provide the service and the churches to purchase it by both making sure no other insurance is available as well as penalizing the religious organizations for not purchasing it.<quoted text>
If that is your complaint, than there is no relevance as to what types of procedures are covered under the service. The offending action was mandating the insurance itself and the argument ends there.
If it wasn't mandatory to purchase insurance, or purchase insurance that provides for abortions, then there wouldn't be a problem. This is an act of the government, not all private enterprises saying we will all the sudden offer nothing but this type of insurance. There is no ability for religious organizations to purchase insurance or even create their own insurance to comply with the federal coverage mandates that do no require the insurance to supply abortions and/or contraceptives. For some reason, a woman's right to sleep around without any responsibility of their own is more important to this administration the the freedom of religion.
Now you can construe that as an attack on women's rights, but you have to remember, the rights in consideration are the right to kill their unborn baby and the right to have others pay (provide financial assistance) for their screwing. I understand that everything is expensive and after shelling out $20 at a bar for drinks, neither the man nor the woman have the $1.50 left over to buy a condom from the men's bathroom or pay the $12 for a 6 pack of Trojans, but that problem is fixed by bettering the economy, not forcing religious institutions to violate their own teachings.