I've been listening with dismay as the contraception "controversy" continues to be framed (and propagated by big media) as a fight over "religious liberty" or "freedom of conscience" or anything else other than what it is: politically motivated public relations. My humble argument is presented after the squiggle.
First, let us suppose for the moment that the Catholic Bishops "win" and that therefore employees of Catholic affiliated employers are forced to pay for all or some of their prescription contraception out of their own pocket. The consequence for most women is of two types:
(1) An increase in the number of women who as a result won't be able to afford reliable contraception and who will undoubtedly become pregnant. For some of these women, pregnancy itself will pose dangerous health risks. (These two points seem reasonably obvious, but don't take it from me: see, for example the article by Adam Sonfield, The Case for Insurance Coverage of Contraceptive Services And Supplies Without Cost-Sharing, at the Guttmacher Institute website.) But a larger point is this: if such women can't afford quality contraception, how can they afford to have a child? In any case, if these women don't want to become pregnant they will certainly use some form of contraception, however unreliable.
(2) Other women will continue to use prescription contraception, but will naturally be paying for more or all of it out of their salary. Now this is interesting: on the one hand you have Catholic Bishops up in arms about Catholic affiliated employers having to pay for insurance premiums that give their employees the right to purchase contraception at a (perhaps fully) subsidized rate. On the other hand, if women have to pay for more if out of their salary, in what sense is the employer absolved? Both the "regular" salary and the "supplemental" salary (in the form of a medical insurance benefit) are paid by the employer after all, and to my mind the two outcomes are thus functionally equivalent. Here is how the same author referenced above describes the situation (in the excellent article The Religious Exemption to Mandated Insurance Coverage of Contraception):
It is difficult to see why an employer has any more right to veto an employee’s use of her health benefits than it does to veto her use of her salary, sick leave, or other aspects of her compensation for the same contraceptive services. Moreover, everyone paying for insurance is paying for some services they expect never to need or use, and allowing individuals to pick and choose what specific benefits to cover would undermine the ability of insurance to pool peoples’ risks. That type of self-selection is what leads insurers to impose the sort of restrictions on coverage—such as limitations for preexisting conditions or maternity care—that the ACA [Affordable Care Act] was designed to eliminate.
To recap: if employees of Catholic affiliated employers are forced to pay more for contraceptive services, neither of the likely consequences presented will lead to a reduction in contraceptive use. Moreover, in both cases the employer has effectively paid for the contraceptive services purchased by its employees.
Ergo: to me this whole business is more about what the Catholic Church hopes to gain by casting itself as the victim. Oh the poor, embattled Bishops. If they cry "Attack on religious liberty!" and "Preserve freedom of conscience!" loud enough, maybe we'll forget all these years of scandal and lawsuits over sex-abuse by priests. Fat chance.