As noted on the front page, this has nothing to do with the sanctity of fertilized eggs. This has to do with the consequences, I almost said unintended, but that is becoming less likely over time, of Citizens United. So, if the ruling applies not only to contraception that may work some of the time by preventing implantation, but more broadly to all forms of birth control that are objected to on the religious beliefs of the owners of closely held corporations, the answer becomes clear.
(Hint, thank you Justice Kennedy.)
It was Justice Kennedy who stated quite clearly that the government, and not just the government, but the executive branch acting on its own, can solve this problem by providing the birth control through other means. While I took this to mean one of the 4 objected to kinds, now it seems clear that the court intends for this to apply to ALL forms of birth control.
Let's examine the implications.
First and foremost, this is screaming for a single payer approach to contraception. Period. It is the only way that addresses the issue in its entirety. If that path is not taken all kinds of new issues crop up. It would be a moving target of companies that would be able to decide to cover or not cover contraception, or any kind that it decides it has an "objection" to. Does the government get in the business of assessing the veracity of one's stated beliefs? Does logic in any way intrude on those decisions? The only answer as I see it is for the government to step in and provide contraceptive coverage for anyone who needs it. Period. Given that most contraception is by prescription, that has to include the medical care required to prescribe it and the follow up care that is needed to ensure it is working as intended. Remember, this is not just "the pill". This is IUDs, diaphragms, morning after pills, whatever.
Here's the other thing - if you are against this, you are de facto pro abortion. No, not pro-choice, pro abortion. Look it up. The correlation between unintended pregnancy and abortion is staggering. Why? Because (fairly obviously) women aren't pro abortion. Women also exist in a society that seems to have a compulsion to attempt to own them, control them, define them. According to the guttmacher.org fact sheet on the matter, over half of all pregnancies are unintended. About 40% of unintended pregnancies are terminated. The rate of unintended pregnancy is clearly driving by the financial capability of women, as where you stand on the income scale seems to be the single most important factor in that statistic. So, oppose funding for this and you are causing very directly and clearly an increase in the number of abortions.
So, forget what I said about this being an opportunity to slowly inch towards single payer. It is an opportunity to take a giant leap towards it. And according to the SCOTUS, it can be done, at least initially, without congress. Then, when funding is needed to see it through, that's a battle that makes sense to have - Why are republican so intent on increasing the number of abortions?