Employer provided Health Care Insurance is one of the most common categories of "in-kind" compensation. Current media discussion has not addressed the question of whether it is fair to use this form of compensation to restrict access by employees to health care services that are contrary to the religious beliefs of the employer.
Employers are not "compelled" to provide health insurance to their employees, but in our system of health care insurance, it is virtually a necessity for employees. Catholic bishops claim that because the insurance premiums are paid thru the employer, that they own the plan, and they have a right to decide what the plan covers or excludes. To me it seems that a more valid point of view is that the coverage is part of the employee's compensation, and therefore the employee has a right to a health insurance plan that is not tailored to a specific religion.
The government regulates all tax regulations, and details the requirements for a "qualified" health care plan. We should be very sceptical of the assertion that an employer may assert "religious freedom" as justification for restricting the employees health insurance plan to conform to a particular religious doctrine. Contraception is not the only issue that could be called into question. Can you imagine a plan that did not cover a spouse of the same sex, or a plan that did not cover the current spouse of an employer who had gotten a divorce? Can you imagine a health care plan that did not cover blood transfusions?
The government should not grant an exception to permit an employer to use their power over health care to control the private behavior of their employees.
When an employer provides a health insurance plan, he is not providing a health care service: he is providing compensation. Compensation should be religiously neutral. Is that too much to ask?