ADDED: Lauren mocks religion. In her view, it's absurd to imagine God micromanaging the wiggling of sperm cells in fallopian tubes. I get it. But look at it another way. When the Supreme Court preserved abortion rights in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, it stressed "the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy." Justice O'Connor wrote:
At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.Lauren may think it's absurd to imagine a God who involves Himself in conception, but many people do have this idea of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Why is it outrageous for the law to give them room to live by their beliefs?
You could say, they can have their beliefs but if the state wants to force health care providers to give contraception services, then they'll have to give up the business of health care. But that's the sort of harsh reasoning that we see from those who say that if the state wants to ban abortion and contraception, women who don't want to bear children can just refrain from having sex.
Yes, providing health care is a commercial enterprise and having sex is not (except in situations where courts have not identified rights that override legislative policies). More regulation is therefore acceptable. I'm simply trying to explain why someone who doesn't believe that God is involved in conception might support the removal of legal restrictions that burden those who do – in this case, health care providers.