The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision Monday that family-owned corporations like Hobby Lobby cannot be forced to pay for insurance coverage for contraception for its employees if their bosses have sincere objections to certain methods of contraception is being hailed in some circles as a victory for religious freedom.

It certainly isn’t a victory for the religious or medical freedom of females employed by companies who choose not to provide contraception coverage. What form of birth control a woman chooses to use should be a decision between her and her doctor, and between her and her God. Her employer should not have a say.

While Monday’s 5-4 decision does not affect most birth control pills, condoms, sponges or sterilizations, it does apply to morning-after pills and hormonal intrauterine devices (IUDs). The company’s owners believe that those forms of contraception cause abortion.

Related story: Supreme Court rules employers can’t be forced to cover contraception.

The ruling is far from being the narrow decision Justice Samuel Alito‘s majority opinion assured us it will be. It could open up a hornet’s nest of litigation by allowing other closely held corporations — those owned by a relatively small number of investors, often family members — to withhold coverage for other medical procedures at odds with their firmly held religious beliefs.

While the court said that it doesn't endorse exemptions for vaccinations or blood transfusions in this case, what is to prevent another employer down the line from objecting to providing access to vaccines or blood transfusions on religious grounds?

Hobby Lobby’s owners believe that they are keeping their hands clean and their souls pure by not paying for hormonal and copper intrauterine devices (IUDs) or morning-after pills. Back in 2012, David Green, the CEO and founder Hobby Lobby wrote an op-ed in USA Today saying just that: “We're Christians, and we run our business on Christian principles,” in harmony with God's laws. “Being Christians,” he said, “We don't pay for drugs that might cause abortions.”

Green’s idea of Christian principles apparently includes making medical decisions for his employees.

What about the important beliefs of the employees? Some of them might want to use the morning-after pill in the event of a sexual assault. Others could choose to use the forbidden IUDs not as contraception, but to treat other medical conditions such as heavy periods, chronic pelvic pain, anemia and endometreosis. For those women, their actions are perfectly moral.

If such women are, as their employers seem to think, committing a sin, it is the employees’ sin to commit and forgiveness to seek on their own. What the Supreme Court did this week was allow employers to override the conscience of its employees, and to burden those employees with the costs of perfectly legal and often medically advised medicines and devices.

And that is a sin.

Read or Share this story: http://on.app.com/1lwVrV6