I'll go back to watching from afar after I say this. I think it within the employers rights to specify what an employer sponsored health insurance plan should cover. Whether that employer is church sponsored or not, and whether the exceptions are birth control, heart transplants, chemotherapy, whatever. As an employee you must make a decision based on the total package of monetary compensation and benefits available as to whether you would like to work for that employer. The employer has no obligation (other than what is mandated by the governement) to provide any certain level of wages or benefits. The employee has no obligation to work there. As you have pointed out that may mean that the employee may have to undertake certain expenses (some of which may be quite large) in order to obtain employment elsewhere. My objection to the whole issue is not one from a religious standpoint but rather one of a business standpoint, if the business wants to cut out certain health coverages it is their perogative. Hell, ED treatment is specifically excluded from my insurance plan. If I want or need Viagra or its equivalent I have to pay for it. There are also many other drugs that not on our formulary that I have to pay full price out of pocket for. How is this any different? If it were a deal breaker I would go find another job, but given the hassle, the current economy, and that I like my job, I thnk I'll stay where I am. Is it really a deal breaker that your insurance plan won't pay for BCP's? Or is it just a political soapbox? I think it is the latter.