Or, "Well, not that different I guess."
One of the things I find most perplexing about the recent HHS debacle is how, after an absolute minimum of pull-back by the administration, most liberals I know went right back to the "oppressed women" screed, despite the fact that objectively (as opposed to formally or technically) nothing has changed with regards to the issue of freedom of religion. To forestall some comments, yes; I posted before saying I found the manner of the legal protection of religious freedom potentially problematic, logically speaking. I also added subsequently that intentionally and contextually, it would be hard to improve on the amendment as written. And even if I did find it objectionable, the fact is that it remains the first law of the land (and favorable to me), and so should not be run over roughshod by a bureaucracy empowered by an (itself probably unconstitutional) law - much as I, despite the significant amounts of alcohol consumed in my life, and the absurdity of most US drinking laws, still would do my best to stay within those laws.
But let us pretend for a moment that the Health Services contraception mandate was not opposed on the basis of any religious objections or Constitutional concerns. Let us pretend that some of the forms of contraception and infanticide covered by it do not touch on any vexed moral questions - and however clear your own opinion, what else are we supposed to call, politically speaking, an issue where half the country disagrees with the other half? Let's say, for the sake of argument, that I don't even object to what you are doing myself and am just being a mean old Scrooge.
I still get a say in the law. I can still object, with perfect justice, to something I dislike. "How so?" you scream in outrage. "It's my body!" Well, of course it is. I don't care what you do with your body. (I mean, obviously, within limits. I don't want you and your body to kill me, or steal from me, or... I could go on for a while.) But the part I get upset about is when you try to use my money to do something I don't want to happen. Oh, it's not my money? It's just a government handout?
Where do you think the government get the money? That's right, me - and a bunch of other people. (And you - but if you're just spending "your share", why does the government need to have it in the first place?)
So in conclusion - forget you and your panicking about "rights" you need somebody else to pay for. Your rights are not in danger. No one is trying to tell you you can't do it yourself. But you are taking my money, and I don't want you spending it like that. I need exactly zero justification beyond that to present a perfectly reasonable objection.