Yep. And maybe one smidgen will beget another.Yes, the extremists who demand that women be able to choose whatever they want and demand that somebody else pay for it just as glibly want to deny others different choices. Why is Citizen A's right to choose what is right for him/her superior to Citizen B's right to choose what is right for him/her if in conflict with what Citizen A wants? Most especially if Citizen B is paying for it and Citizen A is not?
The SCOTUS ruling I believe does open the door to more choice. I can see scenarios in which Jehovah Witnesses could refuse to pay for blood transfusions, Christian Scientists could refuses to pay for innoculations, Orthodox Jews could refuse to pay for any medications derived from pork, and we could continue down a very long list.
Apart from the dishonest and incompetent way it was put together and sold to the people, and the unsustainable expense of it, the most galling part of Obamacare for me is the idea that government is dictating to insurance companies what product they are required to sell if they sell any product, dictating to employers the product they are required to offer their employees, and the people are dictated what product they are required to buy or be fined/taxed.
In an extremely limited way, SCOTUS, whether intentionally or coincidentally, has restored a tiny smidgeon of choice to we the people.