Not at all. I've taken an number of positions, although they have become all jumbled up due to the nature of discussion threads.
1. Employers should not be mandated to provide any coverage at all.
2. If they do provide coverage, they should be able to decide what that coverage looks like.
3. Employers should not have to fund medical procedures they find morally objectionable -- whether birth control or circumcision.
4. If employers *don't provide funding* for a certain type of medical procedure or medication, they are not *denying access* to that medical procedure or medication. People can and do have access to unfunded medical procedures and medication all the time -- as in the case of dental or vision coverage and over-the-counter medications prescribe by a doctor.
5. I personally have no problem with insurance funded birth control, abortion, vascectomies, or circumcision.
But doesn't all that add up to the ability of an employer to reject all coverage?
Let's take a simple case. Moral objections do not need to have religious origins. It can be argued that your opposition to employer mandates is a moral position. Therefore, if you were an employer could you not say that you refuse to carry medical insurance at all as a matter of conscience?
More broadly, the current US system of health care is predicated and prices are set on the idea that most of the payments will be covered by insurance. Therefore, any procedure not so covered is being priced above the ability of most people to pay for it.
In practical terms, therefore, employers can deny access by refusing to pay for insurance that covers the offending procedures.
There are two problematic sides to the employer mandate.
1. The mandate itself can be argued that it places an unnecessary burden on employers.
2. The morality exception to the mandate can be argued to give too much power to employers.