Let's take this a step further. Are Representative Paul Wieland and his darling wife Teresa aware that other religions have different perspectives on birth control? Check it, Wielands: The Unitarian Universalists have strongly held beliefs on reproductive issues, and they go like this...
The Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations affirms the worth and dignity of every person as well as the goal of a world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all, and thus affirms the access to family planning and reproductive health care including birth control, age-appropriate comprehensive sexuality education, and abortion. The UUA (Unitarian Universalist Association) opposes any attempt to enact a position on private morality into public law.
Seriously, guys. That's a religion. It exists. Unitarians have churches, choirs, congregations, and first-amendment rights just like you do. Would you, Mr. and Mrs. Wieland, have supported a Unitarian suing to mandate that their employer offer them coverage for birth control and abortion, to mandate that their public school teach their kid comprehensive sex ed? Would you really?
And wait... Are y'all aware that other religions have different perspectives on health care in general? Do you know that some religions ban blood transfusions—do you think that insurance just generally shouldn't cover blood transfusions out of respect for any Jehovah's Witnesses on the plan? Or refuse to offer mental-health coverage because a Scientologist gets pissed? Shit, you know that some religions ban all medical intervention entirely, right? Should we just never-mind the goal of universal access to health care (you know, that thing where we want to care for the poor and the sick) because some people don't want to use it? Or should we maybe just expect that if you have a religious belief that prevents you from partaking of some public service, go ahead and don't partake? But don't sue the federal government for giving you the option at all.