I don't see how 2) is relevant to the issue of forced coverage of contraception. It doesn't matter WHY the PPACA wants it, only that it does, and that it violates church teachings on contraception. The bottom line is that the RCC is forced to pay for something that violates its religious teachings. I can't see that anything else is legally relevant and so your post is really beside the point. I actually agree that contraception should be allowed by the church, but that isn't the legal issue here, which is one of religious freedom. As to 3) well again irrelevant. The issue is that the RCC will be required to cover it in violation of its teaching, should someone demand to use it.