The whole issue of religious freedom seems to be based on a totally screwed up (and totalitarian) misunderstanding of what is (or should) be meant by religious freedom.
In particular, I really can't get my head round the Holly Lobby ruling. Gorusch's position was based on religious freedom. Now abortion I just about get - there are religious people who genuinely believe abortion is murder (outnumbered I suspect by those who object because they are common or garden misogynists whose actual motivation is to restrict women's freedom). However, if you think that abortion is murder I can see why you would believe being forced to fund abortion was tantamount to being forced to be an accessory to murder. I don't agree but at least I can see the argument.
But with contraception as far as I know it's a private matter for the individual Catholic, between her and her confessor. Catholics are under no obligation to prevent other Catholics from using contraception, and certainly not under an obligation to stop non Catholics using contraception. It therefore isn't the company's business what particular medical services the individual employee chooses to avail themselves of, any more than a Teetotal managing director can tell an employee not to spend their salary on alcohol.
Gorusch's position therefore looks not like a defence of religious freedom but instead like a licence for the rich and powerful to impose their religious beliefs on the poor and vulnerable - the direct opposite of the intention of the constitution, surely (which was written by people fleeing religious persecution in their home countries, persecution carried out by governments/monarchs).