Doubt that science plays a role in objecting to medical coverage

There is no shortage of conversation surrounding SCOTUS and Hobby Lobby and I will not spend much of my cyber energy on either of those two institutions or corporations or persons. It seems reasonable to me to think that the important topic in all of this is womens health. How it ends up being in the decision making hands of employers, religious as they may be, is difficult for me understand.
    The claim is that Hobby Lobby, being a religious something, does not pay for abortion. If it really is that simple it seems simple enough to read the following quote from this article and see that even if they wanted to avoid such, the items they refuse to cover are not such.

""There is no confusion in the scientific community regarding the mechanisms behind each contraceptive option and the medical community is in agreement that none of them equate to abortion," says Gupta. She adds that making women pay for their own contraception limits their options to less effective methods that ultimately yield more unwanted pregnancies and abortions."

   Clearly there are some things that are unclear to Hobby Lobby which makes me all the more doubtful that they need to be able to refuse to pay for legal medical procedures, treatments, or medications.