I can't see a way that SCOTUS could say no to this and yes to Hobby Lobby. It would parallel the Hobby Lobby ruling.
Your issue admits of a plain and simple answer.
Whether an employer objects to paying insurance premiums for employees for surgical abortions, abortifacients, any form of "birth control" whatsoever, blood transfusions, prescription medications costing more than $4 a month, medical marijuana, nursing home care, hospitalization or name your medical care of concern, a conservative of any stripe (traditionalist or libertarian or whatever) should readily concede that the problem is Obozocare itself or any similar plan (Romneycare? Schmuckie Chewmer care?),
On what basis does Congress possibly claim authority to mandate upon employers at employer expense or otherwise a scheme of such medical "insurance," one size fits all or otherwise?
SCOTUS ought to drop the facade of this "law" being somehow justified as a "tax" or constitutional in any way.
Let's also, as a matter of policy, and assuming that the law somehow survives, are morally conservative employers to be required to pay for "gender reassignment surgery?" Sterilizations? Euthanasia? Employers MAY OFFER these coverages and more, to their hearts' content and to the limit of the employers' ability to pay all or part of the premiums. Or not, as the employer sees fit.
I can imagine the passage of legislation requiring employers to give full disclosure to prospective and current employees of any employer provided medical insurance or other insurance. That is an anti-fraud measure and may guide the employee in whether to seek employment elsewhere, as available.
This scheme of liberty is also known as..... laissez faire capitalism.
Neither the health care companies nor the Supremes will give a rip about this. They won’t craft special health care plans for this nonsense nor should they. The issue is Obamacare itself not blood transfusions