[Synthesist]

Oh My Goodness!!!

Then PLEASE show me where the majority *rejected* the plaintiff’s *argument* in their favorable ruling for them, but instead ruled in their favor based solely on something ELSE!?!?!!!!!???

[FreedomNotSafety]

The plaintiff’s argument never was that life starts at conception so there could be no rejection of it. Their argument was that they should not be compelled to violate a religious belief. You have asserted with no proof that the SC endorsed the plaintiff’s belief that life begins at conception.

[BuckeyeTexan]

SCOTUS neither rejected nor agreed with the plaintiff's beliefs. As I said earlier, SCOTUS did not address their beliefs other than to state what they were for the record.

You're confusing a belief with an argument. The plaintiffs didn't argue that life begins at conception; they argued that because they think it does, the government cannot make them pay for drugs that they think would destroy a human embryo thereby causing them to sin.