The reverse argument is just as valid.
If the employer can mandate a medical treatment as a condition of employment, why cant the employer require all employees to be on birth control (to avoid the cost of maternal, family leave). Or require disclosure of other medical conditions (AIDS, other STD vaccines, pnemonia, etc).
Let me tell you a story.
Years ago, my youngest had a very difficult birth. Spent a lot of time in the NICU, but not only survived but thrived.
That fall, my then boss handed me an itemized list of the cost to the company of my kid’s stay in the NICU. I did not get a raise, and was told “Red, you need a detailed plan on how you are going to pay back the company for what your child just cost us. You should have thought about that before you went ahead with the pregnancy.”
It was on a written piece of paper, with the company letter head, and his (my boss’s) name. Slam dunk case for a number of reasons.
Talked to a few lawyers. TO A MAN they said they would either NOT take it, or that they would charge EXTRA to do so. HIPPA laws, as one honest lawyer said, are there to protect the employer NOT the employee. While I may win, I would never work again. They all agreed the treatment violated the law, but that such things were to be expected.
So I left.
That was 7 years ago and I have no indication that things have changed. So in that case, I was held personally liable for costs to the company for having a child.
God is, however, funny. The same guy who was blasting me later had his kids get type I diabetes. A VERY expensive condition. On the day I left, he gave me one last parting shot on “How much you took advantage of the company.” I asked how much type I diabetes will cost the company, and left.