PERSONAL actions and responsibility are precisely the problem here: The "public" healthcare law requires Catholic schools pay for an employee action Catholic doctrine forbids (use of birth control.) That is the particular issue in this case, but a Jehovahs Witness school could raise the same objection to paying for blood transfusions, too. Any religious institution could raise a valid First Amendment objection to paying for any form of healthcare that conflicts with its doctrine.

It is one thing when the entire public pays taxes to a federal government with discretion to use it for various public services, various ones of which are opposed by various sections of the public. It is an entirely different thing when federal law makes one of those sections directly responsible for financing things they oppose on religious grounds. The latter does and the former does not conflict with the First Amendment:

The difference is great enough opposing federally funded healthcare that includes abortion is ridiculous to me, but requiring churches pay for employees violating church doctrine equally so. Again, this is why we should have created a public healthcare system that is just that instead of the travesty we created instead.