How about condoms? Gays use them you know. Why don't they just ban sex entirely? I doubt Republicans get much of it anyway so most probably wouldn't miss it - just count their children and you know how many times. While they're at it, how about banning mammograms and surgical sterilization for women? It wasn't that long ago that a bunch of the extremists were calling for Welfare recipients (just the women) to be surgically sterilized.
They opened the door and there will be a flood of rejection waiting for them in November. I've got a wife and three daughters, two of voting age, so yeah, I'm fired up about this bullshit. The Blunt amendment is so open-ended that any procedure that costs too much can simply be filed in the "morally objectionable" category, but I think it is primarily designed to undermine access to health care for women and pave a path for undermining insurance mandates in general, if not all workers' rights.
Sure, they argue that mandating insurance for "morally objectionable" procedures or medications is their goal, but where does it stop? HIV drugs and treatments are screaming expensive. If the company president doesn't like gays, just let him deny that benefit and save a bundle. Or turn it around and see how they like it - say the president of a company is gay and doesn't approve of reconstructive breast surgery for cancer victims. Although the latter case is highly improbable, it does illustrate how shallow their thinking is. If they don't like birth control pills, why don't they just lump them in with the other Schedule I drugs and send the drug raiders into every bedroom to search for them. Maybe they'll find some medical marijuana while they're at it.