Morality and abortion

I am having a hard time figuring out how this and "G+" work together if at all.  I seem to have to post the same on both.  The interface needs work but I guess over time I will get use to it.  I also can't figure out without leaving the system to store a copy on my hard drive.

I got an email today from my brother about how the new medical care law is going to force businesses to offer insurance for abortion and abortifacients (sp?) on the health insurance they offer, which apparently some people find moral objection to.  I objected to this a bit: it should not be the employer's decision.  If the employee does not want to utilize the benefit, that is their right, but I don't think the employer should be able to force it not available.

Whatever, and I tend to doubt the information was complete since it was so one-sided.  Still, the question arises to what extent authorities (government, employers, institutions, etc.) should be able to enforce moral views on those within them.  The immediate answer is no, morality is a personal matter.

This has trouble arising from the fact that morality and criminality get confused.  Morals is what is "right," criminality is what a duly constituted entity (legislature) has decided will be unlawful.  Should this entity consider morals in its consideration?

Most murders, for example, are clearly immoral.  They are also criminal.  Are they criminal because they are immoral?  I would say they are criminal because society needs to have them criminal, and that morality is not an issue.

Many base, or at least think they base, their moral standards on their religion.  When this is the case the principle of separation of religion and the state adds more strength to the notion that in passing criminal statues the legislature needs to stay away from religious considerations, although reading the debates on the subject it is clear that they don't.  I would say that a law that clearly was passed (reading its history of enactment) mainly on moral and religious grounds should be overturned on court review for that very reason, even if it passes muster as being needed for practical reasons.  They can go back and do it again.

Personally I would never have an abortion, although being a gay male that is kinda irrelevant.  I would encourage a woman contemplating one to be very, very sure.  It is not  murder (the developing fetus is in no way a human being -- this is just silly -- and arguments about "potential" are disingenuous rationalizations.  That said, the effects on the mother, both medically and psychologically, throughout her life, need to be thought about, as well as social considerations.

My immediate reaction would be to ban late-term abortions for this reason alone, as well as the fact that the fetus is by then approaching human status.  However, a "health of the mother" exception would be needed, and I can see this loophole being abused, leading to all sorts of litigation that we are better off without, so such a ban is probably unwise.