I read your article (http://boxer.senate.gov/en/press/opeds/02082012.cfm) about your opinions on women's health and contraception.
You frame contraception as a health matter. Without agreeing or disagreeing with that subjective assessment, wouldn't you agree that religious objections are protected by the 1st Amendment?
Would you be ok with a "health finding" forcing taxpayers to pay for free bacon? Even if certain religions prohibit it? Even if a rigged study showed that 98% of all Jewish eaters eat bacon, would you be ok forcing Jewish people to pay for other peoples' bacon? Even though common sense says bacon is not necessary healthcare, even if politicians say it is?
I don't think there is any question that contraceptives are widely available. You mention that contraceptives are expensive; of course, there are cheaper alternatives, for example, abstinence.
While I appreciate that everyone is entitled to their opinions, in your duties as a public servant you represent your constituents.
This is my point, and my question. If your constituents are asking you to support the Blunt Amendment, why wouldn't you? It doesn't make contraception any more, or any less available.