Maybe you address them in the paper, but it sounds like you might run into issues of action vs inaction and minimal imposition needed to support a government interest.
As I recall a lot of the religious liberty protection comes down to, Does government *really* need to impose ___ to reach its goal, or is there a less intrusive option?
Unfortunately when it comes to abortion, if we accept that restricting it promotes a legit goal (or else this is all moot), then there isn't much room for more or less intrusion.
(I'm not looking to start a debate, but if you feel like a summary response to this, I'd be happy to read it!)
@volkris
Part of the argument is that the Court has held in other cases that strict scrutiny is not satisfied if the govt has allowed a secular exemption that undermines the govt goal to the same extent as the religious one.
Abortion bans usually have secular exemptions e.g. to protect health, if women raped etc.
Under court;s logic, the law should therefore allow religious exemption