Re the parenthetical:
1) I'm not a fan of "War on <Blank> rhetoric. 'Cause 'yknow it's done so much good for the "War on Drugs", the "War on Terrorism" or the "War on Poverty". It's oversimplified and misses what's really going on.
2)The GOP as a whole doesn't give a shit about women in pursuit of other agendas, this is the problem, not that the GOP is actively targeting women. Contraceptives are a challenge to the documentation that proscribes their (stated) worldview, and especially to the idea that the act of physical coupling is supposed to accompany a permanent matrimonial status. Contraceptives allow both men and women to pursue 'sinful' acts without the consequences that would have come with it in biblical times. That contraceptives (to some measurements) help more women than men is consequential to GOP aims.
Also, that the bible goes easier on men than women isn't the core of the GOP agenda, maintaining the cultural concepts proscribed by that document is the central point, that women are harmed more than men is just a factor of the blast radius. The GOP is advocating for maintenance of tradition, giving voice to 'fear of the new', they don't -care- who that tradition harms in light of modern alternatives.
3)The Catholic issues with U.S. employment regs are a grab-bag of GOP talking points, laced with a supportive actor that carries an appeal to authority. That the GOP has jumped on it and started humping furiously is not surprising for reasons that have nothing to do with attacking women's rights.
3a) It's anti-Obama, being his administration had to publicly declare how they intended to enforce regulations. Point out that the regulations are the same as those in place for the last three decades, and upheld twice in the last decade during a GOP administration and those GOP speakers will ignore you lest their heads explode.
3b) It attacks the Democratic medical insurance reform bill. Where 3a attacks the current administration in an election year, this point attacks the rest of the Democratic party. It's not like this got as much traction when the courts were deciding similar issues in BushII's term, or in the 30ish-years that the laws have been on the books.
3c) It appeals to the party base with an Appeal to Authority. Catholics and Protestants may not be on the same side of numerous doctrinal issues, but if you couch it as "those Godless Heathens making us do shit against our shared outrages" then it's one big happy team. Play to the Christian victim complex how the rest of the world is out to get them (despite the rest of the world being the minority), threaten their privileged status that most of the GOP probably have never had to consider that they had that status in the first place, and it riles the base and gets them voting.
Throw around shit like "war on women" and your accusations are going to be brushed aside and do nothing to actually expose the issues. You may get sympathy from those who agree, but they're going to throw the same arguments to the same lack of effect. It's better to clearly expose what's really going on, not that the GOP is out to destroy women's rights, but that in pursuit of other issues women's rights are as battlefield grass to the tank commanders gunning for other targets. Honestly, I'm of the opinion that the latter is worse.
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. Later, Garrus was eaten by a shark. It is believed that the Point has perished in the accident. Back to you Bob.