No, I would not support it. An employer refusing to pay for your health care decisions is not "interfering" with your health care decisions. Said employer is acting on his/her/their own conscience in not paying directly for services which he/she/they have moral objections to. Your right to do something does not entail a right to have someone else pay for it.
The problem with the Hobby Lobby decision as it stands, is proving sincerity of belief. Privately held companies/corporations can claim they've had a "moral revelation" and suddenly be against this or that coverage, and one might rightly wonder if it is a scam to weasel out of paying more for the employee health plan.
For almost as long as people have been advocating the passage of the Affordable Care Act, I have been saying that one of the problems with the pre-ACA system is the inefficiency and lack of portability of employer-paid health plans, and that instead of seeking to get rid of same, the ACA enshrines it in law. Stipulating specific coverages by law has only exacerbated the problem, not only by causing legitimate moral concerns for some employers being asked to pay for such things, but also by enabling a potential loophole for some employers who just want to save money.
If you want a new law to fix the problem, you need one that fixes ACA, not one that potentially interferes with the religious rights of employers.