Good article, but there's just one bit that I need to expand on, because I don't think you're getting it right, possibly because you aren't familiar with how healthcare works in the United States.

You say:

"Religious hospitals care for one out of every five U.S. hospital patients. Catholic institutions account for 16 percent of all hospital beds, and additional large health-care systems are run by Adventists, Baptists, Methodists, Jews, and other faith groups."

While this is certainly true on its face, the implication that these hospitals and hospital systems are charitable endeavors is not correct. I mean, they are in the sense that they are not-for-profit corporations like most (but not all) hospitals, but it isn't fair to class them as charities as if charitable donors were funding them, which is not the case.

In fact, Catholic hospitals in the United States are very controversial right now, especially given the recent Supreme Court decision overturning Roe versus Wade, because Catholic hospital networks, which have been expanding rapidly in the last decade, and which are the only practical source of healthcare for a significant percentage of Americans, restrict healthcare based on Catholic religious principles.

That means doctors and other healthcare professionals (who are highly unlikely to be Catholic) are unable to talk to patients (who are also highly unlikely to be Catholic) about contraception, provide contraception, or perform medical procedures to prevent pregnancy.

It's worth mentioning that these hospitals also enforce strict anti-LGBTQ policies.

Many patients who go to an in-network hospital don't even realize it's Catholic, either because the name doesn't ring a bell with them or because a Catholic hospital chain bought the hospital that didn't used to be Catholic but didn't change the name.

Here's the critical part of the equation: religiously owned hospitals are not funded any differently from other not-for-profit hospitals. Almost all their revenue comes from health-insurance companies and the US taxpayer in the form of Medicare and Medicaid payments. A much smaller percentage comes from payments from patients with no insurance. Charitable donations play no significant role in their funding. Charitable donations from Catholics contributing at church or through church-organized charity events play no significant role.

Healthcare experts in the United States worry about religious hospitals, particularly about Catholic hospitals that ration care based on religious principles, because Catholic hospital networks are growing. This has the effect of limiting healthcare for Americans who don't agree with Catholic religious doctrines. The percentage of Americans who can only access hospital care from a Catholic hospital is growing, and this is a problem.

The Catholic Church says this is a matter of religious freedom, but healthcare experts ask "whose freedom?" Medical staff and administrators as well as other employees at Catholic hospitals are no more likely to be Catholic than at any other hospital. Patients are no more likely to be Catholic than at any other hospital. So whose freedom is being impacted when the Catholic Church refuses to provide medical care based on religious principles?

I can ask the opposite question. If Catholic hospitals were required by law to provide the same health care as other hospitals, how would that negatively affect any person's freedom?

But those questions aside, my major point is that religious hospitals and hospital chains are technically charities, but they aren't charities in the sense that they're funded by charitable donors and add value to society in that way. In fact in the United States, most healthcare experts see Catholic hospitals as an increasing problem in society and not as a benefit.