The flip side of your argument is that you live in a society where your “support” (or the lack, thereof) also has consequences for others.
Or to put it another way, “Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others.” — Thomas Jefferson
You can choose to support (or not) a bill that does X, but should society decide that X is in it’s best interests, and passes X into law, then your options are now limited.
You can work, say, to overturn X, but until you convince enough of your fellows of such, X is now the law.
You might, for example, decide that you don’t like Federal funds being used to supply birth control. Or such may against your faith.
Regardless, society as a whole has decided that the need to prevent teenage preganancies and provide family planning services is in its best social and long-term economic interests. As such, your options are pretty much the same as above.
You are, of course, personally free to use birth control (or not), as you see fit, according to your beliefs.
You may believe that the man is head of the household and as such you’re free to keep your wife and children “in line”. At least, up until the point when child protective services steps in.
Since the state is responsible for regulating harmful conduct, if there is disagreement between a religion and the state over some element of religious practices, civil law must be observed.
Or to paraphrase, “your beliefs within limits drawn around us by the equal rights and beliefs of others.