So, the SCOTUS sided with Hobby Lobby

[Clueless Morgan]

I know this is a little out of context, but can a religious guardian refuse his/her son/daughter a blood transfusion for religious reasons it it's a matter of life or death (in the USA)? Considering a child cannot consent.

I think that is a case by case thing. If the kid is in their mid to late teens but not 18, the kid can be asked by the doctor and be considered old enough. But personally I think that is bullshit because they most likely have been indoctrinated since they were toddlers.

But most definitely you CANNOT deny medical treatment to kids not old enough to make their own decisions. Parents have been arrested and convicted of child endangerment and neglect and in some cases manslaughter or murder. The younger a kid is the less religion can be used as an excuse to deny treatment.

Looked this up:
http://www.cirp.org/library/ethics/AAP3/
American Academy of Pediatrics

ABSTRACT. Parents sometimes deny their children the benefits of medical care because of religious beliefs. In some jurisdictions, exemptions to child abuse and neglect laws restrict government action to protect children or seek legal redress when the alleged abuse or neglect has occurred in the name of religion. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) believes that all children deserve effective medical treatment that is likely to prevent substantial harm or suffering or death. In addition the AAP advocates that all legal interventions apply equally whenever children are endangered or harmed, without exemptions based on parental religious beliefs. To these ends, the AAP calls for the end of religious exemption laws and supports additional efforts to educate the public about the medical needs of children.

[snip]

Through legislative activity at the federal and state levels, some religious groups have sought, and in many cases attained, government recognition in the form of approved payment for this "nonmedical therapy" and exemption from child abuse and neglect laws when children do not receive needed medical care.

[snip]

The AAP asserts that every child should have the opportunity to grow and develop free from preventable illness or injury. Children also have the right to appropriate medical evaluation when it is likely that a serious illness, injury, or other medical condition endangers their lives or threatens substantial harm or suffering. Under these circumstances, parents and other guardians have a responsibility to seek medical treatment, regardless of their religious beliefs and preferences. Unfortunately, certain groups have obtained exemptions from legal sanctions and state child abuse and neglect reporting laws based on the child's "treatment" by spiritual means, such as prayer. The overall effect has been to limit the government's ability to protect children from abuse or neglect.

So it seems to depend on jurisdictional laws and where religious groups have gained exemptions from child abuse and neglect laws regarding refusing the minors in their care from receiving medical treatment.

OK so I finally got around to reading the damned decision.
[snip]
4. Hobby Lobby is a closely held corporation who's shareholders all believe contraceptives are morally wrong for religious reasons.

It's my understanding that they are not opposed to all contraceptives, they are opposed to four specific kinds, (Mirena, Paragard, Plan B, and Ella), which Hobby Lobby believes to be abortifacients - which they're not. But the majority opinion specifically states that because Hobby Lobby believes these contraceptive methods to be abortifacients then they have the right to refuse coverage of them on religious grounds because they oppose abortion:

“The owners of the businesses have religious objections to abortion, and according to their religious beliefs the four contraceptive methods at issue are abortifacients.”

Mirena, Paragard, Plan B, and Ella ARE NOT abortifacients. The court's decision is based on what Hobby Lobby believes them to be, not on what they actually are. This is a dangerous precedent.

What do you think of that?

It's a basic self-help situation. If the women employees feel that they are getting the short end then they should quit to show their displeasure.

Yeah, because jobs are so easy to find that women can just throw them away.