Could natural family planning satisfy the EEOC?

Regarding the situation facing Belmont Abbey College, a reader asks:

If a Catholic institution provided coverage for NFP training (but not contraception) would that legally satisfy the EEOC’s complaint?   In other words, I understand that the EEOC could make an issue out of not providing coverage for family planning, but could they reasonably dictate the types of family planning procedures that must be covered?  Wouldn’t it be beyond the competency of the EEOC to dictate particular medical procedures (rather than require access to a certain type of care)?  Isn’t it sufficient—for legal purposes--that an institution provide family planning coverage of some kind?

UPDATE: I am not an expert on this area of law, but my guess is that the EEOC would not deem the coverage of NFP services sufficient, for three reasons: 1) prescription contraceptives are used for purposes other than pregnancy prevention; 2) even though employers cover other means of pregnancy prevention (e.g. tubal ligation), the failure to cover a means of pregnancy prevention that is used only by women has been held to constitute gender discrimination (see, e.g., this EEOC ruling from 2000.), so the EEOC is not focused simply on the availability of means by which to prevent pregnancy; and 3) even in terms of pregnancy prevention, I'm doubtful that the EEOC would view NFP as an effective substitute for prescription contraceptives given convenience factors, etc.

Does anyone with greater knowledge of the law in this area have more insights on this question?