So the cost sharing requirements of ACA will have an HRSA guidelines exempt religious employers from this mandate. Further, regulations issued by HHS permit religious non-profit organizations to request that their insurance carrier (or third-party administrator) exclude contraceptive coverage from the non-profit’s plan and provide plan participants with separate payments for contraceptive services without imposing any cost sharing requirements on the plan participants or costs on the non-profit.
So now, RFRA prohibits the government from burdening a person’s exercise of religion, unless the action is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest and the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling government interest. A divided Supreme Court found that closely held, for profit employers are “persons” (from the Dictionary Act of 1871) who can avail themselves of the protection of RFRA.So the Court held that the HHS’s regulations regarding the contraceptive method mandate do not comply with RFRA since there were other less restrictive means for HHS to further its objective of providing no-cost contraceptive methods to women. It's no biggie.
The Court’s decision is limited to whether certain closely held businesses will have to comply with the ACA mandate to provide the full range of contraceptive methods specified by HRSA if the provision of those methods would violate the religious beliefs of the owners of the businesses. The various ACA insurance market reforms, coverage mandates and individual and employer mandates remain in place after the Court’s decision.
My big issue with this case, ACA wouldn't of passed in Congress (I remembered the debate) if the ACA provided an exception of RFRA in that bill. There were times, many people tried to put that exception into the bill; but, was taken out by a few Democrats for precisely this reason that went to SCOTUS. This case should never have went to court, The RFRA is legal and the HHS was wrong for trying to overturn that law.
Also, the government has other means in providing these services, other than, forcing employers to violate their religious liberty.
To me, this is a case that clearly is a religious liberty case that has backing from already stated law. So I think we should be content with the law.