I certainly understand the reaction to today's decision in the Hobby Lobby case. From the usual division between the majority and minority opinions it is clear that the decision was made on the conservative/liberal lines. The majority was unsympathetic to the rights of women to receive appropriate health care and the minority was. However, there are lot of legal technicalities involved in the actual decision. I am waiting for one of the lawyers on the site to do an expert analysis of that.
This is not something completely new in the course of the implementation of the ACA. The issue of religious to contraceptive coverage has already come up with employers that are official religious organizations.
Opposition to contraceptive mandate[edit]
In February 2012, a major political controversy erupted with candidates for the Republican nomination for President viewing the regulations as a "direct attack on religious liberty".[23] The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has since taken the lead in opposition to the regulations[24] Cardinal Timothy M. Dolan, the archbishop of New York and president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops stated that the provision "represents a challenge and a compromise of our religious liberty".[25] The regulations issued under the act are also opposed by active Christian Evangelicals.[26] Other organizations, such as Planned Parenthood, supported the provision.[27]
Compromise by Obama Administration[edit]
The Obama administration proposed changes in response to the criticism under which birth control medication would be provided by the insurers, without direct involvement by the religious organization. Regulations were issued on March 16, 2012 which ensure coverage for employees of enterprises controlled by religious institutions which self insure. Regulations were also issued on March 16, 2012 which require coverage for students at institutions controlled by religious organizations which purchase insurance. It is believed by the federal government that it is not possible under current law to require contraceptive coverage for students at institutions controlled by religious organizations which self insure.
There has already been a government concession of the issue of employers being able to opt out of specific coverage on the grounds of religious belief. This is not a whole new principle that has just been opened up with today's decision. The decision expands the class of employers who can make such claims but it doesn't open it up to all employers.
It seems very likely that the Obama administration will be able to work out arrangements to provide contraceptive coverage to women affected by this particular decision along the lines of the compromise that they developed for employees of religious organizations.
I am not suggesting that people shouldn't be angry about it or object to it. With one more vote on the court it wouldn't have happened. However, I think that it is useful to understand that it's immediate practical impact on women's lives is going to be pretty limited.