I am not an attorney. My understanding of the decision is not that it was in any way at all as claimed by post Carl an abortion case. It was a case that said the provisions of the ACA requiring all qualifying insurances to cover a particular list of services including woman's health services should or should not be enforced. The law Carl mentions giving religious exemptions was narrowly constructed and was passed before the very recent and very controversial (and I believe wrongly ) Citizens United finding that corporations are people for purposes well beyond what had been anticipated. Of course the RFRA did not include language saying anything about corporate religions as no one anticipated such a need. For a cogent explanation of the over-reach of the Robert's court in using the Religious Freedom act to set aside not only earlier Supreme Court findings but several cases that have been heard since that law, see
After Hobby Lobby, there is only RFRA. And that’s all you need.
And of course that narrowly made Hobby Lobby ruling that Alito said was made only because the Federal government already had made religious accommodations for what I will call "real" religious institutions like the catholic church by providing a separate mechanism for getting women's health covered without the employer having to provide it. Well it took an entire 24 hours for the court to completely ignore that declared important point. I am going to block quote a very significant explanation. It is clear why all three women on the court are furious
" The court didn’t say that the government could never require a company to do something that violated its religious beliefs, but rather that the government had to use the “least restrictive alternative.” That means that if there is a slightly less burdensome way to implement the law, it needs to be used. To prove that the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive mandate was not the “least restrictive alternative,” the court pointed to a workaround in the law for nonprofits: If there are religious objections to a medical treatment, third parties will provide coverage to the employees.Yet in an unsigned emergency order granted Thursday evening, the very same court said that this very same workaround it had just praised was also unconstitutional, that this workaround also burdened the religious freedom of religious employers. Overnight, the cure has become the disease. Having explicitly promised that Hobby Lobby would go no further than Hobby Lobby, the court went back on its word.
If you wish to better understand the issue in Wheaton here are some links:
Wheaton College injunction: The Supreme Court just sneakily reversed itself on Hobby Lobby.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/04/us...lege.html?_r=0
In Hobby Lobby the court held that a corporation with a religious objection because that corporation would tell the government it did not want to cover services and then the government would provide the way to get those services covered outside of the corporation's insurance. In Wheaton the court held that an organization can not be compelled to even notify the government that it is not providing the ACA mandated services thus there is no way for the government to alternatively provide women's services. A complete reversal of reasoning.