ensure that no religious institution will have to pay or provide for contraceptive coverage. we ve already made accommodations for nonprofit religious organizations that object to contraception on religious grounds. but we believe that the owners of for profit companies should not be allowed to assert their personal religious views to deny their employees federally mandated benefits. we ll respect the supreme court ruling and will continue to look for ways to improve american s health by helping women have more, not less, say over the personal health decisions that affect them and their families. can you talk a little more about what options you re considering to make sure women have access to the contraceptives? frankly, we re still assessing the decision and its legal implications. we re discussing what companies are actually covered by this decision. as you saw, the ruling referred
insurers. but something really important to note about this go directly to the insurers, the government can just help you get it is there s a bunch of lawsuits right now by nonprofit companies that are religiously affiliated saying that s not good enough. so does hobby lobby find it good enough? the court says it s not going to exactly say whether it says it s a good accommodation but we re not actually saying anything like cases like the little sisters of poor. but this is not over. and it s interesting justice alito focused on the cost to employers. essentially saying that if you force these employers to go ahead and provide this contraceptive coverage, it imposes a cost on them. and he actually named that cost. he said it could be $1.3 million a day. but the reality is there is a cost to the employers of providing insurance coverage, but there s also a cost to women, which before we had the affordable care and the mandate, women were paying something like 68% more. and most of t
wanting to have contraceptive coverage even if the employer has a religious exemptions. women are onto it, listening to this. women have a clear contrast this year in the midterms. we ll see them come out in november. jeff, are we looking at a review of roe versus wade and a reversal? justice kennedy has made it clear he ll uphold lots of things including partial birth abortions and the latest contraception. he won t give up the core protection that women can choose early in pregnancy. that s why so much is at stake. one vote changes on the supreme court. roe is over turned. elections matter. the elections are really going to matter. we were reminded of that today. jeff rosen and jess mcintosh,
that this is the ruling is okay. we can do this because there is an alternative means for contraceptive coverage. i m picking up hesitation. i wonder if you consider that a back doorway of taxpayers funding contraception? you know, there are a lot of way it is government can achieve its goals. the oy cam days ago one of them. title x is one of them. the government spends $300 million a year to provide contraception to women who need it. i don t know which option they will choose. the green family asked that they be left out of it and not are have to take part in providing drugs that could terminate a human life. s s we are doing incredible damage to our doctrine around religious freedom and opening the doors to broad sweeping problems for other health care access and employee protections. what this is about at its base
insist it is limited in scope. justice aleto wrote the decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to hold that all insurance coverage mandates including vaccinations or blood transfusions must fall if they conflict with an employer s belief. ginsburg wrote the court s notion of corporate personhood invites for profit entities to seek religion based. there is an alternative means for women employed by hobby lobby or other companies affected by the ruling. there is a means for them to get contraceptive coverage and there is an exemptions already to the rule that s in place for religiously affiliated hospitals, universities where the insurance companies provide contracepti contraception. they are reimbursed by the government. so what s wrong with the ruling? why isn t it as narrow as lori