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 contraception. they are reimbursed by the government. so what's wrong with the ruling? why isn't it as narrow as lori is saying? >> the court just says ifs narrow. it doesn't give reasons why closely held corporations should be treated differently from publically traded corporations.