This is from Ed Mechmann, the NY Archdiocese Director of Public Policy.
His posting is eight paragraphs long - we are excerpting two - plus the concluding paragraph. We strongly recommend you hit the link and read the entire posting.
Now the religious organizations and the government have filed their briefs. The Little Sisters et al. readily agreed to the Court's suggestion, saying that they could comply with an arrangement where they are not required to take any action that would trigger the provision of the services, and if the services are actually provided by a separate insurance plan (even if it is run by their regular insurance carrier). This is all that the religious organizations have ever wanted -- to be left alone to do their work, without getting dragged into anyone's sex lives. In effect, they were saying to the Court, "This is the solution that we would have suggested to the government years ago, if they had only asked".
The government, for its part, reacted by quibbling, complaining, and digging their heels in. They complained about having to file a new brief. They insisted that no further concessions were necessary to protect the religious groups' consciences -- as if they knew better what is in violation of Catholic or Protestant moral teachings. They groused that the Court's suggestion would require changes to other sections of the law and regulations, as if that were something unheard-of, rather than the commonplace result of any litigation of this type. They continued to fantasize that any further accommodation would lead to a parade of horribles -- endless further litigation, thousands of women without health care, etc. And in the end, as if they were swallowing nasty-tasting medicine, they kind-of, sort-of, very reluctantly maybe agreed that the Court's suggestion would be barely acceptable.
This ungracious reply hurts the government's credibility, and is cause to be hopeful for a positive result. The Court now has reason to wonder why the case is even before them, and has a clear way to resolve it.
That would end this long nightmare, and vindicate the right to conscience of religious organizations. But it also raises a troubling question -- if such a common-sense solution was available all this time, why did the government insist on forcing the cooperation of the religious groups? I know of no other answer, other than the dministration's well-established hostility to traditional religious values, and their complete dedication to the spread of the ideology of sexual liberation, against any opposition.
For more details - also forwarded around from Ed Mechmann - here are links to the Scotusblog website.
The religious non-profits (e.g., the Little Sisters) accepted the Supreme Court's suggested resolution of the HHS mandate litigation: https://www.scotusblog.com/2016/04/religious-non-profits-fully-endorse-courts-birth-control-access-idea/. The Government, predictably, was less than enthused: https://www.scotusblog.com/2016/04/u-s-would-accept-modest-change-on-birth-control-mandate-warily/.