We've covered before the ongoing fight over employers' responsibility to provide insurance that covers contraception, a mandate that some employers argue violates their religious beliefs.
The opening of the argument in the Solicitor General's brief in opposition to certiorari in Priests for Life v. HHS summarizes the state of the law as the Court considers whether to take up the issue in the wake of its decision in Hobby Lobby (permitting employers to opt-out in a manner that ensures employees will receive coverage from another source; we covered that decision here):
Petitioners contend that RFRA [the Religious Freedom Restoration Act] entitles objecting employers not only to opt out of providing contraceptive coverage themselves, but also to prevent the government from eliminating the resulting harm to their female employees and beneficiaries by arranging for third parties to provide those women with separate coverage. Six courts of appeals have considered that claim, and all six have rejected it. As those courts have explained, the accommodation is entirely consistent with RFRA and with this Court’s decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2751 (2014), which was premised on the availability of the accommodation and which did not suggest that objecting employers may prevent their employees from receiving contraceptive coverage from third parties willing to provide it.
You can read the full brief in opposition here.
This is one of several pending petitions on the subject. (The SG lists the others: Geneva College v. Burwell, No. 15-191 (filed August 11, 2015); Southern Nazarene Univ. v. Burwell, No. 15-119 (filed July 24, 2015); Little Sisters of the Poor Home for the Aged v. Burwell, No. 15-105 (filed July 23, 2015); East Texas Baptist Univ. v. Burwell, No. 15-35 (filed July 8, 2015); Zubik v. Burwell, No. 14-1418 (filed May 29, 2015).)