Think I'm kidding? Well how else do you explain this?
The Court says that RFRA requires the Govt to provide closely-held corporate objectors the same accommodation it already provides nonprofit organization objectors.
per the IRS:
Generally, a closely held corporation is a corporation that:Exactly.
Has more than 50% of the value of its outstanding stock owned (directly or indirectly) by 5 or fewer individuals at any time during the last half of the tax year; and
Is not a personal service corporation.
In addition, the court specifically stated that the ruling did not apply to vaccinations (which are also covered under the preventive services benefit) or blood transfusions (which are not). No comment on whether a closely-held corporation can decide it doesn't want to cover STD or depression screening (which are both covered by the PSB).
Two things that are certain:
1. This clusterfuck of a ruling will ensure years of litigation because that's one of the hallmarks of a bad law.
2. The five male members of the S.C. are the real victims.