The "least restrictive means" in theory or in reality?

Yesterday I posted about the Hobby Lobby decision, observing that it can’t be both a broad precedent that will protect liberals’ freedom of conscience along with conservatives’ and a narrow ruling that isn’t really a big deal.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court was clarifying that whatever the ruling ultimately means, it definitely isn’t quite as narrow as to apply to just the allegedly abortifacient contraceptives Hobby Lobby’s owners object to. In fact it covers the contraception mandate generally. Monday’s decision won’t just let evangelical business owners refuse to cover IUDs; it will also let Catholic business owners refuse to cover the pill.

If indeed the end result is the same accommodation the Obama administration made for  religious nonprofits—employees still get their no-cost contraception coverage, but directly from the insurer rather than via the employer—then all this may not be much of a practical setback for women’s health. But is it clear that HHS will be able to do this? The White House is suggesting a legislative approach instead. And the Court may rule against the accommodation itself sometime in the future.