GPR the Federal Contraceptive Coverage Guarantee: Progress and Prospects, ” Fall 2013).

more specific objections by specific employers. In both cases, the businesses are for-profit corpo-rations owned privately by members of a single family, and both the owners and the corporations themselves are plaintiffs. In both cases, the plain-tiffs object not to coverage of all contraceptive methods and services, but to coverage of and counseling and education about specific meth-ods that they deem abortifacients: both types of emergency contraceptive pills (known best by the brand names Plan B and ella) and both copper and hormonal IUDs. In part because of these specifics, it is likely that the Court’s ruling in the pending cases will not be the last word, and that many of the roughly 75 other active cases might still have to be litigated to address further objections.1 Many of those cases involve nonprofit organizations challeng-ing the administration’s accommodation. They argue that by filling out a form expressing their objections and transmitting it to their insurance company—which is all a religiously affiliated nonprofit must do to take advantage of the ac-commodation and be free of having to pay for, arrange for or even talk about coverage of con-traception—they would be complicit in a process that results in their employees obtaining cover-age for contraception. All of these cases involve various legal claims and complexities, including challenges under the First Amendment’s protection for religious A fter years of controversy, the federal contraceptive coverage guarantee under the Affordable Care Act (ACA)—which requires most private health plans to cover the full range of women’s contraceptive methods and services, without out-of-pocket costs for the patient—is heading toward an impor-tant showdown this spring. The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments on March 25 on tw