insist it is limited in scope. justice aleto wrote the decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to hold that all insurance coverage mandates including vaccinations or blood transfusions must fall if they conflict with an employer's belief. ginsburg wrote the court's notion of corporate personhood invites for profit entities to seek religion based. there is an alternative means for women employed by hobby lobby or other companies affected by the ruling. there is a means for them to get contraceptive coverage and there is an exemptions already to the rule that's in place for religiously affiliated hospitals, universities where the insurance companies provide contracepti contraception. they are reimbursed by the government. so what's wrong with the ruling? why isn't it as narrow as lori