Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/19-431_5i36.pdf
Page Number: 44

14 

LITTLE SISTERS OF THE POOR SAINTS PETER 
AND PAUL HOME v. PENNSYLVANIA 
ALITO, J., concurring 

steps to secure contraceptives would be a notable burden.
But  can  it  be  said  that  all  women  or  all  working  women 
have a compelling need for this convenience?

The  ACA  does  not  provide  “seamless”  coverage  for  all
forms  of  medical  care.  Take  the  example  of  dental  care.
Although lack of dental care can cause great pain and may
lead to serious health problems, the ACA does not require
that  a  plan  cover  dental  services.    Millions  of  employees
must secure separate dental insurance or pay dentist bills
out of their own pockets. 

In  short,  it  is  undoubtedly  true  that  the  contraceptive
mandate  provides  a  benefit  that  many  women  may  find 
highly  desirable,  but  Congress’s  enactments  show  that  it 
has not regarded the provision of free contraceptives or the
furnishing of “seamless” coverage as “compelling.” 

Least  restrictive  means.  Even  if  the  mandate  served  a 
compelling interest, the accommodation still would not sat-
isfy the “exceptionally demanding” least-restrictive-means 
standard.  Hobby  Lobby,  573  U. S.,  at  728.    To  meet  this 
standard, the Government must “sho[w] that it lacks other 
means of achieving its desired goal without imposing a sub-
stantial burden on the exercise of religion.”  Ibid.; see also 
Holt v. Hobbs, 574 U. S. 352, 365 (2015) (“ ‘[I]f a less restric-
tive  means is  available  for  the  Government  to  achieve  its 
goals, the Government must use it’ ”). 

In  Hobby Lobby, we observed that the Government has 
“other  means”  of  providing  cost-free  contraceptives  to
women “without imposing a substantial burden on the ex-
ercise of religion by the objecting parties.”  573 U. S., at 728. 
“The  most  straightforward  way,”  we  noted,  “would  be  for 
the Government to assume the cost of providing the . . . con-
traceptives . . . to any women who are unable to obtain them 
under their health-insurance policies.”  Ibid.  In the context 
of federal funding for health insurance, the cost of such a