The Supreme Court accepted as constitutional on June 28 the basic framework of the Affordable Care Act, leaving for future court action the determination whether the contraceptives mandate itself is constitutional and legal. (Justice Ginsburg included this striking sentence in her opinion: "A mandate to purchase a particular product would be unconstitutional if, for example, the edict impermissibly abridged the freedom of speech, interfered with the free exercise of religion, or infringed on a liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause.")
 
That means no delay in the August 1, 2012, start date for the mandate.  But it is complicated:  the mandate will apply to plan years that start on or after August 1--so its requirements will not kick in for weeks or even months from now for many plans.
 
And there is an exception, an exemption, temporary relief, and a (promised) accommodation:
 
Exception:  a health plan that did not include contraceptives coverage and has maintained its grandfathered status is not subject to the mandate until it loses its grandfathered status.
 
Exemption:  organizations--churches (or most churches)--that fit a narrow definition of "religious employer" are exempt from the mandate.
 
Temporary relief:  Plans that for religious reasons did not include contraceptive coverage as of February 10, 2012, are eligible for a year-long "temporary enforcement safe harbor."
 
(Promised) accommodation:  The President has promised an "accommodation" for non-exempt religious organizations.  So far, this remains only a promise:  the administration has asked for ideas and feedback, but has not proposed any actual regulation.  A new regulation may be a year away and the accommodation may not be acceptable to many organizations.  In any case, by planning an accommodation for non-church organizations while giving an exemption only to churches, the administration wrongly has created a two-class system of religious organizations--a terrible precedent if it is not overturned.
 
What does it all mean?
 
Decision time:  For non-church faith-based organizations whose insurance plans on February 10th of this year did include contraceptives, for whatever reason, the mandate comes into effect as soon as their new plan year begins on or after August 1st.
 
Decision time is visible:  For all other faith-based organizations--except for exempt churches--the clock is ticking.  Grandfathered status will come to an end as soon as some significant change has to be made to the insurance.  The temporary enforcement safe harbor ends in a year  

What to do?  If your organization is not exempt but has a deep objection to including the required contraceptive coverage:  (a) consider dropping health insurance (but this may subject you to a penalty); (b) try to buy insurance that does not include the contraceptive coverage (but insurers cannot legally sell it to you); (c) work with a health insurance expert and try to construct a self-insurance plan that does not include contraceptives coverage (but you may be sued for having a non-conforming plan).
 
Beyond those meagre choices, there is legal action (launch or join a lawsuit) and political action (ask Congress for a solution, work so that the November elections result in a solution).  And write the HHS Secretary, asking the Administration to change its requirements.
 
Resources:
 
IRFA, "Contraceptives/Abortifacient Mandate, Religious Freedom, & Parachurch Ministries"
 
Gammon & Grange, "'The OTHER Mandate:  Compliance, Exemptions, or Civil Disobedience?: HHS Mandated Employer Health Insurance Requirements Begin August 1, 2012," G&G Law Alert (Nonprofit), June 29.  

A mid-June Religion News Service story by Kimberly Winston reported on research by a University of Tampa professor and students on the cost to government of various tax exemptions provided to religious organizations and clergy.  The total could be as much as $71 billion a year--certainly a considerable sum.  The research was published in Free Inquiry magazine, whose editor, Tom Flynn, said, "The issue of religious tax preferment is especially relevant now because the number of Americans living outside any religious tradition continues to grow.  That underscores the unfairness of taxing all Americans to subsidize religious institutions that only some Americans utilize."
 
Here's the rest of the story that needs to be kept in mind when evaluating this kind of complaint:   

"A comprehensive study in Philadelphia found that some 88 percent of the churches reported providing at least one type of service to the public, with these congregational programs serving an average of 102 persons, of whom thirty-nine were church members and sixty-three were nonmembers.  The authors of this study calculated that the annual dollar value of the human services provided by Philadelphia congregations came to some $246,901,440."  (Steve Monsma, Pluralism and Freedom:  Faith-Based Organizations in a Democratic Society, Rowman and Littlefield, 2012).
 
Note well:  that was just one city and it encompassed only congregations, not the wide range of faith-based service organizations.