concurring:

I join Judge Jill Pryor’s opinion for the court in its entirety. I write' separately only to emphasize one point already made in the opinión.' Plaintiffs seem' to suggest, as a less restrictive means, that a religious employer be allowed to opt out without notifying anyone — without requiring even the de minimis notice to Health and Human Services (“HHS”) pursuant to the most recent alternative notice provided for in the Regulations. However, the necessary consequence of such an automatic *1169opt-out would be the imposition of plaintiffs’ religious beliefs on- their female employees. In other words, if HHS were not able to identify which employers have opted out, the employees of such" employers would not receive contraceptive coverage, at least until they happened to sua spont'e discover that their employer had opted out, and until such employees happened to sua sponte discover their statutory entitlement. Only then would such employees be in position to notify HHS, and begin their coverage. Such an automatically exempted employer — notifying no one of its decision to opt out — would at least temporarily impose its own religious beliefs on its employees and deprive them of the coverage to which they are entitled under the- statute and regulations'. RFRA does not require that construction of the law. Rather, the Supreme Court in Hobby Lobby recognized that “RFRA took the position that ‘the compelling interest test as set forth in prior Federal rulings is a workable test for striking sensible balances between religious liberty and competing prior governmental interests .’’ Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 537 U.S. -, -, 134 S.Ct. 2751, 2785, 189 L.Ed.2d 675 (2014)(quoting from the express RFRA provision cited and quoted below). See also Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709, 7020, 125 S.Ct. 2113, 2121, 161 L.Ed.2d 1020 (2005)(“Properly applying RLUIPA, courts must take adequate account of the burdens a requested accommodation may impose on nonbeneficiaries”); id. at 722, 125 S.Ct. at 2122-23 (“Our decisions indicate that an accommodation must be measured so that it does not override other significant interests .... We have no cause to believe that RLUIPA would not be applied in an appropriately balanced way.”). Indeed, RFRA contains an express provision which incorporates the prior Federal case law contemplating a “sensible balance” between religious liberty and competing governmental interests. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb(a)(5) (“the compelling interest test as set forth in prior Federal court rulings is a workable test for striking sensible balances between religious liberty and competing prior governmental .interests.”) Plaintiffs’ position — and its necessary consequence of the imposition of plaintiffs’ religious views on others — clearly does mot strike a “sensible balance” between religious liberty and the government’s compelling interests in this case. See Hobby Lobby, 537 U.S. at -, 134 S.Ct. at 2786-87 (Kennedy, J., concurring) (“[N]o person may be restricted or demeaned by government in exercising his or her religion. Yet neither may that same exercise unduly restrict other persons, such as employees, in protecting their own interests, interests the law deems compelling.”).

dissenting:

I diverge from the majority on the question of whether the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb et seq., shields Eternal Word Television Network and the Archdiocese of Atlanta, the Diocese of Savannah, and their related schools and charities (the “Dioceses”) from the Government’s efforts to force them to participate in a complicated regulatory scheme. Doing so, these parties sincerely believe, would make them complicit in violating the sanctity of human life. ’ As I understand RFRA’s plain meaning and the controlling precedent, on full display in the Supreme Court’s decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 2751, 189 L.Ed.2d 675 (2014), the answer should be straightforward. Under RFRA’s demanding scrutiny, the Government cannot put religious believers to the choice of abandoning the commands of their faith or paying massive penalties unless it can show that it has no other way of achieving a compelling interest. Just as in Hobby Lobby, the Govern*1170ment has failed to make this showing, -We are therefore bound. to grant Eternal Word Television Network and the Dioceses the relief they seek.

“Great cases, like hard cases, make bad law.” N. Sec. Co. v. United States, 193 U.S. 197, 364, 24 S.Ct. 436, 468, 48 L.Ed. 679 (1904) (Holmes, J., dissenting). In such circumstances, practical concerns “exercise a kind of hydraulic pressure” under which “even well settled principles of law will bend” as a result of “some accident of immediate overwhelming interest.” Id. at 364, 401, 24 S.Ct. at 468. In the background of. this litigation rage many competing interests: What sort of legal regime would best preserve the American ideal of religious liberty? How can we most effectively . expand healthcare access? When and where should the interests of society trump those of the individual? Who will be left holding the check for any newly minted social-welfare programs?

It is Congress’s responsibility — not the prerogative of courts — to balance these interests. And Congress made clear in RFRA how that balance is to be struck: the freedom of religious exercise is to be jealously guarded by subjecting, across the board, Congress’s own actions to the most rigorous scrutiny. Under that scrutiny, the Government’s attempt here to burden Eternal Word Television Network and the Dioceses’ religious exercise must give way. Concluding otherwise, the majority makes bad law. For that reason, I dissent.

I.

The devil, as they say, is in the details. Nowhere does this adage ring truer than in the administrative morass of the ■ so-called “accommodation,” the regulatory mechanism by which religiously objecting employers can affirmatively opt out of the Affordable Care Act’s so-called “contraceptive mandate.” The resolution of this case turns on the exact functioning of an evolving set of overlapping and intricate regulations promulgated by three Executive-branch agencies. These regulations overlay a particularly unsettled and murky region of the generally unsettled and murky ■landscape of federal healthcare regulation. Therefore, it is critical to get the details right. And they are devilish indeed.

A.

Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (“the ACA”), covered employers, as part of their “[sjhared responsibility” for their employees’ healthcare needs, are required to provide qualifying employees with health plans that meet certain standards of “minimum essential coverage.” 26 U.S.C. §§ 4980H(a), 5000A(f)(2). Covered employers who fail to do so have to pay a “tax”1 of $100 per day for each affected employee. Id. § 4980D(a)-(b). For continued “noncompliance” after receiving a “notice of examination,” employers are subject to a minimum penalty in the amount of $2,500 or $15,000 per affected employee, depending on whether the violations “are more than de minimis.” Id. § 4980D(b)(3).

Included in the ACA’s definition of “minimum essential coverage” are a number of preventive healthcare services. Relevant here is the requirement to provide “with respect to women, such additional preventive care and screenings ... as provided for in comprehensive guidelines supported by the Health Resources and Services Administration.” 42’ U.S.C. § 300gg-13(4). To develop these guidelines, the Health Resources and Services Administration, a subpart *1171of the Department, of Health and Human Services, sought recommendations from the Institute of Medicine, a division of the National Academies of Sciences. The Institute of Medicine’s .recommendations2 were ¡ultimately adopted in identical regulations promulgated by the Department of Treasury, the Department of Labor, and the Department of Health and Human Services. See 26 C.F.R. § 54.9815-2713(a)(1)(iv); 29 C.F.R. § 2590.715 — 2713(a)(1)(iv); 45 C.F.R. § 147.130(a)(l)(iv).3 As a result, nonexempt employers are responsible for providing their plan beneficiaries with coverage for “[a]ll Food and Drug Administration approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and patient education and counseling for all women with reproductive capacity.” Women’s Preventive Services Guidelines, U.S. Dep’t of Health and Human Servs., Health Res. and Sérvs. Admin., http:// hrsa.gov/womensguidelines/ (last visited Feb. 10, 2016).

These regulations, collectively known as the “contraceptive mandate,” did not apply as enacted to several categories of employers. As is true generally of the ACA the contraceptive mandate does not cover employers with less than fifty full-time employees.. See 26 U.S.C. § 4980H(a), (e)(2). These employers are thus under no obligation to provide any health plan at all. Similarly, employers who maintain “grandfathered health plans” — health plans that have not undergone specified changes in the way they operated before March 23, 2010, see 75 ,Fed.Reg. 34538, 34540-41— are specifically exempted from the contraceptive mandate. 42 U.S.C. § 18011(a), (e). Other changes instituted by the ACA do apply to grandfathered health plans, including extensions of dependent coverage for adult children under the age of twenty-six and prohibitions on excessive waiting periods/ lifetime benefits limits, and rescissions of coverage. Id. § 18011(a)(4)(A)(i)-(iv). The ACA does-not include a sunset provision for grandfathered • health plans, which can continue their exempt status indefinitely.4

Conscious of the bind in which the contraceptive mandate would place certain employers with religious objections, the Departments promulgated a series of further regulations to exempt these employers as well.5 What emerged from several *1172years' of rulemaking were two distinct regimes for employers with religious objections: one for “religious employers” and another for “eligible organizations.” ”45 C.F.R. § 147.131(a), (b). “Religious employers” are defined, by reference to the Internal Revenue Code, as “churches, their integrated auxiliaries, and conventions or associations of'.churches” and' any “nonprofit entities]” engaged in “the exclusively religious activities of any religious order.” Id. § 147.131(a); 26 U.S.C. § 6033(a)(3)(A)(i), (iii).6 Employers who object to the contraceptive mandate but are not considered “religious employers” can still qualify as “eligible organizations” if they meet the following requirements:

(1)The organization opposes providing coverage for some or all of any contra-

ceptive items or services required to be covered under § 147.130(a)(l)(iv) on account of religious objections.

(2) (i) The organization is organized and ' operates as a nonprofit entity and holds itself out as a religious organization; or

( (ii) The organization is organized and operates as a closely held for-profit entity ... that ... objects to covering some or all of the contraceptive services on account of the owners’ sincerely held religious beliefs.

(3) The organization must self-certify in the form and manner specified by the , Secretary of Labor or provide notice to the Secretary of Health and Human Services as described [elsewhere in the regulations] ...

45 C.F.R. § 147.131.7

*1173Religious employers’ and eligible organizations’ bids to remove themselves from the contraceptive mandate fare differently. Religious employers .are simply exempt; they are not required to participate, directly or indirectly, in providing access to contraceptive coverage to their female employees and beneficiaries, whether or not these women share their employers’ beliefs. 45 C.F.R. § 147.131(a). Eligible organizations, in contrast, are required to affirmatively opt out of providing contraceptive coverage, if they wish to do so, by complying with a further series of regulations known as “the accommodation.” Id. § 147.131(c).

How the accommodation functions turps on the eligible organization’s type of health plan. Broadly speaking, employer-sponsored health plans come in two types: insured plans and self-insured plans. Under an insured plan, the employer enters into a contract with an insurer. The insurer, in exchange for up-front premiums, becomes responsible for administering the plan and paying out claims., Under a self-insured plan, the employer remains responsible for paying its employees’ claims itself; in essence, the employer serves as its own insurer. For employers with self-insured plans, it is a common practice to contract with a third-party administrator — -which may also be in the business of providing insured, plans — to administer the self-insured plany though the employer continues to bear the cost of paying claims.8 Eligible organizations that maintain their own self-insured plans without a third-party administrator are, like religious employers, exempt from the contraceptive mandate altogether. ,

" Eligible organizations may, in line with the -regulations currently in force, avail themselves of the accommodation in one of two ways.9 The first option -is to send a “self-certification” form, Employee Benefits Security Administration Form 700 (“Form 700”), to the eligible organization’s insurer, if the organization has- an insured plan, or to the organization’s third-party administrator, if the. organization has a self-insured ' plan. 45 C.F.R, § 147.131(b)(3), (c)(1), Form 700 requires eligible organizations to identify themselves as qualifying for the accommodation; -list the name, title, and contact information of the pérson authorized to make that certification;, and sign and date the form.10 The second option is to send to the Secretary- of Health and Human Services less-formal notice of the eligible organization’s intent >to opt out. That notice must include “the- name of the eligible organization and -the basis on which it qualifies for an accommodation,” notice of its objection- to the contraceptive mandate *1174“based on [the eligible organization’s] sincerely held religious beliefs,” the name and type of the eligible organization’s health plan, and the identity and contact information of the eligible organization’s insúrer or third-party administrator. ■ ■ Id. § 147.131(c)(l)(ii).

Under the first option provided for in the accommodation, whereby Form 700 is sent directly to an eligible organization’s insurer or third-party administrator, the recipient insurer or third-party administrator becomes responsible for establishing separate contraceptive coverage for the eligible organization’s female employees and plan beneficiaries. The insurer or third-party administrator must, upon receipt of the eligible organization’s Form 700, “[e]x-pressly exclude contraceptive coverage” from the eligible organization’s plan and “[p]rovide separate payments for any contraceptive services required to be covered” pursuant to the contraceptive mandate. Id. § 147.131(c)(2)(i)(A)-(B). Among other requirements, the insurer or third-party administrator must also “segregate premium revenue ... from the monies used to provide payments for contraceptive services” and is forbidden from “imposing] any cost-sharing requirements (such as a copayment, coinsurance, or a deductible), or imposing] any .premium, fee, or other charge, or any portion thereof, directly or indirectly, on the eligible organization, the group health plan, or plan participants or beneficiaries.” Id. § 147.131(c)(2)(ii). And the insurer or third-party administrator must provide to plan members and beneficiaries written notice outlining how the accommodation works and “specifying] that the eligible organization does not administer or fund contraceptive benefits.” See id. § 147.131(d) (proposing suggested language for this notice).

Under the second option provided for in the accommodation, whereby less-formal notice is sent instead to the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Secretary is then tasked with alerting the eligible organization’s insurer or third-party administrator. The Department of Health and Human Services will “send a separate notification” to the insurer relaying that the eligible organization’s notice was received and “describing the [insurer’s or third-party administrator’s] obligations.” 45 C.F.R. § 147.131(c)(1)(h). The insurer’s or third-party administrator’s obligations to provide separate coverage pursuant to the contraceptive mandate are identical whether it is alerted to the eligible organization’s objections directly by Form 700 or indirectly by the Government.11

The regulations require eligible organizations to affirmatively opt out of the contraceptive mandate because .doing so enables the Government to require the eligible organizations’ insurers and third-party administrators to provide contraceptive coverage. For eligible organizations with insured plans,12- opting out under the accommodation notifies the in*1175surers of their obligations to provide contraceptive coverage. 45 C.F.R. § 147.131(c)(2)(i). For eligible organizations with self-insured plans that contract with a third-party administrator,13 opting out of the contraceptive mandate under the accommodation makes the third-party administrator “the plan administrator” ' for purposes of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq., under regulations promulgated by the Department of Labor. 29 C.F.R. § 2510.3-16(b). If the eligible organization submits Form 700, that submission “shall be treated as a designation' of the third party administrator as the' plan administrator.” Id. If the eligible organization instead provides less-formal notice to the Secretary of Health and Human Services, “the Department of Labor, working with the Department of Health and Human Services, shall ... provide notification ... that such third party administrator shall be the plan administrator” under ERISA. Id. Once a third-party administrator becomes a “plan administrator” under ERISA, the relevant administrative agencies gain the regulatory authority ■ to . require the third-party administrator to provide contraceptive coverage.14 Id. § 2510.3-16(c).

The Government’s regulatory authority to require ■ third-party administrators of self-insured plans to provide contraceptive coverage is limited. A third-party administrator may always decline to “agree[ ] to enter into or remain in a contractual relationship with the eligible organization.”15 26 C.F.R. § 54.9815-2713A(b)(2). Only if it accepts the terms of the regulations does a third-party administrator incur the obligation “to provide or arrange payments for contraceptive services.” Id. § 54.9815-2713A(d). .If a third-party administrator agrees to provide the. contraceptive coverage, the costs it incurs to do so will be reimbursed from “Federally-facilitated Exchange” user fees, which are fees imposed on insurers offering health plans on exchanges established by the Government under the ACA.16 See 80 Fed. Reg. at 41328.

*1176B.

Inextricably intertwined with these evolving regulations is - a series of cases challenging the various iterations of the contraceptive mandate under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb et seq. RFRA provides that the federal government17 “may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion” only if it does so “in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest” and the burden it imposes is “the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.” Id. § 2000bb-1(b).

In 1993, Congress enacted RFRA in response to the Supreme Court’s path-breaking approach to the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause taken in Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 110 S.Ct. 1595, 108 L.Ed.2d 876 (1990) (holding that neutral laws of general applicability do not burden free exercise whether or not they are supported by a compelling interest). Congress declared that the standard of strict scrutiny RFRA imposes creates “a workable test for striking sensible balances between religious liberty and competing prior governmental interests.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb(a)(5). RFRA’s stated purposes included “restoring] the compelling interest test as set forth in Sherbert v. Verner, 374. U.S. 398, 83 S.Ct. 1790, 10 L.Ed.2d 965 (1963) and Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 92 S.Ct. 1526, 32 L.Ed.2d 15 (1972)” and “providpng]. a claim or defense to persons whose religious exercise is substantially burdened by government.” Id. § 2000bb(b)(1), (2). To the extent that it imposes a least-restrictive-means requirement not present in Sherbert or Yoder, however, RFRA “provide^] even broader protection for religious liberty than was available under those decisions.” Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. -, - n. 3, 134 S.Ct. 2751, 2761 n. 3, 189 L.Ed.2d 675 (2014).

Following the enactment of the ACA and the promulgation .of the contraceptive mandate, a diverse set of employers brought suit to avoid providing what they viewed as objectionable contraceptive coverage.18 The Supreme Court first encountered the contraceptive mandate in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 2751, 189 L.Ed.2d 675 (2014).19 The Court held in Hobby Lobby that enforcing the contraceptive mandate *1177against a closely held for-profit company that had religious objections to providing contraceptive 'coverage would violate RFRA. Id. at-, 134 S.Ct. at 2785. The Court began by determining- that, as a matter of statutory interpretation, RFRA covers certain for-profit companies because the term “person” was not limited only to natural persons. Id. at -, 134 S.Ct. at 2767-75. Moving to ■ RFRA’s threshold inquiry, the Court “ha[d] little trouble concluding” that the contraceptive mandate imposes a substantial burden on religious exercise. Id. at —, 134 S.Ct. at 2775. The Hobby Lobby plaintiffs had an uncontested “sincere religious belief that life begins at conception” and understood that their belief would be violated if they were required to “provid[e] health insurance that .covers methods of birth control” that “may result in the destruction of an embryo.”. Id. By forcing them to choose between violating-their deeply held convictions and “pay[ing] an enormous sum of money,” the contraceptive mandate “clearly imposes a substantial burden on those beliefs.” Id. at -, 134 S.Ct. at 2779.

The Court specifically and emphatically rejected any argument that the participation of religious objectors, by paying for contraceptive coverage, is “simply too attenuated” from the objectionable outcome, the destruction of embryos, to constitute a burden on religious exercise. Id. at -, 134 S.Ct. at 2777. Such an ‘ argument, which “implicates a difficult and important question of religion and moral philosophy,” would “in effect tell the plaintiffs that their beliefs are flawed” — and defining the scope of religious belief is a dangerous line-drawing inquiry “federal courts have-no business . addressing.” See id. at —, 134 S.Ct. at 2778 (“Instead, our ‘narrow function ... in this context is to determine’ whether the line drawn reflects ‘an honest conviction’” (quoting Thomas v. Review Bd. of Ind. Emp’t Sec. Div., 450 U.S. 707, 716, 101 S.Ct. 1425, 1431, 67 L.Ed.2d 624 (1981))). Moreover, the Court noted, if the contraceptive mandate’s burden were not substantial, it would “be hard to understand” and “not easy to square” with the exemptions carved out for qualifying “religious employers” facing “exactly the same” burden. Id. at —— n. 33, 134 S.Ct. at 2777 n. 33.

The Court next declined to address whether the' contraceptive mandate furthered a compelling interest because, even if it did, the contraceptive mandate was not the least restrictive means of doing so. Id. at -, 134 S.Ct. at 2779-80. The Court identified several less-restrictive alternatives that the Government could have used to achieve the assumed compelling interest, holding that the contraceptive mandate foundered under RFRA’s “exceptionally demanding” standard. Id. at-, 134. S.Ct. at 2780. The “most straightforward” alternative “would be for the Government to assume the cost” of contraceptive coverage. Id. at -, 134 S.Ct. at 2780. In response to the Government’s contrary position, the Court observed that “it is hard to understand [the] argument that [the Government] cannot be required under RFRA to pay anything” for “a Government interest of the highest order.” Id. at -, 134 S.Ct. at 2781.20 The Court *1178also strongly, suggested that the Government’s direct provision of contraceptive coverage would still be a less-restrictive alternative if the Government were required to create “an entirely new program” rather than “modif[y] an existing program (which RFRA surely allows).” Id.

In its analysis the Court decided it “need not rely on the option of a new, government-funded program” to identify a less-restrictive alternative because the regulations already provided one: the then-existing version of the accommodation for employers with religious objections. Id. at —, 134 S.Ct. at 2781-82. The for-profit Hobby Lobby plaintiffs did not object to the accommodation itself, so granting them the option for a third party to provide their female employees’ contraceptive coverage “serves [the Government’s] stated interests equally well.” Id. at -, 134 S.Ct. at 2781-82. Though derided as “ ‘noncommittal’ ” by the dissent for doing so, the Court expressly declined to rule on “whether an approach of this type complies with RFRA for purposes of all religious claims.” Id. at & n. 40, 134 S.Ct. at 2782 & n. 40.

Three days after it decided Hobby Lobby, the Supreme Court again ruled on the contraceptive mandate in Wheaton College v. Burwell, 573 U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 2806, 189 L.Ed.2d 856 (2014).21 In Wheaton College, the Court issued an order enjoining the Secretary of Health and Human Services, “pending final disposition of appellate review,” from enforcing the contraceptive mandate against an employer that submits “in writing- that it is a non-profit organization that holds itself out as religious and has religious objections to providing coverage for contraceptive services.” Id. at-, 134 S.Ct. at 2807. The parties disputed whether the obligation to provide contraceptive coverage was “dependent” on submitting Form 700 to an insurer or third-party administrator. Id. The Court concluded in its two-page order that, because notice had already been given to the Government, the Government “relying on this notice” could “facilitate the provision of full contraceptive coverage under the [ACA].” Id. The Court ended its order by noting that it “should not be construed as an expression of the Court’s views on the merits.” Id.

After Hobby Lobby and Wheaton College, the federal courts were inundated with cases posing the question presented here: whether RFRA provides relief to employers with religious objections -to the accommodation - itself. Our sister circuits are deeply divided. Like the majority, most circuits have concluded that, though RFRA requires deference to adherents’ sincerely held religious beliefs, “an objective inquiry” to determine whether a law presents' a substantial burden reveals that the accommodation does not impose a substantial burden on religious exercise.22 Ante at 1142-46; see also Catholic Health Care Sys. v. Burwell, 796 F.3d 207, 216-18 (2d Cir. 2015); Geneva Coll. v. Sec’y U.S. Dep’t of Health and Human Servs., 778 F.3d 422, 435-40 (3d Cir. 2015), cert. grant*1179ed sub nom. Zubik v. Burwell, — U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 444, 193 L.Ed.2d 345 (2015). and cert. granted, — U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 445, 193 L.Ed.2d 346 (2015); E. Tex. Baptist Univ. v. Burwell, 793 F.3d 449, 456-58 (5th Cir. 2015), cert. granted, — U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 444, 193 L.Ed.2d 345 (2015); Mich. Catholic Conference & Catholic Family Servs. v. Burwell, 807 F.3d 738, 747-49 (6th Cir. 2015); Grace Sch. v. Burwell, 801 F.3d 788, 803-05 (7th Cir. 2015); Univ. of Notre Dame v. Burwell, 786 F.3d 606, 614-19 (7th Cir. 2015); Little Sisters of the Poor Home for the Aged v. Burwell, 794 F.3d 1151, 1176-77 (10th Cir. 2015), cert. granted sub nom. S. Nazarene Univ. v. Burwell, — U.S. ——, 136 S.Ct. 445, 193 L.Ed.2d 346 (2015) and cert. granted, — U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 446, 193 L.Ed.2d 346 (2015); Priests for Life v. U.S. Dep’t of Health and Human Servs., 772 F.3d 229, 246-49 (D.C.Cir. 2014), cert. granted sub nom. Roman Catholic Archbishop v. Burwell, — U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 444, 193 L.Ed.2d 345 (2015) and cert. granted, — U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 446, 193 L.Ed.2d 345 (2015). The Eighth Circuit and a number of dissenting judges have concluded otherwise, determining that the accommodation substantially burdens religious exercise. See Sharpe Holdings, Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Health and Human Servs., 801 F.3d 927, 941-43 (8th Cir. 2015), cert. granted, 84 U.S.L.W. 3350 (U.S. Dec. 15, 2015) (No. 15775); E. Tex. Baptist Univ. v. Burwell, Nos. 14-20112, 14-10241, 14-40212, 807 F.3d 630, 633-35, 2015 WL 5773560, at *2-3 (5th Cir. Sept. 30, 2015) (Jones, J., dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc); Grace Sch., 801 F.3d at 810-15 (Manion, J., dissenting); Univ. of Notre Dame, 786 F.3d at 627-29 (Flaum, J., dissenting); Little Sisters of the Poor, 794 F.3d at 1208-10 (Baldock, J., dissenting in part); Little Sisters of the Poor Home for the Aged v. Burwell, 799 F.3d 1315, 1316-18 (10th Cir. 2015) (Hartz, J., dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc); Eternal Word Television Network, Inc. v. Sec’y, U.S. Dep’t. of Health and Human Servs., 756 F.3d 1339, 1344-48 (11th Cir. 2014) (William Pryor, J., specially concurring in order granting injunction pending appeal); Priests for Life v. U.S. Dep’t of Health and Human Servs., 808 F.3d 1, 6-9 (D.C.Cir. 2015) (Brown, J., dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc); Priests for Life, 808 F.3d at 15-20 (Kavanaugh, J., dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc).

C.

To summarize, when Congress enacted the ACA it ceded broad authority to three Executive-branch administrative agencies to promulgate rules governing the availability of women’s preventive health services in employer-sponsored health plans. The agencies ultimately determined that the Government had a compelling interest in providing women with cost-free access to a wide range of contraceptive services. In accordance with that determination, the agencies, through threat of large monetary penalties, mandated that certain employers must provide contraceptive coverage to their female employees. Though Congress had already exempted some types of employers — those with fewer than fifty employees and those with grandfathered health plans — the agencies decided that another group of employers should be exempt too: churches and church-affiliated organizations, as defined by already-existing definitions in the Internal Revenue Code.

The agencies exempted churches and church-affiliated organizations from the contraceptive mandate because the agencies understood that the contraceptive mandate would, impose a substantial burden on many of these organizations’ religious exercise. As a result, churches and church-affiliated organizations may choose *1180what contraceptive coverage, if any, will be available in their female employees’ health plans. No such exemption, however, was thought necessary for other organizations with similar religious objections, whether for-profit or nonprofit. After much public outcry and litigation, the agencies changed course. At first, the agencies, began offering an exemption-like option to certain nonprofits with religious objections. In response to the Supreme Court’s decision in Hobby Lobby, the agencies extended the same to for-profit religious objectors as well.

But the exemption-like option — the accommodation — did not truly exempt qualifying employers. Rather, it required qualifying employers to affirmatively opt out of providing contraceptive coverage, shifting the obligation to provide the required contraceptive coverage to the employers’ insurer or third-party administrator. Originally, qualifying employers had to opt out by sending Form 700 to the insurer or third-party administrator responsible for the employers’ health plans, alerting the insurer or third-party administrator to its new obligations. After the Supreme Court’s order in Wheaton College, the agencies also made available an option of providing less-formal notice to the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Under this option, the notice is rerouted to-the insurer or third-party administrator, in' lieu of the employer submitting Form 700 directly.

For employers that run self-insured health plans in conjunction with a third-party administrator and are eligible for the accommodation, opting out of the contraceptive mandate has the effect of designating the employers’ third-party administrators as “plan administrators” under ERISA. Once so designated, the agencies can require a third-party administrator to provide contraceptive- coverage. Absent any affirmative action from the employer, third-party administrators remain outside of ERISA’s reach. Likewise outside of ERISA’s reach, -and thus effectively exempt from the contraceptive mandate, are employers that run self-insured health plans without a third-party administrator.

Ás a result, there are four discrete options facing employers like Eternal Word Television Network and the Dioceses, which operate self-insured plans and do not meet the Internal Revenue Code’s definition for churches or church-affiliated organizations but nonetheless have religious objections to providing contraceptive coverage. First, these employers can provide the objectionable coverage in violation of their beliefs. Second, these employers can comply with the accommodation -and affirmatively opt out of the contraceptive mandate, shifting the obligation to provide the required coverage to their insurer or third-party administrator, also in violation of their beliefs. Third, these employers can drop their third-party administrators and assume the costs and responsibilities of running their own health plans. Fourth, these employers can do nothing and thereby become liable for annual fines of thousands of dollars per employee.

This case requires two determinations. First, does the regulatory scheme discussed above impose a substantial burden on the religious exercise, of. Eternal Word Television Network and the Dioceses, which believe that opting out under the accommodation would violate the sanctity of human life? If so, does the regulatory scheme nonetheless survive RFRA’s demanding standard of strict scrutiny? Because I conclude that the answers to these questions are yes and no, while the majority says no and yes, I dissent.

H.

The threshold inquiry under RFRA requires a showing that the Government has *1181“substantially burden[ed]” the plaintiffs “exercise of religion.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-l; First, a RFRA plaintiff must identify religious exercise that the Government is, burdening. The allegedly burdened exercise “must be sincerely based on a religious belief and not some other motivation.” Holt v. Hobbs, 574 U.S. -, -, 135 S.Ct. 853, 862, 190 L.Ed.2d 747 (2015).23 When determining the content of a religious belief, including how and to what extent its attendant exercise may be burdened, we defer to the plaintiffs understanding of what his faith requires of him because “[c]ourts are not arbiters of scriptural interpretation.” Thomas v. Review Bd. of Ind. Emp’t Sec. Div., 450 U.S. 707, 716, 101 S.Ct. 1425, 1431, 67 L.Ed.2d 624 (1981). So long as a religious adherent has drawn a line based on “an honest conviction,” “it is not for us to say that the line he drew was an unreasonable one.” Id. at 715-16, 101 S.Ct. at 1430-31.

Next, we must determine whether, as an objective matter, the identified burden on religious exercise is substantial. The existence of a substantial burden, which “can result from pressure that tends to force adherents to forego religious precepts or from pressure that mandates religious conduct,” turns on whether the Government’s actions coerce a religious adherent to affirmatively violate his beliefs. Midrash Sephardi, Inc. v. Town, of Surfside, 366 F.3d 1214, 1227 (11th Cir. 2004). To be substantial, a burden must be “akin to significant pressure which directly coerces the religious adherent to conform his or her behavior accordingly” and must be more than “an inconvenience on religious exercise.” Id. For example, a zoning ordinance that forces members of an Orthodox Jewish congregation to “walk[] a few , extra blocks” to attend services on the Sabbath is not a substantial burden when there is no “religious significance” as to a particular synagogue site, though “walking may be burdensome.” Id. at 1221, 1227-28. In contrast, if the Government puts a religious adherent to,the “choice” of incurring a “serious” penalty or “ ‘engaging] in conduct-that seriously violates [his] religious beliefs,’” then the Government “substantially burdens his religious exercise.”. See Hobbs, 574 U.S. at. -, 135 S.Ct. at 862 (quoting Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. —, -, 134 S.Ct. 2751, 2775, 189 L.Ed.2d 675 (2014) (second alteration in the original)). And a burden is no less substantial if the burdened party “is able to engage in other forms of religious exercise’,” if the exercise ift .question is not “compelled” by the burdened party’s religion, or if the'burdened party’s belief is “idiosyncratic.” Id. at -, 185 S.Ct. at 862.

Here, it is overwhelmingly clear that the contraceptive mandate imposes on Eternal Word Television Network and the Dioceses a burden that the accommodation does not alleviate. Eternal Word Television Network and the Dioceses assert a religious belief — which the Government does not contest is sincerely held — that both complying with the contraceptive mandate and opting out under the accommodation, which requires the third-party administrators of their health plans to provide contraceptive coverage, would make them complicit in violating the sanctity of human life. The Government burdens that belief by requiring Eternal Word Television Network and the Dioceses to affirmatively participate in its regulatory scheme.

And it is equally clear that the burden imposed is substantial. The Government puts Eternal Word Television Network and the Dioceses to the “choice” of either *1182(1) complying with the contraceptive mandate, to which they object on religious grounds; (2) opting out under the accommodation, to which they also object on religious grounds; (3) dropping the third-party administrators of their health plans and becoming de facto insurance companies, -incurring substantial costs and diverting the focus of their religiously motivated operations; or (4) incurring millions of dollars in penalties annually.24 Besides providing yet another way for the eligible organizations to violate their religious beliefs, the accommodation does nothing to change the Supreme Court’s holding in Hobby Lobby that the contraceptive mandate “clearly imposes a substantial burden on those beliefs.” 573 U.S. at -, 134 S.Ct. at 2779. Eternal Word Television Network and the Dioceses must either violate their beliefs or incur massive monetary costs. On its face, such a “choice” is not a choice at all. Rather, it is a substantial burden on religious exercise.

As I understand it, this straightforward application of RFRA’s- substantial-burden test should end the matter. The majority thinks otherwise, reaching the wrong conclusion for two reasons. First, the majority fails to give proper deference to Eternal Word Television Network and the Dioceses’ sincerely held religious beliefs. Second, the majority mischaracterizes how the contraceptive mandate works by understating the critical role that' the accommodation forces employers to play in providing contraceptive coverage.

Before explaining why the majority fails to give RFRA its proper meaning, it is helpful to clarify how our understandings of RFRA’s inquiry differ. Exactly where we differ is highlighted below:

[[Image here]]

*1183A.

First, the majority fails to give the proper deference due Eternal Word Television Network and the Dioceses’ sincerely held belief that it would violate the sanctity of human life to comply with the Government’s regulatory scheme, either directly through the contraceptive mandate or indirectly through the accommodation. Though the majority purports to defer-to these beliefs, its deference is largely illusory. The majority begins by correctly observing that RFRA’s substantial-burden inquiry “involves both subjective and objective dimensions.” Ante at 1144. The majority continues on, also correctly, to observe that “courts must accept a religious adherent’s assertion that his religious beliefs require him to take or abstain from taking a specified action.” Id. The majority falters, however, when it concludes that “it is for the courts to determine objectively ... whether the government has, in fact, put plaintiffs to the choice of violating their religious beliefs ... or incurring a substantial penalty.” Id. at 1145.

Contrary' to the majority’s position, RFRA does require deference to religious adherents’ determinations that their sincerely held beliefs are being burdened. “The narrow function of a reviewing court in this context” prevents unnecessary and improper judicial intrusion into highly sensitive matters of moral philosophy or theology, Thomas, 450 U.S. at 716, 101 S.Ct. at 1431, and this understanding of the substantial-burden standard is confirmed by the Supreme Court’s most recent religious-accommodation’ decisions. See Hobbs, 574 U.S. at -, 135 S.Ct. at 861-63 (granting an exemption to a prison’s grooming, policy for a Muslim inmate’s proposed “ ‘compromise’ ” that he be allowed to grow a half-inch-long beard); Hobby Lobby, 573 U.S. at -, 134 S.Ct. at 2775-79 (rejecting the argument that “the connection between” providing contraceptive coverage and the “destruction of an embryo[ ] is simply too attenuated” because this “would in effect tell the plaintiffs their beliefs are flawed.”).

The “objective inquiry” under RFRA focuses only on whether that burden is substantial: For example, courts must defer to a religious adherent’s belief, if it is sincerely held, that dancing is morally wrong.25 And courts must defer to the religious adherent’s understanding that this belief would be burdened if she were required to look upon, even if only for a moment, a single masquerade ball or sock hop. What courts must determine as an objective matter is whether the burden imposed by any pro-dancing Government action is a substantial one. Imposing millions of dollars in fines for failing to perform a Government-mandated jitterbug would, obviously, be a substantial burden on religious exercise. In contrast, there would be no substantial burden if the Government merely financed public dancefl-oors or had a hortatory policy of extolling the virtues of dance.26

If the substantial-burden test were as the majority believes it to be, federal judges would have to decide whether the burden itself substantially violated the adherent’s beliefs. That is, the majority would necessarily shift the gaze of its “objective inquiry” to the merits of religious *1184belief. In this Bizarro World, it would be secular courts making ex cathedra pronouncements on whether Muslims are truly put out by requirements to shave their beards, Hobbs, 574 U.S. —, 135 S.Ct. 853; Fraternal Order of Police Newark Lodge No. 12 v. City of Newark, 170 F.3d 359 (3d Cir. 1999), whether Seventh-day Adventists are sufficiently deterred from accepting employment by requirements to work on Saturdays, Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398, 83 S.Ct. 1790, 10 L.Ed.2d 965 (1963), whether Santería priests could just make do without ritual sacrifice or Ache-infused beads and shells, Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 113 S.Ct. 2217, 124 L.Ed.2d 472 (1993); Davila v. Gladden, 777 F.3d 1198 (11th Cir. 2015), and whether the sacramental use of peyote is really that big of a deal to members of the Native American Church, Emp’t Div., Dep’t of Human Res. of Or. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 110 S.Ct. 1595, 108 L.Ed.2d 876 (1990). But, of course, the Constitution does not vest in the judiciary the authority to declare winners and losers in matters of faith. And for good reason.

At bottom, the majority’s reasoning takes aim at the heart of RFRA itself. Implicit in the majority’s rationale is the notion that wily plaintiffs could game the system if religious adherents’ beliefs were given the full extent of the deference demanded by RFRA. In tailoring their stated beliefs, these plaintiffs could engage in strategic litigation unhampered, impairing the government’s ability to function efficiently. By expanding the limited scope of the objective portion of the substantial-burden inquiry, the majority expressly seeks to avoid “reducing the ... federal courts to ‘rubber stamps.’ ” Ante at 1145. Here, despite conceding as the majority must that “the act. of- opting out plays [some] causal role in the ultimate provision of contraceptive coverage,” the majority runs roughshod over the sincerely held religious objections of Eternal Word Television Network and the Dioceses because, in line with the majority’s sense of things, the “de minimis burden that the plaintiffs face” resulting from their role as “an incidental cause of contraceptive coverage being provided” does not constitute a substantial burden; Id. at 1147-48, 1148-49. The majority through a nifty bit of legalistic legerdemain manages to transform the subjective content of religious adherents’ sincerely held beliefs into an objective question of federal law, undercutting the very deference to religious exercise it purports to extend.

The majority’s not-so-veiled' implication that, if given its full effect, RFRA will be refashioned from a shield protecting the faithful into a sword wielded by cynical opportunists is troubling and at odds with RFRA’s fundamental respect for the deeply held- convictions that guide the daily lives of hundreds of.millions of Americans. As an initial matter, whether or not a belief is sincerely held remains an important part of RFRA’s substantial-burden inquiry. Courts are not, for example, compelled to entertain challenges from such obvious farces as a hypothetical “Church of Marijuana and Pepperoni Pizza”27 or the satirical “Our Lady of Perpetual Exemption.”28 Separating the faithful sheep from the cynically opportunistic goats is well within our judicial capabilities.

*1185Moreover, to the extent that granting exemptions for religious adherents would impair the governnient’s ability to run programs and administer law efficiently, this is a feature of RFRA, not a bug. Congress made the clear policy choice that protecting the individual right of free religious exercise outweighed the costs imposed at the expense of administrative efficiency. And this choice — to preserve individual freedom by fettering the Government’s ability to act as expeditiously as possible — is at the core of our foundational notion of limited government. Permitting demonstrations in public parks, requiring police officers to secure a warrant before searching homes or seizing persons, and committing the Government to provide just compensation if it wishes to take private property all surely hamper the Government’s ability to pursue count less other important ends. These tradeoffs are the cost of liberty. And how best to balance these enhanced protections against their added cos.ts is exactly the sort of, thorny policy decision best left to democratically responsive legislators, not unelected judges.29

The majority is hardly alone in its implicit rejection .of RFRA’s core purpose. Striking the proper balance between the collective needs of society and the individual freedom of religious exercise has been fraught with rancor and sectarian strife since time immemorial. Unsurprisingly then, the oft-embattled RFRA has proven a favorite whipping boy from all sides of the legal academy during its twenty-three-year existence. See, e.g., Douglas Ne-Jaime & Reva B. Siegel, Conscience Wars: Complicity-Based Conscience Claims in Religion and Politics, 124 Yale L.J. 2516 (2015); Mary Anne Case, Why “Live-And-Let-Live” is not a Viable Solution to the: Difficult Problems of Religious Accommodation in the Age of Sexual Civil Rights, 88 S. Cal. L.Rev. 463 (2015); Douglas Laycock, Religious Liberty and the Culture Wars, 2014 U. Ill. L.Rev. 839; William P. Marshall, Bad Statutes Make Bad Law: Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, 2014 Sup.Ct. Rev. 71; Michael Stokes Paulsen, A RFRA Runs Through It: Religious Freedom and the U.S.Code, 56 Mont. L.Rev. 249 (1995).

Judicial declaration's that the sky will fall if exemptions were granted to religious objectors in a pluralistic society as diverse and vibrant as the United States are old hat as well. Consider the following statement of Chief Justice Morrison' Waite, written almost one hundred and fifty years ago:

Laws are made for the ■ government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices.... Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief "superior to the law of the land, and in effect to perrhit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances.

Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 166-67, 25 L.Ed. 244 (1878). After more than a century of wrestling with the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause, the Supreme Court brought constitutional religious-accommodation doctrine full circle in Smith, upholding without accommodation neutral laws of general applicability. *1186Writing for the majority, Justice Scalia echoed Chief Justice Waite’s sentiment:

If the “compelling interest” test is to be applied at all, then, it must be applied across the board, to all actions thought to be religiously commanded. .Moreover, if “compelling .interests” really means what it says (and watering it down here would subvert its rigor in the other fields where it is applied), many laws will not meet the test. Any society adopting such a system would be courting anarchy, but that danger increases in direct proportion to the society’s diversity of religious beliefs, and its determination to coerce or suppress none of them.

Smith, 494 U.S. at 888, 110 S.Ct. at 1605 (emphasis added). It is. hard to fathom a plainer statement of the risks of reinstitut-ing a policy of religious accommodation.

Yet it was against this very backdrop that Congress enacted RFRA in 1993. And Congress specifically declared that by adopting the demands of strict scrutiny it intended to depart, from the less-protective constitutional . standard announced in Smith. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb(4). To .the extent that the standard RFRA imposes raises policy concerns, criticisms on this front are best addressed to Congress, and may find appropriate shelter in the pages of law reviews. But as federal judges we are duty-bound to follow and apply the laws Congress actually enacted, not as we might wish them to be. “The wisdom of Congress’s judgment on this matter is not our concern. Our responsibility is to enforce RFRA as written, and under the standard that RFRA prescribes,” Hobby Lobby, 573 U.S. at -, 134 S.Ct. at 2785, the accommodation, no less than the contraceptive mandate itself, imposes a substantial burden on.religious exercise..

B.

Second, the majority fails to appreciate the crucial role in providing religiously objectionable contraceptive coverage that the accommodation foists on eligible organizations. The majority believes- that the accommodation places no burden on the beliefs of Eternal Word Television Network and the Dioceses because the “significance they attribute to this act [of opting out]” is misguided, and thus the outcome of this case is not controlled by the- otherwise-identical analysis in Hobby Lobby. See ante at 1148. According to the majority, “[t]he ACA and HRSA guidelines” are what “entitle women who are plan participants and beneficiaries covered by group health insurance plans to contraceptive coverage without cost sharing” — “not the opt out.” See id. at 1149. This is so even though the majority “acknowledge[s] that an eligible organization’s act of [opting out] results in the TPA’s designation as the plan administrator” under ERISA and “may be an incidental cause of contraceptive coverage being provided.” Id. at 1147-48. Boiled down to its bare essentials, the-majority’s position is that if the parties really understood what is going on, they would have no basis to object to their role in the contraceptive mandate’s-regulatory scheme.

It is the majority, however, that misunderstands the contraceptive mándate. Under its regulatory scheme, as bounded by the statutory requirements of the ACA and ERISA,30 the Government becomes *1187empowered to require contraceptive coverage for an eligible organization’s self-insured health plan only if that organization affirmatively opts out under the accommodation. A third-party administrator of a self-insured health plan “bears the legal obligation to provide contraceptive coverage only upon receipt of a valid self-certification.” 31 Wheaton College v. Burwell, 573 U.S. —, - n. 6, 134 S.Ct. 2806, 2814 n. 6, 189 L.Ed.2d 856 (2014) (Sotomayor, J., dissenting) (emphasis added). The majority is incorrect, then, to say that the contraceptive mandate “does' not turn on whether [an] eligible organization employer chooses to comply with the law.” See ante at 1149. Federal law kicks in only after an eligible organization acts; should an eligible organization decline to do anything, the Government lacks an independent means to ensure the provision of contraceptive coverage. Because the regulations condition the provision of contraceptive coverage on eligible organizations’ affirmative participation, their participation is the linchpin on which the contraceptive mandate rests.

To draw an analogy with which any first-year law student should be well acquainted, an eligible organization’s opting out under the accommodation is both an actual and proximate cause of the provision of contraceptive coverage. There can be. no doubt that opting out under the accommodation is a “cause in fact” of providing contraceptive coverage. But for opting out, the Government would lack the requisite regulatory authority over the third-party administrators of the organizations’ health plans. Cf. Stacy v. Knickerbocker Ice Co., 84 Wis. 614, 54 N.W. 1091 (1893) (noting that without defendant’s cutting and removing of surface ice, uncontrolled horses would not have fallen through a frozen lake). The majority contests whether the act of opting out also meets some standard of “legal” or “proximate” cause. See Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R. Co., 248 N.Y. 339, 162 N.E. 99, 104 (1928) (Andrews, J., dissenting) (“What we do mean by the word ‘proximate’ is that, because of convenience, of public policy, of á rough sense of justice, the law arbitrarily declines to trace a series of events beyond a certain point; That is not logic, it is practical politics.”). According to the majority, because federal law entails the authorization to require third-party administrators to provide contraceptive coverage, opting out is only “an incidental cause of contraceptive coverage being provided.” See ante at 1147-48.

I fail to see, however, how affirmatively opting out ’of the contraceptive mandate under the accommodation could be deemed anything other than a “substantial factor” or “material concurring cause” directly leading to the provision of religiously objectionable coverage. Anderson v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Ry. Co., 146 Minn. 430, 436-37, 439, 179 N.W. 45 (1920). Opting out under the accommodation sets in motion a chain of events leading tó the provision of contraceptive coverage as inexorably as night follows day.32 Once an employer opts out, only then does the Government become authorized to regulate third-party administrators. *1188See Grace Sch. v. Burwell, 801 F.3d 788, 808 (7th Cir. 2015) (Manion, J., dissenting) (describing “the accommodation’s tangled mess” as “the long and -winding extension cord the government uses to power its contraceptive mandate”). So authorized, there can be no doubt that the Government will in turn flex its newfound regulatory muscle to require the provision of contraceptive coverage.

This clear and uninterrupted causal chain holds whether an employer sends Form 700 directly to its third-party administrator or submits less-formal notice indirectly to the Secretary of Health and Human Services, just as a pilot reaches his destination as certainly flying direct. as with a. layover,. An employer connecting these dots would hardly need the insight of Henry Friendly,to. conclude that its actipns caused, in a direct and material fashion, the religiously objectionable outcome. “After all, if the. form were meaningless, why would the Government require it?” Priests for Life v. U.S. Dep’t of Health and Human Servs., 808 F.3d 1, 20 (D.C.Cir. 2015) (Kavanaugh, J., dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc)

But this analogy can bé stretched only so far. Common-law principles of causation, however fundamental to our legal heritage, are simply too unreliable a light to guide RFRA’s substantial-burden analysis.33 Reading into RFRA some sort of proximate-cause limitation would reintroduce the exact same “attenuation]” argu-. ment rejected by the Supreme Court in Hobby Lobby for ‘‘dodging] the question that RFRA presents.” 573 U.S. at -, 134 S.Ct. at 2777-78. To do so would be an illegitimate foray into the realm of personal faith, and federal courts are “singularly ill equipped” to parse the moral reasoning and theological conclusions of religious believers, especially in light of secular judges’ unspecified and almost certainly inconsistent determinations of legal causation. Thomas, 450 U.S. at 715, *1189101 S.Ct. at 1431. No matter how elaborate the Rube Goldberg machine the Government manages to jerry-rig, it is simply not our place to decide for Eternal Word Television Network and the Dioceses their degree of complicity when forced to topple the initial domino;

Accordingly, for eligible organizations that object to opting out under the accommodation, the contraceptive mandate burdens their religious exercise to the same impermissible extent as the plaintiffs’ in Hobby'Lobby.

III.

Concluding that the .contraceptive mandate substantially burdens Eternal Word Television Network’s and the Dioceses’ religious exercise does not end the matter. The Government can still prevail if it is able to show that the contraceptive mandate is “in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest” and the accommodation is “the least restrictive'means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.”' 42U.S.C. § 2000bb-1(b).

The Government fails to make this showing. For purposes of this opinion, I assume that the accommodation serves “a legitimate and compelling interest in the health, of female employees.”34 See Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. -, -, 134 S.Ct. 2751, 2786, 189 L.Ed.2d 675 (2014) (Kennedy, J., concurring). There is no need to reach the merits of this assumed compelling interest, whatever its exact nature, because the accommodation is not the least-restrictive means capable of achieving any government interest that could conceivably be called compelling. Accord id. at -, 134 S.Ct at 2779-80 (Alito, J.).

IV.

If the notion that the accommodation does not substantially burden religious exercise is “[rjpbbish,” Eternal Word Television Network, Inc. v. Sec’y, U.S. Dep’t of Health and Human Servs., 756 F.3d 1339, 1347 (11th Cir. 2014) (William Pryor, J., concurring), then the majority’s further notion that the contraceptive mandate passes RFRA’s “exceptionally demanding” scrutiny is rubbish on stilts. Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. —, -, 134 S.Ct. 2751, 2780, 189 L.Ed.2d 675 (2014); In codifying the familiar language of strict scrutiny — the “most demanding test known to constitutional law,” City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507, 534, 117 S.Ct. 2157, 2171, 138 L.Ed.2d 624 (1997)— Congress erected RFRA as a mighty bulwark, entrenching against Government incursion the freedom of religious liberty throughout the United States Code. To surmount these protections, the Government has the burden of “showing] that it lacks other' means of achieving its desired goal without imposing a substantial burden on the exercise of religion by the objecting parties.” Hobby Lobby, 573 U.S. at -, 134 S.Ct.at 2780. Carrying this burden is no mean feat. “If a less restrictive means is available for the Government to achieve its goals, the Government must use it.” Holt v. Hobbs, 574 U.S. ——, -, 135 S.Ct. 853, 864, 190 L.Ed.2d 747 (2015) (Quoting United States v. Playboy Entm’t Grp., Inc., 529 U.S. 803, 815, 120 S.Ct. 1878, 1887, 146 L.Ed.2d 865 (2000)) (alteration omitted).

*1190So, is there a less-restrictive alternative of ensuring that the female employees of employers with religious objections to the contraceptive mandate nonetheless continue to receive cost-free access to the challenged services? Of course there is. As the Hobby Lobby majority observed: “The most straightforward way of doing this would be for the Government to assume the cost of providing” the objectionable contraceptive coverage. 573 U.S. at -, 134 S.Ct. at 2780. Though the Court did not ultimately need to reach the question of whether direct Government provision of contraceptive coverage would constitute a less-restrictive alternative because the plaintiffs did not object to the accommodation, id. at -, 134 S.Ct. at 2780-82, we must do so here. And I fail to see any reason why the Court’s persuasive reasoning-should not be adopted. The Government has not shown, as it must, that it would be able to provide the same access to contraceptive coverage to the same women only if it can force eligible organizations to violate their sincerely held religious beliefs.

Speaking bluntly, RFRA makes the Government put its money where its mouth is. I see nothing in RFRA’s text or the subsequent case law that would allow the Government to claim a compelling interest without having to spend a single red cent to do anything about.it. Significant here, the Government must necessarily agree that RFRA compels it to fund contraceptive coverage-otherwise the accommodation would not exist at all. Indeed, the entire purpose of the accommodation is to make the provision of contraceptive coverage independent of the eligible organization, including segregating all the costs paid by the eligible organization from all the expenditures for the objectionable services. Aware of the fallacy of free-lunch thinking and absent any expectation of third-party administrators acting out of purely eleemosynary impulse, the Government committed itself to funding contraceptive coverage for certain religious objectors,35 albeit in roundabout fashion.

To be clear, the Government is already committed to fund the contraceptive mandate under the current regulations. The Government reimburses third-party administrators required to fund contraceptive coverage through a reduction in Federally-facilitated Exchange user fees, the amount of money paid to be able to offer insurance products on exchanges established by' the Government under the ACA.36 Money is fungible; the Govern*1191ment finds itself in the same financial position whether it declines to collect a tax liability of $500 or whether it collects the $500 and then immediately refunds the same. By forgoing revenue to fund the contraceptive coverage for the female employees of eligible organizations that opt out under the accommodation, the Government is effectively paying for the objectionable coverage. And in contrast to the half-measure of the accommodation— which covers only a limited set of religiously objecting employers and does not provide access to the female employees of churches and church-affiliated organizations, employers with grandfathered health plans, or employers with fewer than fifty full-time employees37 — providing for contraceptive coverage directly without the accommodation’s administrative: rigmarole would allow the Government to offer cost-free access to each and every-woman in the United States should it choose to do so. And the Government has failed to shoulder its burden to show that it would be unable to grant women access to- contraceptive coverage without the coerced involvement of Eternal Word Television Network and the Dioceses.

Again, this straightforward application of well-established legal principles should carry the day. But, again, the majority thinks otherwise. Specifically, the majority concludes that the current iteration of the contraceptive mandate has finally hit upon the least restrictive means of achieving the Government’s compelling, interest when “the cost to the government” and “the burden the alternatives impose on the affected women” are taken into account. See ante at 1158. Though I do not dispute that these concerns are relevant to the least-restrictive-means inquiry, I cannot agree with the majority that they save the contraceptive mandate from RFRA’s exceptionally demanding scrutiny.

The arguments advanced in the majority’s apology for the contraceptive mandate seem to rest largely on speculative and overblown logistical problems the Government might face if it were held responsible for furthering its asserted compelling interest. According to the majority, if the Government were forced to provide contraceptive coverage “outside the existing, largely employer-based, insurance system,” whether directly or through tax credits, “Congress would need to pass legislation that would fundamentally change how the majority of Americans receive” contraceptive coverage specifically, if not healthcare generally. See id. at 1159. Likewise, if forced to keep the current model of providing contraceptive coverage through eligible organizations’ health plans, “the government would be hamstrung” because of the “gaps” in institutional knowledge that would spring up re-gárdiñg which female employees of which employers would be covered by the Government and which are not. Id. at 1160. As a result, because the majority believes that adopting any of the alternatives it considers would incur various administrative and transactions costs, the result would be less access to contraceptive cov*1192erage, undermining the Government’s asserted compelling interest. See id. at 1158-59,1161.

The majority’s insistence on assuming a virtually immutable regulatory and statutory status ' quo is fundamentally' misplaced. RFRA makes clear that it is the “Government ” that “shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion,” 42 U.S.C., § 2000bb-1(a) (emphasis added), not just constituent parts acting within their respective spheres of .authority. In Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, for example, the Supreme Court specifically rejected the Government’s position “that the .Controlled Substances Act is [not] amenable to judicially crafted exceptions [for the hallucinogen hoasca]” because of “the existence of a congressional exemption for peyote.” 546 U.S. 418, 434, 126 S.Ct. 1211, 1222, 163 L.Ed.2d 1017 (2006). It would be absurd to say, then, that we cannot grant a judicially crafted exception here because the relevant administrative agencies lacked the regulatory authority to promulgate exceptions that would have been equally effective in achieving an allegedly compelling interest had there been congressional action allowing them to do so. In short, if the Government as a whole has a less-restrictive alternative available, the Government must use it.

The majority’s radically revisionist account of RFRA, in contrast, would limit the universe of less-restrictive means to what the Executive Branch can accomplish unilaterally by administrative fíat. This is a shocking reversal of our Constitution’s prime directive: “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States.” U.S. Const, art. I, § 1. To the extent that the Government claims an* interest of the highest order, it is only reasonable that Congress be expected to pitch in when freewheeling regulators encounter statutory roadblocks. The practical' hurdles to providing the access to contraceptive coverage the Government seeks would simply disappear if Congress were to slightly tweak the contraceptive mandate’s statutory authorization under ERISA and the ACA. By having Congress eliminate the need for eligible organizations to affirmatively designate the third-party administrators of their'health plans — thus becoming directly involved in the provision "of the objectionable coverage — the Departments of Labor, Treasury, and Health and Human Services woúld no longer need to substantially burden eligible organizations by putting them to the “choice” of affirmatively violating their sincerely held beliefs or paying massive penalties. ‘ And the Government has failed- to show why this could be accomplished without imposing any additional burden on female employees only if eligible organizations were required to use the accommodation.38

Finally,' the fate of the contraceptive mandate under RFRA is complicated by the Government’s decision to condition benefits flowing to third parties on actions taken by religious objectors in violation of their beliefs. I agree that granting an exemption that would impose costs on third parties could, under pertain circumstances, run afoul of the Establishment *1193Clause of the First Amendment. See Corp. of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints v. Amos, 483 U.S. 327, 334-35, 107 S.Ct. 2862, 2868, 97 L.Ed.2d 273 (1987) (“At some point, accommodation may devolve into ‘an unlawful fostering of religion.’ ” (quoting Hobbie v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n of Fla., 480 U.S. 136, 145, 107 S.Ct. 1046, 1051, 94 L.Ed.2d 190 (1987))). But such an eventuality alone does not automatically transform the Government’s chosen means into the least-restrictive alternative required by RFRA. As the Supreme Court reiterated in upholding the constitutionality of RLUIPA, RFRA’s sister statute, “ ‘there is room for play in the joints between’ the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses, allowing the government to accommodate religion beyond free exercise requirements, without offense' to the Establishment Clause.” Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709, 713, 125 S.Ct. 2113, 2117, 161 L.Ed.2d 1020 (2005) (quoting Locke v. Davey, 540 U.S. 712, 718, 124 S.Ct. 1307, 1311, 158 L.Ed.2d 1 (2004)). Granting Eternal Word Television Network and the Dioceses an exemption from the contraceptive mandate falls well within the space allowed for “play in the joints,” wherever those exact boundaries may lie.

Here, the Government is essentially asking for a free pass on RFRA’s least-restrictive-means requirement because the administrative agencies responsible' for crafting the contraceptive mandate decided — for administrative convenience — to tie the provision of contraceptive coverage to eligible organizations’ affirmative participation in an elaborate regulatory scheme. If we were to honor the Government’s request, anytime regulators wanted to immunize their slapdash efforts, regardless of the potential alternatives, they need only condition a benefit to third parties on any substantial burden placed on religious exercise. Lest RFRA is understood to have ushered in the apotheosis of the administrative state, surely the rigorous standard of‘strict scrutiny cannot be so easily evaded. • ■ •

Without a doubt, there are sundry ways for the Government to provide women with cost-free' access to contraceptive coverage. The administrative agencies tasked with promulgating the 'regulatory structure that undergirds the contraceptive mandate chose, because of convenience and their bounded statutory authority, to do so in a manner that substantially burdens' religious adherents. We have been presented insufficient evidence to hold that the goal of increasing access to contraceptive coverage could be reached only "through the circuitous regulatory pathways that have been cobbled together here. The Government, therefore, has failed to carry its burden to show that the contraceptive mandate is' the least restrictive means of furthering any'assumed compelling interest. '

v;

The sweeping protections for religious exercise Congress contemplated when it enacted RFRA should not be denied- to Eternal Word Television Network and the Dioceses. RFRA’s text and purpose, as confirmed by well-established precedent, extend these protections to religious adherents forced to choose between affirmatively participating in a regulatory scheme that they sincerely - believe would make them complicit in denigrating the sanctity of human life and paying millions of dollars in noncompliance penalties. Because the Government cannot show that the latest iteration of its constantly evolving “accommodation” survives strict scrutiny, RFRA bars enforcing the contraceptive mandate against those employers whose religious exercise it substantially burdens.

By concluding otherwise, the majority diminishes the full range of religious liber*1194ty that Congress sought to protect when it enacted RFRA. Recasting and enfeebling RFRA’s standard as nothing more than “good enough for government work” is a far cry from strict scrutiny’s typical charge of fiat justitia,mat caelum39 Perhaps the majority’s desire to bring RFRA’s statutory protections for religious liberty closer in line with the less-demanding constitutional standard represents a superior policy judgment. Perhaps not. In any event, the majority’s application of “water[ed] down” strict scrutiny is exactly the sort of wishy-yrashy treatment likely to “subvert its rigors in the other fields where it applies” that motivated the Supreme Court’s Smith decision in the first place. See Emp’t Div., Dep’t of Human Res. of Or. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 888, 110 S.Ct. 1595, 1605, 108 L.Ed.2d 876 (1990). But by enacting RFRA, Congress confirmed that strict scrutiny “really means what it says.” Id.; see also Hobby Lobby, 573 U.S. at - n. 3, 134 S.Ct. at 2761 n. 3. Regardless of individual judges’ views of the wisdom motivating RFRA, that was Congress’s call to make.

Respectfully, I DISSENT.

The” plaintiffs in these consolidated appeals challenge the regulations implementing-what is known as the “contraceptive mandate” of the Affordable Care Act (“ACA”) — the requirement that employers provide health insurance coverage for preventive care (including contraception) to women.1 Specifically, the plaintiffs argue that the regulations’ accommodation for nonprofit organizations with a religious objection to providing contraceptive coverage violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb, el seq. They claim that the accommodation substantially burdens their religious exercise in violation of RFRA by forcing them to take actions that cause their health plan administrators to provide contraceptive coverage and to maintain a health plan that - serves as a conduit for contraceptive coverage. We reject the plaintiffs’ claims because we conclude that the regulations do not substantially burden their religious exercise and, alternatively, because (1) the government' has compelling interests to justify the accommodation, and (2) the accommodation is the least restrictive means of furthering those interests.

Eternal Word Television Network (“EWTN”), the plaintiff in the first appeal, also raises several First Amendment challenges to the accommodation. Because the accommodation is a neutral, generally applicable law that does not discriminate based on religious denomination, we reject EWTN’s challenges under the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses. We also reject EWTN’s challenge1 under the Free Speech Clause because, as' discussed below, any speech restrictions that may flow from the accommodation are justified by a compelling governmental interest and are thus constitutional.

I. BACKGROUND

A. The Affordable Care Act and the Contraceptive Mandate

Enacted in 2010, the ACA requires group health insurance plans to provide a minimum floor of coverage without imposing cost sharing (such as deductibles, eo-*1130payments, or co-insurance) on plan participants and beneficiaries. 42 U.S.C. § 300gg-13(a). If an employer fails to provide such coverage in its group employee health plan, it is subject to penalties in the form of a tax of $100 per day per affected person. 26 U.S.C. § 4980D(b)(1). The Women’s Health Amendment to the ACA added to the minimum coverage requirements a mandate that group health plans provide women with coverage for preventive care and screenings. 42 U.S.C. § 300gg-13(a)(4), The requirement was intended in part to “get[ ] rid of, or mini-miz[e], high copays and high deductibles that are often overwhelming hurdles for women to access screening programs.” 155 Cong. Rec. S11987 (Nov. 30, 2009) (statement of Sen. Mikulski). The ACA tasked the Health Resources and Services Administration (“HRSA”), an agency of the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”), with promulgating comprehensive guidelines determining which preventive services and screenings would be required. 42 U.S.C. § 300gg-13(a)(4). HHS commissioned the Institute of Medicine (“IOM”) to assist with HRSA’s development of the guidelines.

The IOM released a full report in 2011 detailing its study-of various preventive services and its recommendations for coverage under the mandate. Inst, of Medicine, Clinical Preventive Services for Women: Closing the Gaps (2011) (“IOM Report”). The IOM Report discussed at length the positive public health outcomes associated with reducing unintended pregnancies and giving women more control over birth spacing. The United States has a much higher rate of unintended pregnancies — 49 percent of pregnancies in 2001— than other developed countries. Id. at 102. Unintended pregnancies correlate with health problems both for women who experience such pregnancies and for children born as a result of them. Id. at 103. And because women may not realize immediately that they are pregnant, “their entry into prenatal care may be delayed[;] they may not be motivated to discontinue behaviors that present risks for the developing fetus; and they may experience depression, anxiety, or other conditions.” Id. Unintended pregnancies also frequently end in abortion. Id. at 102.2

The IOM Report also noted the health consequences of pregnancies occurring too closely together in time. For infants, “[sjhort interpregnancy intervals in particular have been associated with low birth weight, prematurity, and small for gestational age births.” Id. at 103. For women, both pregnancy spacing and the ability to avoid pregnancy may significantly affect their health because, among other reasons, some “women with certain chronic medical conditions (e.g., diabetes and obesity) may need to postpone pregnancy until appropriate weight loss or glycemic control has been achieved.” Id. Pregnancy is also contraindicated for some women with serious medical conditions, for example, pulmonary hypertension or Marfan syndrome.3 *1131Id. at 103-04. The IOM Report also found that “greater use of contraception within the population produces lower unintended pregnancy and abortion rates nationally.” Id. at 105.

Pursuant to its statutory authority, HRSA released binding guidelines, based on the IOM Report, that require coverage for “[a]ll Food and Drug Administration approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and patient education and counseling for all women with reproductive capacity.” U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., Health Res. & Servs. Admin., Women’s Preventive Services Guidelines (“HRSA guidelines”), http://www.hrsa.gov/ womensguidelines (last visited Feb. 12, 2016); see also 77 Fed.Reg. 8725, 8725-26 (Feb. 15, 2012) (quoting the language in the HRSA guidelines regarding coverage). Implementing regulations developed by the Department of Labor, the Department of the Treasury, and HHS (collectively, the “Departments”) reiterate the contraceptive mandate’s requirement that health plans cover all services listed in the HRSA guidelines. 26 C.F.R. § 54.9815-2713(a)(1)(iv) (Treasury Regulation); 29 C.F.R. § 2590.715-2713(a)(1)(iv) (Labor Regulation); 45 C.F.R. § 147.130(a)(1)(iv) (HHS Regulation).4

Mindful of religious freedom and the importance of respect for “the unique relationship between a house of worship and its employees in ministerial positions,” the Departments promulgated interim regulations that gave HRSA discretion to exempt from the contraceptive mandate certain group health plans established or maintained by religious employers. See 76 Fed.Reg. 46621, 46623 (Aug. 3, 2011). The Departments defined “religious employer” by incorporating the Internal Revenue Service’s definition of a church or integrated auxiliary from 26 U.S.C. § 6033(a)(3)(A)(i) and (iii). 45 C.F.R. § 147.130(a)(1)(iv)(B) (2011). The definition also required a religious employer to have a religious purpose and to both serve and employ primarily persons who share the religious tenets of the organization. Id. Exercising the discretion the regulations provided, HRSA amended its guidelines to exempt religious employers from the contraceptive mandate. The guidelines, issued on August 1, 2011, required compliance beginning on August 1, 2012. See id. § 147.130(b)(1).

The Departments finalized the implementing regulations in February 2012. See 77 Fed.Reg. 8725. At the same time, the Departments established a temporary safe harbor from the contraceptive mandate for nonprofit organizations with religious objections to providing contraceptive coverage. See Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., Guidance on the Temporary Enforcement Safe Harbor for Certain Employers, Health Plans & Group Health Insurance Issuers with Respect to the Requirement to Cover Contraceptive Services Without Cost Sharing (Feb., 10, 2012). The safe harbor remained in effect for the 2012 plan year, ending on August 1, 2013. See id. at 2.

The Departments intended to use the safe harbor period to “expeditiously develop and propose changes to the final regulations implementing” the contraceptive mandate. 77 Fed.Reg. 16501, 16503 (Mar. 21, 2012). The changes to the regulations needed to “meet two goals — accommodating non-exempt, nonprofit religious organizations’ religious objections to covering contraceptive services and assuring that *1132participants and beneficiaries covered under such organizations’ plans receive contraceptive coverage witbout cost sharing.” Id. In March 2012, the Departments began the rulemaking process and solicited comments on potential regulations that could achieve these, two goals. Id. at 16501.

At the - conclusion of the rulemaking process in July 2013, the Departments promulgated revised regulations that'retained HRSA’s authority to exempt religious employers. See 78 Fed.Reg. 39870 (July 2, 2013). The same day, HRSA released revised guidelines that tracked the Departments’ changes to the religious employer. exemption. The final regulations simplified the definition of a “religious employer,” making the term coextensive with the IRS’s statutory definition and removing the additional qualifications regarding a religious employer’s mission, programs, and employees. 45 C.F.R. § 147.131(a) (2013); see also 78 Fed.Reg. at 39873-74. Religious employers remained categorically exempt from the contraceptive mandate out' of “respect [for] the religious interests of houses of worship and their integrated auxiliaries.” 78 Fed.Reg. at 39874. The Departments noted that the exemption did not undermine their goal of 'making contraceptive coverage available because religious employers and their integrated auxiliaries “are more likely than other employers to employ people of the same faith who share the same objection, and who would therefore be less likely than other people to use contraceptive services even if such services were covered under-their plan.” Id.

The revised regulations, which took effect on Aug. 1, 2013, added an accommodation for organizations'that do not qualify as religious employers under the exemption. See 45 C.F.R. § 147.131(b) (2013). So long as an organization is a nonprofit entity holding itself out as a religious organization and has a religious objection to providing contraceptive coverage (we refer to such entities as “eligible organizations”), it may opt .out of the contraceptive mandate. Id.5

Eligible organizations can take advantage, of the accommodation via one of two procedures. The first procedure requires the organization to complete Employee Benefits Security Administration Form 700 (“Form: 700”). See EBSA Form 700-Certification (Aug. 2014), http://www.dol. *1133gov/ebsa/preventiveserviceseligi bleorganizationcertificationform'.doc.6 To complete the two-page form, the eligible organization must provide its name and the . name, title, and contact-information of the individual signing the form on.behalf of the organization. The person signing the, form must certify that the organization “has a religious objection to providing coverage for some or all of any contraceptive services that would otherwise be required to be covered.” Id.

The form’s recipient depends oh the type of health plan the eligible organization maintains. Employers can provide health benefits either through an -insured health plan or a self-insured health plan.7 See Cong. Budget Office/ Key Issues in Analyzing Major Health Insurance Pro-posáis 6 (2008). If the eligible organization has an insured plan, it gives Form "700 to the insurance company that provides its health plan (“plan provider”); "if the organization has a self-insured plan, it gives Form 700 to its third-party administrator (“TPA”). ' The plaintiffs in both cases before' us provide health benefits to their employees through self-insured group health plans, and- all employ TPAs to administer their plans.

Alternatively, an eligible organization may directly notify HHS of its religious objection to complying with the contraceptive mandate. This more recently developed method of taking advantage of the accommodation arose from the United States Supreme Court’s order granting, a preliminary injunction in Wheaton College v. Burwell, — U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 2806, 189 L.Ed.2d 856 (2014). After the regulations concerning the exemption and accommodation- procedures were finalized-, the Supreme Court in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, — U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 2751, 2759-60, 189 L.Ed.2d 675 (2014), extended the accommodation for nonprofit religious organizations to closely held for-profit corporations whose owners have religious objections to complying with the contraceptive mandate. Three days after the Hobby Lobby decisión was íssúed, the Supreme Court in Wheaton College granted a request for a preliminary injunction pending appellate review to a plaintiff challenging the accommodation itself under RFRA, the same "challenge the plaintiffs mount here. Wheaton Coll., 134 S.Ct. at 2807. The Supreme' Court’s order enjoined HHS from enforcing the accommodation procedure against the college, so long as the college “informed] the ; Secretary of Health and Human Services in writing that it is a nonprofit organization that holds itself out as religious and has religious objections to providing coverage for contraceptive services.” Id. The Supreme Court warned, however, that the injunction order “should not be construed as an expression of the' Court’s views- on the merits.” Id.8

In response to the order in Wheaton College, the Departments issued interim final regulations in August 2014 "to allow an eligible organization to opt out by sending a letter to HHS, instead óf giving Form 700. to its plan provider or TPA, 79 Fed. *1134Reg. 51092, 51094-95 (Aug. 27, 2014); see Ctr. for Medicare & Medicaid Servs., Model. Notice, https://www.cms.gov/CCIIO/ Resources/Regulations-and-Guidance/ Downloads/Model-Notice-8-22-14.pdf (last visited Feb. 12, 2016).9 There is no prescribed format for the letter, but it must include:

the name of the eligible organization ánd the basis on which it qualifies for an accommodation; its objection based on its sincerely held religious beliefs to coverage of some or all contraceptive services, as applicable (including an identification of the subset of contraceptive services to which coverage the eligible organization objects, if applicable); the plan name and type ...; and the name and contact information for any of the plan’s third party - administrators and health insurance issuers.

45 C.F.R. § 147.131(c)(1)(ii).

The regulations became final, without substantial changes, in a set of new rules effective, on September 14, 2015. 80 Fed. Reg. 41318. (July 14, 2015). Under the current rules, if an eligible organization directly notifies HHS of its intent to opt out of the contraceptive mandate, the government then alerts the organization’s health plan provider or TPA that the organization has opted out and describes the plan provider’s or TPA’s resulting obligations. See 26 C.F.R. § 54.9815-2713A(b)(1)(ii)(B), (c)(1)(ii).

For insured plans, once an eligible organization avails itself of the accommodation, the plan provider must (1) “[e]xpressly exclude contraceptive coverage from the group health insurance coverage” and (2) “[pjrovide separate payments for any contraceptive services required to be covered” for the plan participants and beneficiaries. 45 C.F.R. § 147.131(c)(2)(i).

For self-insured plans, the regulations provide that when an eligible organization invokes the accommodation, its TPA is designated as the plan administrator under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1002(16), with respect to contraceptive services. Under the regulations, the TPA is designated as the- plan administrator in one of two ways. If the eligible organization provides a copy of Form 700 to its TPA, then the regulations treat the form “as a designation of the [TPA] as the plan administrator” for ERISA purposes. 29 C.F.R. § 2510.3-16(b). If the eligible organization instead notifies HHS of its intent to opt out, then the Department of Labor notifies the TPA that it shall be the plan administrator with respect to contraceptive services for ERISA purposes. Id.

Upon receiving notification, the TPA has the option of terminating its contractual relationship with the eligible organization.10 See 26 C.F.R. § 54.9815-*11352713A(b)(2). If it remains as the TPA, then it must provide (or arrange for another insurer to provide) contraceptive benefits to participants and beneficiaries of the self-insured plan. Id.; 29 C.F.R. § 2510.3-16(c).11

Significantly, plan providers and TPAs “may not impose any cost-sharing requirements (such as a copayment, coinsurance, or a deductible), or impose any premium, fee, or other charge, or any portion thereof, directly or- indirectly, on the eligible organization, the group health plan, or plan participants or beneficiaries.” 26 C.F.R. § 54.9815-2713A(c)(2)(i); 45 C.F.R. § 147.131(c)(2)(ii).12 Plan providers “must segregate premium revenue collected from the eligible organization from the monies used to provide payments for contraceptive services:” 45 C.F.R. § 147.131(c)(2)(h). A plan provider or TPA also must notify plan participants and beneficiaries (contemporaneously with the delivery of other plan materials, if possible) “that the eligible organization does not administer or fund contraceptive benefits,” but that the plan provider or TPA instead “provides separate payments for contraceptive services.” 26 C.F.R. § 54.9815-2713A(d); 45 C.F.R. § 147.131(d).

B. The Parties and Procedural History

This opinion addresses two cases: one brought by EWTN and one brought by two Catholic Dioceses and a group of related persons and entities.. Below, we briefly discuss the plaintiffs and the procedural history of each case in turn.

1. Eternal Word Television Network

Plaintiff-appellant EWTN is a non-profit worldwide Catholic media network founded in 1981 by Mother Mary Angelica, a Catholic -nun. EWTN, based in Irondale, Alabama, has approximately 350 employees. The network consists of 11 television feeds and two radio- stations that reach 230 million homes in 144 countries and territories. Its programming includes daily Mass, Catholic devotions, coverage of Catholic Church events, documentaries, children’s programs, educational series, and other television and radio shows that support EWTN’s mission of “servpng] the orthodox belief and teaching of the Church as proclaimed by the Supreme Pontiff and his *1136predecessors.” Compl. at 5, No. 1:13-cv-00521-CG-C, Doc. 1. EWTN has a self-insured group health plan to provide health insurance benefits to its employees. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Alabama serves as the TPA for the plan.

EWTN, together with the State of Alabama,13 filed a complaint challenging the contraceptive mandate and accompanying regulations under RFRA, the First Amendment, the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, and the Administrative Procedure Act' (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq. The complaint alleged that “EWTN cannot facilitate access to health care insurance ... that covers artificial contraception, sterilization, or abortion, or related education and counseling, without violating its deeply held religious beliefs.” Compl., at 7, No. 1:13-cv-00521-CG-C, Doc. 1. To EWTN, this means that its religious beliefs prevent it both from providing contraceptive coverage in its health plan and from using the accommodation. As a result, EWTN alleged, the contraceptive mandate “imposes government pressure and coercion on EWTN to change or violate its religious beliefs” because,if it does not provide coverage or use the accommodation, it faces fines for non-compliance with the mandate. Id at 27.

' EWTN and Alabama moved for partial summary judgment on five of the 17 counts in the complaint, including: Count One, alleging a violation of RFRA based on the regulations’ burden on religious exercise; Count Two, alleging a violation of the Free Exercise Clause based oh the same burden; Count Three, alleging a violation of the Free Exercise Clause based on intentional discrimination among religious organizations; Count Five, alleging a violation of the Establishment Clause based on the selective imposition of a burden on some religious organizations; and Count Nine, alleging a violation of the Free Speech Clause based on compelled speech. Alabama joined in EWTN’s motion and additionally moved for summary judgment on Count Seventeen, which sought a. declaration that the contraceptive mandate does not preempt Alabama law.

The defendants-appellees — the Departments and Their Secretaries — filed a motion to ■ dismiss the complaint or, in the alternative, for summary judgment on all of the plaintiffs’ claims. The district court denied EWTN’s and Alabama’s motions for summary judgment and granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to Counts One, Two, Five, and Nine. On a motion by the plaintiffs, the district court entered a final judgment on those four counts pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) and stayed litigation of the remaining claims pending appeal.

EWTN timely appealed. On EWTN’s motion, we issued an injunction pending appeal, preventing the defendants from enforcing the mandate or the accommodation against EWTN. Eternal Word Television Network, Inc. v. Sec’y, U.S. Hep’t of Health & Human Servs., 756 F.3d 1339 (11th Cir. 2014).

2. The Diocesan Plaintiffs, CENGI, and Catholic Charities

A group of Catholic entities — the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Atlanta, the Archbishop of Atlanta, Christ the King Catholic School, Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Atlanta (“Catholic Charities”), the Roman Catholic Diocese of Savannah, and the Bishop of Savannah — filed a lawsuit against the Departments and their Secretaries. Both the Archdiocese of Atlanta and the Diocese of Savannah (collectively *1137with the Bishop and' Archbishop, ■ “the Dioceses”) are associations of Catholic parishes' and organizations, including Catholic schools. Catholic Charities is a nonprofit organization that provides social services, including immigration counseling, mental health counseling, marriage counseling, and pregnancy support services. The second amended complaint added as a plaintiff Catholic Education of North Georgia (“CENGI”) and removed Christ the King Catholic School. - CENGI- is a nonprofit organization that oversees- five Catholic schools-in the Atlanta area. .

The Atlanta Archdiocese operates a self-insured health plan, which covers employees of the Archdiocese, Catholic Charities, and CENGI. The Savannah Diocese operates two self-insured health plans for its employees. Meritain Health serves as the TPA for all three plans.14 « --

The second amended complaint alleged that the contraceptive mandate and accompanying regulations violate RFRA, the First Amendment, the non-delegation doctrine,15 and the APA. The plaintiffs alleged that the regulations require them “to provide, pay for, and/or facilitate insurance coverage for abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization, 'and contraception, in violation of their religious beliefs.” Second ' Am. Compl. at 6, No. l:12-cv-03489-WSD, Doc. 56. They alleged that the regulations further burden religious exercise “by driving a wedge between religious organizations, like the Atlanta Archdiocese, and their equally religious charitable -arms,- such as Plaintiffs Catholic Charities and CENGI.” Id. Because the charitable arms do not qualify, as “religious employers,” the Dioceses'alleged they must expel the charities’ employees from their health plans if the Dioceses'wish to take advantage of the religious exemption;16

The Departments filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint or, alternatively, for surrimary judgment' on all counts. *The plaintiffs cross-moved for summary judgment as to seven of their eight counts, which alleged that the mandate and accompanying regulations: burden religious exercise in violation of RFRA (Count One); violate the Free Exercisé Clause, based bn the same burden (Count Two); compel speech in violation of the Free Speech Clause (Count Three); prohibit speech in violation of the Free 'Speech Clause (Count Four); favor certain *1138religious groups and entangle the government in religion in violation of the Establishment Clause (Count Five); interfere with internal church governance in violation of both the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses (Count Six); and involve an impermissible delegation of unchecked legislative authority to the Departments (Count Seven).

The district- court granted summary judgment to Catholic Charities and CEN-GI on their RFRA claims, holding that the contraceptive mandate and accommodation substantially burden the organizations’ religious exercise and are not the least restrictive means to accomplish a compelling governmental interest. The court enjoined the Departments from enforcing the mandate or the accommodation against Catholic Charities and CENGI. In addition, the court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on their claim that the noninterference provision created a content-based speech restriction in violation of the First Amendment.

As to the Dioceses’ RFRA claim, the court granted summary judgment to the Departments. The Dioceses had argued first that they might at some point have to pay more in premiums to help cover their plan providers’ cost of contraceptive coverage, in violation of their religious beliefs, and second that the ’distinction between religious employers and organizations eligible for the accommodation would force the Dioceses to remove unaffiliated Catholic schools from their insurance plans. Rejecting both arguments, the district court ruled that the'first argument was merely speculative (and the outcome on which the Dioceses speculated would, in any event, be prohibited by law) and the second argument failed to assert a legitimate religious exercise. The district court granted the Departments summary judgment motion as to all of the plaintiffs’ remaining claims based on the First Amendment, the non-delegation doctrine, and the APA.

Despite the split judgment, only the Departments appealed the district court’s decision. Because revisions to the regulations have rendered the plaintiffs’ compelled speech- claim based on the non-interference provision moot,17 the appeal in this case concerns only the district court’s grant of summary-judgment to Catholic Charities and CENGI on . their RFRA claim. • -

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

“This court reviews the district court’s disposition of cross-motions for summary judgment de novo, applying the same legal standards used by the district court, viewing the evidence and all factual inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the non-movant, and resolving all reasonable doubts about the facts in favor of the non-moving party.” Am. Bankers Ins. Group v. United States, 408 F.3d 1328 (11th Cir. 2005). Summary judgment is proper if the movant can show “that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as- a matter of law.” Fed. R.Civ.P. 56(a). Where the material' facts are undisputed and all that remains are questions of law, summary judgment may be granted. See Saregama India Ltd. v. Mosley, 635 F.3d 1284, 1290 (11th Cir. 2011).

*1139III. DISCUSSION

A. RFRA Claims

1. Legal Background

a. RFRA

RFRA provides that the federal government “shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion” unless it demonstrates that the burden “is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest” and “is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental .interest.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1(a)-(b). Congress passed RFRA in 1993 in response to the Supreme Court’s decision in Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 110 S.Ct. 1595, 108 L.Ed.2d 876 (1990), which held that “a law that is' neutral and of general applicability need not be justified by a compelling governmental interest even if the law has the incidental effect of burdening a particular religious practice.” Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 531, 113 S.Ct. 2217, 124 L.Ed.2d 472 (1993) (characterizing Smith). In Smith, the Supreme Court reasoned that “[t]o make an individual’s obligation to obey [a neutral'and generally applicable]' law contingent upon the law’s coincidence with his religious beliefs, except where the State’s interest is ‘compelling[,]’ ... contradicts both constitutional tradition and common sense.” Smith, 494 U.S. at 885, 110 S.Ct. 1595 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

Congress' stated that the.purpose of RFRA was “to restore, the compelling interest test as set forth in Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963) and Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972).” 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb(b)(1). Congress declared the strict scrutiny standard provided “a workable test for striking sensible balances between religious liberty and competing pri- or governmental interests.” Id. § 2000bb(a)(5). Indeed, RFRA “pro-, vide[s] even broader protection for religious liberty than was available under” Sherbert or Yoder because the government must also show that it used the least restrictive means to achieve its compelling interest. Hobby Lobby, 134 S.Ct. at 2761 n. 3.

b. Hobby Lobby

In Hobby Lobby, the Supreme Court held that enforcing the contraceptive mandate without an accommodation against closely held for-profit corporations that objected on religious grounds to providing contraceptive coverage violated RFRA. The corporations and their owners challenged the mandate as substantially burdening. their religious exercise. Id. at 2764-66. The owners of the corporations sincerely believed that life begins at conception and that it is a sin to facilitate access to contraceptive drugs or devices that could destroy an embryo. Id. It was undisputed that the mandate required the plaintiffs to provide health insurance that covered methods of contraception that could résult in the destruction of an embryo. Id. at 2775. The plaintiffs asserted that the mandate left them with only two options: (1) provide coverage for contraception in violation of their religious beliefs or (2) pay significant penalties. Given these choices, the Supreme Court held that the mandate “impose[d] a substantial burden.” Id. at 2779.

The government argued there was no substantial burden because the connection between what the mandate required the plaintiffs ,to do (provide health insurance that covered contraception) and the end that they found morally wrong (the destruction of an embryo) was too attenuated. Id. at 2777. The premise of the government’s attenuation argument was that “providing the coverage would not itself *1140result in the destruction of an embryo; that would occur only if an employee chose to take advantage of the coverage and to use one of the four [contraceptive] methods at issue.” Id. In other words, the government asserted that the plaintiffs’ belief — that providing insurance coverage for contraception facilitated the destruction of embryos — was unreasonable. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, which would have required the Court to determine the “circumstances under which it is wrong for a person to perform an act that is innocent in itself but that has the effect of enabling or facilitating the commission of an immoral act by another.” Id. at 2778. The Supreme Court cautioned that “federal courts have no business addressing” such questions of religion and moral philosophy. Id. Instead, the Supreme Court deferred to the plaintiffs’ religious belief that the coverage' “is connected to the destruction of embryo in a way that is sufficient to make it immoral for them to provide the coverage.” Id.

The Court then considered whether the mandate survived strict scrutiny. The majority assumed that the mandate furthered a compelling governmental interest18 but held that it was not the least restrictive means- of doing so. Id, at 2779-80. The Court pointed to the accommodation, which at the time applied only to nonprofit organizations with religious objections, as a less restrictive alternative. The Court explained that after an organization opts out, the plan provider (for insured plans) or TPA (for self-insured plans) must exclude contraceptive coverage, from the group health plan, and provide separate payments- for. contraceptive coverage without-imposing cost sharing requirements on the organization, plan, or plan participants or beneficiaries. Id. at 2782. Although *1141the Court declined to answer whether the accommodation complied with RFRA, it lauded the accommodation as “seek[ing] to respect the religious liberty of religious nonprofit corporations while ensuring that the employees of these entities have precisely the same access to all FDA-approved contraceptives as employees of companies whose owners have no religious objections to providing such coverage.” Id. at 2759. The Court further recognized that “[t]he effect of the HHS-created accommodation on the women employed by Hobby Lobby and the other companies involved in these cases would be precisely zero.”19 Id. at 2760.

c. Wheaton College

After Hobby Lobby, the Court considered the accommodation itself in the context of an injunction sought under RFRA in Wheaton College. The Court enjoined the government from enforcing the mandate but required, the. plaintiff to inform HHS in writing that it had religious objections to providing coverage for contraceptive services. 134 S.Ct. at 2807. The Court explained that the government could “rely[ ] on this notice ... to facilitate the provision of full contraceptive coverage.” Id. The practical effect of the Wheaton College decision was twofold: the plaintiff received an accommodation, and HHS could rely on the notification to provide contraceptive coverage to the participants and beneficiaries of the plaintiffs plan.

d. Other RFRA Challenges to the Accommodation

After Hobby Lobby and' Wheaton College, federal courts around the country considered RFRA challengés to the, accommodation. Applying these two Supreme Court decisions, seven of the eight circuits to review these cases held that the accommodation does not violate RFRA. See Mich. Catholic Conf. & Catholic Family Servs. v. Burwell, 807 F.3d 738 (6th Cir. 2015); Catholic Health Care Sys. v. Burwell, 796 F.3d 207 (2d Cir. 2015); Little Sisters of the Poor Home for the Aged v. Burwell, 794 F.3d 1151 (10th Cir.), cert. granted sub nom., S. Nazarene Univ. v. Burwell, — U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 445, 193 L.Ed.2d 346, and cert. granted, — U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 446, 193 L.Ed.2d 346 (2015); E. Tex. Baptist Univ. v. Burwell, 793 F.3d 449 (5th Cir.), cert. granted, — U.S. —, 136 S.Ct. 444, 193 L.Ed.2d 345 (2015); Univ. of Notre Dame v. Burwell (“Notre Dame II”), 786 F.3d 606 (7th Cir. 2015);20 Geneva Coll. v. Sec’y U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 778 F.3d 422 (3d Cir.), cert. granted sub nom., Zubik v. Burwell, — U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 444, 193 L.Ed.2d 345, and cert. granted, — U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 445, 193 L.Ed.2d 346 (2015); Priests for Life v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs. (“Priests for Life I ”), 772 F.3d 229 (D.C.Cir. 2014), reh’g en banc denied, (“Priests for Life II”), 808 F.3d 1 *1142(D.C.Cir. 2015), cert. granted, sub nom., Roman Catholic Archbishop of Wash. v. Burwell, — U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 444, 193 L.Ed.2d 345 (2015), and cert. granted, — U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 446, 193 L.Ed.2d 345 (2015). These circuits concluded that the accommodation does not substantially burden religious exercise.21 The Eighth Circuit disagreed, holding that the accommodation' substantially burdens 'religious exercise arid cannot survive strict scrutiny. Sharpe Holdings, Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 801 F.3d 927 (8th Cir. 2015), petition for cert. filed, 84 U.S.L.W. 3350 (U.S. Dec. 15, 2015) (No. 15-775). Recently, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in several of these cases.

The seven circuits that upheld the accommodation recognized that the RFRA claim in Hobby Lobby was fundamentally different from challenges to the accommodation itself. In Hobby Lobby, the plaintiffs challenged the mandate — that is, the requirement that they provide contraceptive coverage — when their only options were to provide the coverage or pay significant penalties. But in the accommodation cases, the plaintiffs have challenged the regulatory scheme that allows them to opt out of the mandate without penalty. Put another way, the plaintiffs in the accommodation cases “do not challenge the general obligation under the ACA to provide contraceptive coverage. They instead challenge the process they must follow to get out of complying with that obligation.” Little Sisters of the Poor, 794 F.3d at 1160. Because they assert that “the exemption process itself imposes a substantial burden on their religious faiths,” their challenges are somewhat “paradoxical and virtually unprecedented.” Priests for Life I, 772 F.3d at 246 (internal quotation marks omitted).

The circuits upholding the accommodation recognized that the question of whether there is a substantial burden involves an objective inquiry. After interpreting the ACA arid 'its regulations, they held that the act of opting out does not trigger contraceptive coverage. See, e.g., Notre Dame II, 786 F.3d at 614 (explaining that “[i]t is federal law, rather than the religious organization’s signing and mailing the form, that requires ... third-party administrators of self-insured health plans[ ] to cover contraceptive services”). Although the eligible organizations asserted that the act of opting out makes them complicit in providing coverage, these courts explained that this objection could not constitute a substantial burden because individuals “have no RFRA right to be free from the unease, or even anguish, of knowing that third parties áre legally privileged or obligated to act in ways their religion abhors.” Priests for Life I, 772 F.3d at 246.

In Sharpe Holdings, the Eighth Circuit reached the opposite conclusion, holding that the accommodation substantially burdened religious exercise, and enjoined the government from enforcing the accommodation. Relying on Hobby Lobby, the Eighth. Circuit held that it was bound to accept the plaintiffs’ “assertion that self-certification under the accommodation process — using either Form 700 or HHS Notice — -would violate their sincerely held religious beliefs.”22 Sharpe Holdings, 801 F.3d at 941. Because the plaintiffs faced a *1143substantial penalty if they failed to seek an accommodation or provide contraceptive coverage, the Eighth Circuit concluded there was a .substantial burden. Id. at 942.

The Eighth Circuit then applied strict scrutiny. The court assumed that the government had a compelling interest but held that the government, had failed to carry its burden to show that it lacked other means to achieve its interest without imposing a substantial burden on religion. Id. at 943. The Eighth Circuit concluded that less restrictive alternatives included the government: (1) requiring less information from eligible organizations seeking an accommodation; (2) assuming the cost of providing contraceptives through subsidies, reimbursements, tax credits, or tax deductions to employees; (3) paying for distribution of. contraceptives at community health centers, public clinics, and hospitals; or (4) making contraceptive coverage available through the healthcare exchanges. Id. at 944-45. Given these alternatives, the Eighth Circuit concluded that the accommodation failed to survive strict scrutiny.

2. RFRA Analysis

With this legal landscape in mind, we now consider the plaintiffs’ RFRA challenge. We hold that their challenge fails because (1) the accommodation does not substantially burden- their religious exercise, and (2) in the alternative, even if there is a substantial burden, the, accommodation survives strict scrutiny.

a. The Plaintiffs Allege a Sincere Religious Belief.

A threshold question we must ask is whether the plaintiffs’ religious beliefs on which their RFRA claims are based are sincere. See Hobby Lobby, 134 S.Ct. at 2774 n. 28 (“To qualify for RFRA’s protection, an asserted belief must be ‘sincere’ — ”). It is well established that we defer to a plaintiff’s statement of its own belief, so long as the plaintiff actually holds that belief. See id. at 2779 (“[I]t is not for [courts] to say that [the plaintiffs’] religious beliefs are mistaken or insubstantial.”); Davila v. Gladden, 777 F.3d 1198, 1204 (11th Cir.) (“[W]e look pnly to see whether the, claimant ... actually holds the beliefs, he claims ..to hold.” (internal quotation marks omitted)), cert. denied sub nom., Davila v. Haynes, — U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 78, 193 L.Ed.2d 32 (2015).

Each plaintiff states that its religious beliefs prevent it from paying for, providing, or facilitating the distribution of contraceptives. Each plaintiff also asserts that it cannot be complicit in the provision of contraception. The» government does not contest the sincerity of these religious beliefs, nor is there, any indication whatsoever in the record -that the stated beliefs are insincere. We thus conclude that the plaintiffs’ religious beliefs at issue are sincere. ''

b. The Accommodation Does Not Substantially Burden the Plaintiffs’ Religious Exercise.

We now consider whether, accepting the plaintiffs’ sincere religious beliefs, the accommodation substantially burdens their religious exercise. The plaintiffs assert that’ the act of notifying HHS or their TPAs of their religious objection will either trigger contraceptive coverage or make them complicit in a system that provides such coverage. Due to the significance they attach to opting out, the plaintiffs contend that the accommodation itself imposes a substantial burden because it puts them to the choice of violating their sincerely held religious beliefs or paying a substantial penalty. We accept the plaintiffs’ sincere belief that triggering coverage or being complicit in coverage violates their religious beliefs and that the accommodation puts them to a choice between honoring their religious beliefs and facing *1144significant penalties. We nonetheless conclude that the accommodation imposes no substantial burden.

(i) The Substantial Burden Analysis Involves an Objective Inquiry.

“[A] ‘substantial burden’ must place more than an inconvenience on religious exercise.” Midrash Sephardi Inc. v. Town of Surfside, 366 F.3d 1214, 1227 (11th Cir. 2004).23 A law is substantially burdensome when it places “significant pressure” on an adherent to act contrary to her religious beliefs, meaning- that it “directly coerces the religious adherent to conform ... her behavior.” Id. Thus, the government imposes a substantial burden when it places “pressure that tends to force- adherents to forego -religious precepts.” Id.

This inquiry involves both subjective and objective dimensions. Hobby Lobby made clear that there is a subjective aspect to this inquiry: courts must accept a religious adherent’s assertion that his religious beliefs require him to. take or abstain from taking a ,specified action. See 134 S.Ct. at 2779. But the substantial burden analysis does not end there. We agree with our seven sister circuits that the question of substantial burden also presents “a question of law for courts to decide.” Priests for Life I, 772 F.3d at 247.

The objective inquiry- requires courts to consider whether the government actually “puts” the religious adherent to the “choice” of incurring a “serious” penalty or “engaging] in conduct that seriously violates [his] religious beliefs.” Holt v. Hobbs, — U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 853, 862, 190 L.Ed.2d 747 (2015) (second alteration in original, and internal quotation marks omitted). Put another way, courts must determine what the challenged law actually requires of the plaintiff. For example, in Holt,- a-Muslim inmate-asserted that prison grooming policy substantially burdened his religious exercise because' it prohibited him from growing a' beard,'which his religion required. The Supreme Court explained that because the “grooming, policy requires petitioner to shave his beard,” the policy “put['j” him to the choice of violating his religious beliefs or facing serious disciplinary action. Id. In Holt, as in many RFRA cases, this'' inquiry was straightforward because there was no dispute about what the government’s policy objectively requiréd' of the religious adherent. But when there is a dispute about what a law or governmental policy objectively requires, it is for the courts to construe the law or policy.

The plaintiffs here contend that under Hobby Lobby no such objective inquiry is required. In their view, a religious adherent’s mere assertion that she is being compelled to violate her sincerely held religious belief means that - the government has put her to such a choice, regardless of what the law objectively requires.24 We *1145disagree. In Hobby Lobby, the plaintiffs challenged the contraceptive mandate. It was undisputed that the mandate gave the plaintiffs just two options: provide contraceptive coverage or pay a substantial penalty. Although • the Supreme Court engaged in no objective analysis about what the mandate required, such analysis was unnecessary because the parties agreed that the government, through the mandate, put the plaintiffs to the choice of providing contraceptive coverage or paying a hefty fine. See Hobby Lobby, 134 S.Ct. at 2777-79; see also Priests for Life II, 808 F.3d at 2 (Pillard, J.) (concurring in denial of reh’g en banc) (“The parties in Hobby Lobby did not dispute what the law required, nor its practical effects...:”).

Here, the parties agree that the plaintiffs have at least three options: provide contraceptive coverage, pay a penalty,, or use the accommodation to opt- out of providing contraceptive coverage.25 But they disagree about whether opting out puts the plaintiffs to the choice of violating their religious beliefs or paying a substantial fine. The plaintiffs contend that because an eligible organization’s TPA only becomes obligated to provide coverage when the organization opts out, by opting out they will be triggering coverage. The government argues to the contrary that plan participants and beneficiaries are entitled to contraceptive .coverage under the ACA regardless of any opt out. We conclude that it is for the courts to determine objectively what the regulations require • and whether the government has,' in fact, put plaintiffs to the choice of violating their religious beliefs by seeking the accommodation or incurring a substantial penalty.

We reject a framework that takes away from courts the responsibility to decide what action the government requires and leaves that answer entirely to the religious adherent Such á framework improperly substitutes religious belief for legal analysis regarding the operation of federal law. Indeed,-the plaintiffs have identified nothing in RFRA or case law that allows a religious adherent to dictate to the courts what the law requires. The plain language of RFRA simply does not support reducing thé role of federal' courts to “rubber stamps” ‘ that automatically recognize a substantial burden whenever á religious adherent asserts there is one. Catholic Health Care Sys., 796 F.3d at 218. If Congress had intended strict scrutiny to be triggered in all circumstances by a religious adherent’s claim that there is a burden, it would have said so. Instead, it required that the federal government “substantially burden” the adherent's religious exercise.

Our, dissenting, colleague concedes that the question of substantial, burden involves •an objective inquiry but asserts that the inquiry should be limited to whether the government .has imposed a substantial penalty. See Dissent at 1179-80. This *1146analysis would require courts to defer to a religious adherent’s sincere belief that the government is forcing her to choose between her .religious belief and paying a substantial fine, even when the religious adherent is objectively wrong about how the law operates and what action the government requires her to take. The dissent’s view is flawed because any burden (even an objectively insubstantial one) becomes a substantial burden if the penalty is heavy enough.

We acknowledge that in Hobby Lobby tjie Supreme Court cautioned courts against dictating to religious adherents “the circumstances under which it is immoral for a person to perform an act that is innocent in itself but that has the effect of enabling or facilitating the .commission of an immoral act by another.” 134 S.Ct. at 2778. In some cases, a court’s objective analysis interpreting a statute or regulation may contradict a religious adherent’s sincerely held belief about what that law requires. .But such questions about what a law means are not the type of “difficult and important question of religion and moral philosophy” for which courts must defer to religious adherents. Id; see Notre Dame II, 786 F.3d at 623 (Hamilton, J., concurring) (explaining that the interpretation of the regulations that give rise to the accommodation' “is an issue not of moral philosophy'but of federal law”).

Deciding how the law functions is not the only objective part of the substantial burden inquiry. The Supreme Court’s free exercise cases (prior to Smith) distinguished between substantial burdens on religious exercise, which are protected, and de minimis burdens, which are not. For example, a religious adherent may not “require the Government to conduct its own internal affairs in ways that comport” with the person’s religious beliefs, even if the government action interferes with that person’s religious exercise. Bowen v. Roy, 476 U.S. 693, 699-700, 106 S.Ct. 2147, 90 L.Ed.2d 735 (1986); see Lyng v. Nw. Indian Cemetery Protective Ass’n, 485 U.S. 439, 451, 108 S.Ct. 1319, 99 L.Ed.2d 534 (1988) (recognizing that government’s decision to log and.build roads would “have severe adverse effects” on practice of Native American religion but concluding this burden was not “heavy enough” to trigger strict scrutiny under the Free Exercise Clause).

■In Bowen, Nativé American parents challenged federal statutes requiring them to provide- their daughter’s social security number to state welfare agencies as a condition of seeking benefits on the- ground that it impinged upon their free exercise of religion. They sought an accommodation to keep the government from using her social security number in administering benefits, which they believed would rob their daughter of her spirit. 476 U.S. at 695-96, 106 S.Ct. 2147.

Even recognizing that the parents had a sincere belief that by using'her social security number the government would be stealing their daughter’s spirit, the Supreme Court rejected their claim, holding that the government’s “use of a Social Security number ... does not itself in any degreé impair [the parents’] freedom to believe, express, and exercfise their] religion.’ ” Id. at 700,106 S.Ct. 2147 (internal quotation marks omitted). The Court rejected the parents’ attempt to use the Free Exercise Clause to “demand that the Government join in their chosen religious practices.” Id at 699-700, 106 S.Ct. 2147. The Court explained that “[t]he Free Exercise Clause affords an individual protection from certain forms of governmental compulsion,” yet.does not extend so far to “afford an individual a right to dictate the conduct of the Government’s internal procedures.” Id. at 700, 106 S.Ct. 2147. The Court acknowledged that the parents’ “religious views may not accept” the line that *1147the Court drew “between individual and governmental conduct,” but it drew a line nonetheless. Id. at 701 n. 6, 106 S.Ct. 2147. Likewise, under RFRA courts must determine whether the burden on a religious adherent is, in fact, substantial.26

As we alluded to above, the plain language of RFRA supports our conclusion that there is a distinction between a burden. and a substantial burden. RFRA requires strict scrutiny only when the government “substantially burden[s] a person’s exercise of religion.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-l(a). Congress chose to modify “burden” with “substantial[ ],”27 and we must of course interpret RFRA to give full effect to its every word. See TRW Inc. v. Andrews, 534 U.S. 19, 31, 122 S.Ct. 441, 151 L.Ed.2d 339 (2001) (recognizing that statutes should be construed whenever possible so that “no clause, sentence, or word shall be superfluous, void, or insignificant” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

We recognize that the distinction between burden and substantial burden is not implicated in every RFRA case. Nonetheless, there are cases brought under RFRA in which the purported burden is too slight to trigger strict scrutiny. For example, in Kaemmerling v. Lappin, an inmate challenged under RFRA the Bureau of Prison’s collection and analysis of his DNA. 553, F.3d 669, 673-74 (D.C.Cir. 2008). He claimed that the government’s sampling, collection, and analysis of his DNA violated his sincerely held religious beliefs about the proper use of DNA. The D.C. Circuit concluded there was no substantial burden.. .Importantly, the inmate had no religious objection to the collection of his bodily material; he challenged only how the government would subsequently use that specimen to extract his DNA information. Id. at 678-79, There was-no question that the Bureau, of Prisons required the inmate to submit a bodily specimen that would be used for an end to which he had a strong religious objection (that is, the collection and analysis of his DNA). But the D.C. Circuit held there was no substantial burden because the inmate “suggested] no way in which these government acts pressure[d] him to modify his own behavior in any way that would violate his beliefs.” Id. at 679.. Kaemmer-ling reinforces that a religious adherent cannot use RFRA to stop the government or third parties from taking subsequent actions to which he objects when the acts required of him impose a de minimis burden.28

*1148(ii) No Substantial Burden Exists.

To determine whether the accommodation objectively puts plaintiffs to the choice of violating their religious beliefs or paying a significant finé, we must understand how the accommodation functions and what it requires of these plaintiffs. The only act that the regulations require the plaintiffs to take is to seek the accommodation — that'is, filling out and sending Form 700 to their TPAs or writing a letter to HHS letting it know of their objections; The plaintiffs do not contend that notifying HHS or their TPAs itself constitutes a substantial burden because of- the time or effort involved. ' Rather, them objection is based on the significance they attribute to this act. They contend that the act - of opting out triggers contraceptive coverage-for plan participants and beneficiaries or makes them complicit in a system that provides contraceptive coverage. We accept that the plaintiffs truly believe that triggering contraceptive coverage or being complicit in a system providing contraceptive coverage violates their religious beliefs. But our objective inquiry leads us to conclude that the government has not put plaintiffs to the choice of violating their religious beliefs or facing a significant penalty. We hold there is no substantial burden.

Here’s why: the ACA and HRSA guidelines are what entitle plan participants and beneficiaries to contraceptive coverage. The ACA provides that the plaintiffs’ self-insured plans “shall, at a minimum provide coverage for and shall not impose any cost sharing requirements for ... with respect to women, such additional preventative care and screenings ... as provided for in” the HRSA guidelines. 42 U.S.C. § 300gg-13(a)(4). The HRSA Guidelines, in turn, “require coverage, without cost sharing, for *[a]11 ... [FDA] approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and patient education and counseling for all women with reproductive capacity.’ ” 77 Fed. Reg. at 8725 (alterations in original) (quoting HRSA guidelines).

The plaintiffs and the dissent take a different view of the statutory and regulatory scheme, contending that an eligible organization’s act of opting out triggers the TPA’s designation as plan administrator and, without it, plan participants- or-beneficiaries would not receive contraceptive coverage.29 Indeed, the dissent asserts that opting out requires an eligible *1149organization’s “affirmative participation” because the act of opting out is the “linchpin on which the contraceptive mandate rests.” Dissent at 1187. We disagree.

The ACA and the HRSA guidelines— not the opt out — are, to borrow the dissent’s term, the “linchpins” of the contraceptive mandate because they entitle women who are plan participants and beneficiaries covered by group health insurance plans' tó contraceptive coverage without cost sharing. In other words, women are entitled to contraceptive coverage regardless of their employers’ action (or lack of action) with respect to seeking an accommodation. Because a woman’s entitlement to contraceptive benefits does not turn on whether her eligible organization employer chooses , to comply with the law (by providing contraceptive coverage or seeking an accommodation) or pay a substantial penalty (in the form of a tax) for noncompliance, we cannot say that the act of opting out imposes a substantial burden.30

We do not mean to imply that the act of opting out plays no causal role in the ultimate provision of contraceptive coverage. We acknowledge that an eligible organization’s act of notifying HHS or its TPA of its objection results in the TPA’s designation as the plan administrator and gives rise to the TPA’s obligation to provide contraceptive coverage.31 See 29 C.F.R. § 2510.3-16(b). But we view an’ eligible organization’s act of opting out as, at most, an incidental cause of plan participants and beneficiaries receiving contraceptive coverage because these wom’en are-entitled to contraceptive coverage under the ACA and HRSA guidelines regardless of whether the eligible organization opts out: Accordingly, even if the act of opting out in some way leads to ’women receiving the contraceptive coverage to which they were entitled under-federal law, the plaintiffs have failed'to establish 'that thé act of Opting out substantially burdens their religious exercise. Importantly, the government does not force an eligible organization to provide contraceptive coverage, pay costs related to contfaceptive coverage, notify plan participants and beneficiaries of the existence o’f such coverage, or even include the availability of such coverage from a separate source in information the plan provides to plan participants and beneficiaries. Instead, all of these responsibilities fall' upon the TPA. Rather, the only action required of the eligible organization is opting Out: literally, the organization’s notification of its objection. Such an opt out requirement is “typical of religious objection accommodations that shift responsibility to non-objecting entities only after an objector declines to perform a task on religious grounds.” Little Sisters of the Poor, 794 F.3d at 1183.

The plaintiffs’ challenge is in substance indistinguishable from an objection to the government’s requiring another entity to *1150provide coverage in their stead. See Catholic Health Care Sys., 796 F.3d at 224 (characterizing an identical challenge as seeking a “blanket religious veto over the government’s interactions with others”). Put differently, the plaintiffs’ opposition to opting out is an objection to their inability to keep the TPA with which they have contracted to provide services in connection with healthcare coverage from complying with the relevant regulations. The plaintiffs point to a but-for causal .relationship between their opting out and the conduct that they find religiously objectionable. But, as the Supreme Court has explained, a religious adherent cannot claim a substantial burden based on the subsequent conduct of another party.32 See Bowen, 476 U.S. at 699-700, 106 S.Ct. 2147 (“Just as the government may not insist that appellees engage in any set form of religious observance, so appellees may not demand that the Government join in their chosen religious practices by refraining from using a number to identify their daughter.”).33

We recognize that the plaintiffs sincerely abhor and object to the subsequent acts taken by the government and their TPA, which ultimately result in the TPA providing contraceptive coverage to their plan participants and beneficiaries. We acknowledge that they “may not accept [the] distinction” that we draw here between their conduct and the downstream, separate conduct of HHS and the TPAs to provide coverage. Id at 701 n. 6, 106 S.Ct. 2147. But we simply cannot say that RFRA affords the plaintiffs the right to prevent women from obtaining contraceptive coverage to which federal law entitles them based on the de minimis burden that the plaintiffs face in notifying the government that they have a religious objection.

As the Seventh Circuit first articulated, an analogy to a conscientious objector to the military, draft illustrates why the accommodation does not impose a substantial burden. See Notre Dame I, 743 F.3d at 556. A religious conscientious objector to the military draft may opt of military ser-vicé based on his belief that war is immoral. The objector sincerely believes that his act of opting out triggers the drafting of another person in his place, and thus renders him complicit in the very thing to which he objects. But we would reject the assertion that the government’s subsequent act of drafting another person in his place — even though the drafting was in some sense caused by the objector’s act of opting out — transforms the act of lodging a conscientious objection into a substantial burden. See id Likewise, we reject the plaintiffs’ assertion that opting out imposes a substantial burden because the government requires a third party to provide contraceptive coverage after an eligible organization opts out.

*1151Accordingly, we conclude that through the accommodation the government has imposed no substantial burden on the plaintiffs. We thus hold that the accommodation does not violate RFRA.

c. The Accommodation Survives Strict Scrutiny.

Even assuming that the accommodation imposes a substantial ■ burden on plaintiffs’ religious , exercise, RFRA allows the government to impose such a burden when it demonstrates that the burden “is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest” and “is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1(b). Because the government has carried its burden of showing that the accommodation is the least restrictive means of, furthering its compelling interests, we hold in the alternative that the accommodation survives strict scrutiny under RFRA.

(i) Compelling Interests Justify the Accommodation.

In applying RFRA’s strict scrutiny test, we must first determine whether the accommodation is “in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest.” Id. Because the mandate and accommodation require the provision of cost-free contraceptive coverage with little to no administrative burden on women, these regulations further compelling government interests in avoiding the adverse public health consequences of unintended pregnancies and in assuring women the equal benefit of preventative care , by requiring' coverage for their, distinctive health needs.34 See Priests for Life I, 772 F.3d at 258-59.

(a) The Government’s Interests in Reducing the Rate of Unintended Pregnancies Are Compelling.

We begin our analysis with the facts: unintended or poorly spaced pregnancies have a host of negative impacts on women and children. See supra Part I.A. Women who experience unintended pregnancies are often unaware of their condition in the early stages of their pregnancy, which leads them to delay prenatal care and cessation of behaviors such as smoking or alcohol consumption. 78 Fed.Reg. at 39872. Babies born as a result of unintended pregnancies are at a greater risk of premature birth and low birth weight. Id. Short interpregnancy intervals also result in a greater risk of prematurity and low birth weight. Id. Contraceptive use can alleviate these public health problems.35 “[G]reater use of contraception within the *1152population produces lower unintended pregnancy and abortion rates nationally.” IOM Report at 105.

During debate over the ACA, Congress was informed that “[i]n America today, too many women are delaying or skipping pre-véntíve care because of the costs of copays and. limited access.” 155 Cong. Rec. S12027 (Dec. 1, 2009) (statement of Sen. Gillibrand). The IOM Report also found that “cost-sharing requirements, such as deductibles and copayments, can pose barriers to care and result in reduced use of preventive and primary care services, particularly' for low-income populations.” IOM Report at 109. The Women’s Health Amendment, which added to the ACA the requirement that group and individual health plans provide women with coverage for preventative care and screenings, aimed to increase women’s use of preventive care by removing administrative and financial barriers. See 155 Cong. Rec. S12027 (statement of Sen. Shaheen) (“Too often, women forgo their health care needs because they are not affordable. We know cost plays a greater rolé in preventing women from accessing health1 care than it does men. In 2007, more than half of all women reported problems accessing needed health care because of costs.”); see also Priests for Life I, 772 F.3d at 260 (explaining that Congress and the Executive branch determined with the ACA and its regulations that “serving the government’s compelling public health interests depends on overcoming the human behavioral tendencies of denial and delay documented in the legislative and regulatory record”).

Moreover, the Women’s Health Amendment, which added the contraceptive mandate to the ACA’s minimum coverage requirements, specifically addressed the need to provide preventive care to women to rectify past gender discrimination in health insurance; As the- Departments noted, “the statute acknowledges that both existing health coverage and existing preventive services recommendations, often did not adequately serve the unique health needs of women. This disparity placed women in the workforce at a disadvantage compared to' their male coworkers.”36 78 Fed.Reg. at 39873; see also 155 Cong. Rec. S12027 (statement of Sen. Gillibrand) (“The- prevention section of the bill before us must be amended so coverage of preventive services takes into account the unique health care needs of women throughout their lifespan.”). Indeed, before the ACA, “women of'childbearing age spent 68 percent more on out-of-pocket health care costs than1 men.” 78 Fed.Reg. at 39887. The Departments explained that this “disproportionate” financial burden “prevented women from achieving health outcomes on an equal basis with men.” Id. The Departments intended the contraceptive coverage requirement to “help[ ] to equalize the provision of preventative health care services to women and, as a result, help[ ] women contribute to society to thé same degree' as men.” Id. As the Departments explained, “[rjesearch shows that access to contraception improves the social and economic status of women.” Id. at 39873; see generally Claudia Goldin & Lawrence F. Katz, The Power of the Pill: Oral Contraceptives & Women’s Career & Marriage Decisions, 110 J. of Pol. Econ. 731(2002).

Based on this evidence, we conclude that the government’s interests in the public health of women and children, as well as in *1153assuring womén equal preventative care, are compelling.

(b) The Mandate and Accommodation Further These Compelling Interests.

.The mandate : and - accommodation achieve the government’s goals by making contraceptives affordable and otherwise accessible to women. As explained above, federal law generally guarantees women contraceptive coverage without cost sharing. See 42 U.S.C. § 300gg-13(a)(4); 77 Fed.Reg. at 8725 (discussing HRSA guidelines). Importantly, under the mandate and accommodation, women covered by group health, insurance plans generally are required to take no additional action to obtain this contraceptive coverage. This is because the coverage is delivered “through the existing employer-based system, of health coverage.” 78 Fed.Reg. at 39888. Thus, under the mandate, women need not complete extra paperwork or sign up for an additional program because the contraceptive coverage is delivered with the health insurance they already have through their employers. •

This is true even whén an employer opts out of providing contraceptive coverage by seeking an accommodation. Although objecting employers are not obligated to provide or pay for contraceptives, the women covered by their plans seamlessly receive contraceptive coverage from the plans’ TPAs. This system was carefully designed to make contraceptive coverage accessible by not requiring women to research plans that offer contraceptive coverage, purchase separate' contraceptive coverage, or even sign up with a different entity or program. See id. As the Supreme Court acknowledged in Hobby Lobby, the' Departments designed the accommodation so that it has “precisely zero” impact on -female plan participants and beneficiaries. 134 S.Ct. at 2760; see also id. at 2759 (explaining the accommodation “ensur[es] that the-employees of [eligible organizations] have precisely the same access to all FDA-approved contraceptives as employees of companies whose owners have no religious objections to providing such coverage”).37

■Providing women with such - seamless coverage, should result in a lower unintended pregnancy rate. Medical evidence reflects a causal relationship between the accessibility of contraceptives and the unintended pregnancy raje: “progress in reducing the rate of unintended pregnancy would -be possible by making contraceptives more available, accessible, and acceptable.”, IO.M Report at 104 (internal quotation marks omitted); see. also id. at 109 (“[C]ost-sharing requirements, such as deductibles and. copayments, can pose barriers to care and result in reduced use of preventative and primary care services, particularly for low-income populations.”); Dianne Greene Foster, et.al., Number of Oral Contraceptive Pill Packages Dispensed & Subsequent Unintended Pregnancies, Obstetrics & Gynecology, March 201J, at 566 (concluding that when receipt of oral contraceptives was made more convenient by dispensing them annually rather than quarterly the unintended pregnancy rate dropped by 30% and the abortion fate dropped by 46%).38 Because the gov*1154ernment has demonstrated that the mandate and accommodation increase access to contraception, we conclude that the mandate and accommodation are effective ways to reduce the unintended pregnancy.rate. Accordingly, they serve the government’s compelling interests of improving the health of women and children and assuring that women receive health benefits that meet their needs as well as the health care provided to men does.

Of course, a compelling interest alone is insufficient to satisfy RFRA; we must also assess “the marginal interest in enforcing” the challenged law against the religious adherents in question. Hobby Lobby, 134 S.Ct. at 2779. “RFRA requires • the Government to demonstrate that the compelling interest test is satisfied through application of the challenged law ‘to the person’ — the particular claimant whose sincere exercise of religion is being substantially burdened.” Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418, 430-31, 126 S.Ct. 1211, 163 L.Ed.2d 1017 (2006) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-l(b)); see also Yoder, 406 U.S. at 221, 92 S.Ct. 1526 (“Where fundamental claims of religious freedom are at stake, however, we cannot accept such a sweeping claim' [of compelling interest]; despite its admitted validity in the generality of cases, we must searchingly examine the interests that the State seeks to promote ... and the impediment to those objectives that would flow from recognizing the claimed ... exemption.”).

Yoder provides a good example of the application of this principle.' There, the Amish plaintiffs challenged Wisconsin’s law requiring high school attendance until the age of 16. Yoder, 406 U.S. at 207-08, 92 S.Ct. 1526. The government asserted that the law was justified by a general interest in the virtues of universal education. Id. at 213-14, 92 S.Ct. 1526. The Supreme Court was unsatisfied with this interest as it applied to the plaintiffs. “[T]he evidence adduced by the Amish ... [was] persuasively to' the effect that an additional one or two years of formal high school for Amish children in place of their long-established program of informal vocational education would do little to serve [the government’s stated] interests.” Id. at 222, 92 S.Ct. 1526 (emphasis added).

Similarly, the government’s argument in 0 Centro exemplifies an overly generalized interest. The plaintiffs, a religious sect with origins in the Amazon rainforest, challenged the Controlled Substances Act’s regulation of hoasca, a hallucinogenic tea they used in religious ceremonies. The federal government argued that it had “a compelling interest in the uniform applica*1155tion of the Controlled Substances Act, such that no exception to the ban on use of the hallucinogen can be made to accommodate the sect’s sincere religious, practice.” O Centro, 546 U.S. at 423, 126 S.Ct. 1211. The Supreme Court dismissed this slippery slope argument, which it said “could be invoked in response to any RFRA claim for an exception to a generally applicable law,” because it failed to consider the limited effect of an exception for the particular plaintiffs, and its stated need for universal application was undermined by the existence of other exceptions. Id. at 435-36, 126 S.Ct. 1211.

In contrast to Yoder and 0 Centro, here the government’s stated interests all concern the law’s application to these particular plaintiffs. The government argues that applying the accommodation procedure to the plaintiffs in these cases furthers its interests because the accommodation ensures that the plaintiffs’ female plan participants and beneficiaries — who may or may not share the same religious beliefs as their employer — have access to contraception without cost sharing or additional administrative burdens as the ACA requires. Unlike the exception made in Yoder for Amish children, whom the Supreme Court found had an adequate substitute for additional formal education to refute the government’s compelling interest, here the IOM Report’s findings of poor health outcomes related to, unintended or poorly timed pregnancies apply to the plaintiffs’ female plan participants or beneficiaries and their children just as they do to the general population.

Moreover, the accommodation’s requirement that the plaintiffs inform their TPAs or HHS of their religious objection is essential to achieving the government’s compelling interests. It ensures that a TPA is aware when it has an obligation to provide contraceptive coverage so that the women covered by these plans can receive coverage if they want it, without gaps in such coverage. The notification also guarantees that the Departments will be able to identify objecting organizations, like the plaintiffs, to make sure that the accommodation procedures work (that is, to independently ensure that the women covered by the plaintiffs’ plans are receiving the coverage to’which they are entitled). Thus, the government’s interests are sufficiently particular to satisfy the 0 Centro standard.

(c) The Exceptions to the Mandate and Accommodation Do Not Undermine the Government’s Compelling Interest.

The plaintiffs argüe that the government’s interests in providing broad contraceptive coverage cannot be compelling because the ACA provides exemptions from the mandate for other types of employers — namely, those (1) with grandfathered health plans, (2) with fewer than 50 employees, and (3) that qualify as “religious employers.” We disagree.

First, the existence of grandfathered plans does not undermine the government’s compelling interest in providing contraceptive coverage because grandfathered plans are only a short-lived, transitional measure intended to ease the burden of compliance with the ACA’s sweeping reforms. 78 Fed.Reg. at 39887 n. 49 (“[T]he Affordable Care Act’s grandfathering provision is only transitional in effect, and it is expected that a majority of plans will lose their grandfathered status by the end of 2013.”). To be grandfathered, a plan, must continue to provide virtually the same benefits for the same percentage cost sharing as the plan had in effect on March 23, 2010. 45 C.F.R. § 147.140(g)(1)(h). It becomes difficult to comply with' these requirements over time. See, e.g., Second Am. Compl. at 23-24, No. 1:12-cv-03489, Doc. 56 (describing the Atlanta Archdiocese’s inabili*1156ty to afford to maintain its grandfathered plan past January 1, 2014).

Research by the Kaiser Family Foundation' demonstrates that the percentage of workers covered by grandfathered plans has rapidly declined: 26 percent in 2014, down from 36 percent in 2013, 48 percent in 2012, and 56 percent in 2011. Kaiser Family Found. & Health Research & Ed. Trust, Employer Health Benefits 2015 Annual Survey at 218 (Sept. 22, 2015).39 In addition, some employees covered by grandfathered plans may in fact be receiving contraceptive benefits without cost sharing because, though not required to do so, their plans may include such a benefit.

As an additional consideration, we do not wish to penalize the government for phasing in the ACA’s requirements to help businesses adjust, to a new health care regulatory landscape. Cf. Heckler v. Mathews, 465 U.S. 728, 746, 104 S.Ct. 1387, 79 L.Ed.2d 646 (1984) (“We have recognized, in a number of contexts, the legitimacy of protecting reasonable reliance on prior law even when that requires allowing an unconstitutional statute to remain in effect for a limited period of time____The protection of reasonable reliance interests is ... a legitimate governmental objective.”). Accordingly, even if the mandate and accommodation are phased in. over time, the gradual implementation is insufficient to undermine the government’s compelling interest.

Second, the ACA’s treatment of employers with 50 or fewer employees as exempt from the “employer mandate” and therefore not required to provide employees with health insurance at all, see 26 U.S.C. § 4980H(a)(c)(2)(A), does not undercut' the government’s compelling interests. • If, on the one hand, smaller employers do' not provide insurance coverage, then their employees'must purchase health plans on the health insurance "exchanges or face tax penalties. See id. § 5000A(a), (b)(1). And plans purchased" on the exchanges will include contraceptive coverage. See 42 U.S.C. § 300gg-13(a)(4). If, on the other hand, smaller employers choose to provide health insurance, then their plans are subject to the contraceptive mandate. See id. The employees of small businesses therefore will receive contraceptive coverage regardless of whether their employers are exempt from providing health insurance. This exemption reflects a practical recognition" that small businesses have different financial realities from larger businesses. It in no way undermines the government’s interest in providing contraceptive coverage without cost sharing "because small businesses’ employees end up with health plans subject to the contraceptive mandate whether the employers provide health insurance or not.

Third, the exemption from the contraceptive mandate for religious employers does not weaken the government’s stated interests. Under the HRSA guidelines, the contraceptive mandate does not apply to a group health plan run by a religious employer, defined by the regulations as “an organization that is organized and operates as a nonprofit entity and is referred to in section 6033(a)(3)(A)(i) or (iii) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.” 45 C.F.R. § 147.131(a). In finalizing the regulations, the Departments declined to extend the exemption to other *1157organizations that have religious objections to the mandate because:

Houses of worship and their integrated auxiliaries that object to contraceptive coverage on religious grounds are more likely than other employers to employ people of the same faith who share the same objection, and who would therefore be less likely than other people to use contraceptive services even if such services were covered under their plan.

78 Fed.Reg. at 39874.

The exemption for religious employers attempts to balance the need for contraceptive coverage with our nation’s long-, standing-history of deferring to a house.' of worship’s decisions about its internal affairs. See 76 Fed.Reg. at 46623 (“[T]he Departments seek to provide for a religious accommodation that respects the unique relationship between a house of worship and its employees in ministerial positions.”); see also Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & Sch. v. EEOC, - U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 694, 704-06, 181 L.Ed.2d 650 (2012) (describing history of non-interference with internal affairs of houses of worship). The government undoubtedly has a compelling interest in respecting the valúes of religious employers and their employees, and pursuing that interest does not undermine the government’s equally compelling interest in improving women’s and the public’s health by making contraceptives easier, to obtain. Especially with regard to sweeping legislation like the ACA,, the government is often faced with competing compelling interests. Courts may allow the government to balance those interests without undermining any individual compelling interest. See Hobby Lobby, 134 S.Ct. at 2780 (“Even a compelling interest may be outweighed in some circumstances by another even weightier consideration.”). • -

We also reject the plaintiffs’ argument that the Departments’ distinction between houses of worship (which are exempted from the mandate) and other organizations with religious affiliation (which must seek ah accommodation) is illogical. Although it may not universally hold true,40 it is a common-sense notion that a church’s employees likely share more beliefs with the church than do the employees of, for example, a school linked to. that church, and therefore the employees, of a church that objects to contraception are less likely to use contraceptive coverage even if it is available. See 78 Fed.Reg. at 39874. Thus, the Departments distinguished between houses of worship and other religious groups using the readily available and. well-established IRS tax status test. This test is predictable for affected organizations and easy for the Departments to implement. See United States v. Lee, 455 U.S. 252, 260-61, 102 S.Ct. 1051, 71 L.Ed.2d 127 (1982) (noting it was reasonable for Congress to exempt self-employed Amish from Social Security taxes because the exemption for “the self-employed provided for a narrow category which was readily identifiable ... [and] distinguishable from the generality of wage earners employed by others”). We do not think that the Departments’ decision to exempt houses of worship based on a bright-line test while accommodating other religious organizations undercuts the government’s compelling interests in enforcing the contraceptive mandate.

In sum, the mandate and accommodation further the government’s compelling interests by ensuring that women have contraceptive coverage without cost, shar*1158ing. or additional administrative. hurdles. Additionally, by requiring organizations that opt out of the mandate to identify themselves, the government ensures that these organizations’ health plan participants and beneficiaries can receive the coverage seamlessly through other channels. Although the government has attempted to accommodate religious freedom as well as the needs of businesses, it has not done so in a way that undermines its goal of ensuring access to contraception.

(ii) The Mandate and Accommodation Are the Least Restrictive Means of Furthering the Government’s Compelling Interests.

As a final step, we must determine whether the mandate and accommodation are “the least restrictive means of furthering” the government’s compelling interests. 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1(b). This test is “exceptionally demanding.” Hobby Lobby, 134 S.Ct. at 2780. The government must show “that it lacks other means of achieving its desired goal without imposing a substantial burden on the exercise of religion by the [plaintiffs].” Id. When a less restrictive alternative serves the government’s compelling interest “equally well,” the government must use that alternative. Id. at 2782; see id. at 2786 (Kennedy, J. concurring) (considering whether alternative “equally furthers the Government’s interest”).

In determining whether potential alternatives to the mandate and accommodation equally further the government’s interests, we must consider both the cost to the government and the burden the alternatives impose on the affected women. See id. at 2760 (majority opinion) (“[W]e certainly do not hold or suggest that RFRA demands accommodation of a for-profit corporation’s religious beliefs no matter the impact that accommodation may have on thousands of women employed by Hobby Lobby. The effect of the HHS-created accommodation on the women employed by Hobby Lobby and the other companies involved in these cases would be precisely zero.” (emphasis added) (alteration, footnote, citation, and internal quotation marks omitted)); id. at 2760 (clarifying that the Court did not hold that “corporations have free rein to take steps that impose disadvantages on others or that require the general public to pick up the tab” (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted)). Because there are no less restrictive means available that serve the government’s interests equally well, we hold that the mandate and accommodation survive strict scrutiny under RFRA.

Although the plaintiffs and the dissent suggest several potential less restrictive alternatives to the mandate and accommodation, their proposals fail to achieve the government’s interests as effectively. Indeed, their proposals impose burdens on women that would make contraceptives less accessible than they currently are. Because these proposals cannot be expected to reduce the rate of unintended pregnancies and thereby improve the health of women and children as effectively as the mandate and accommodation, they do not qualify as less restrictive alternatives under RFRA.

Previously, the Supreme Court and a member of this Court suggested that á less restrictive alternative would be to allow eligible organizations to notify HHS of their opt out, instead of having to provide Form 700 to their plan providers or TPAs. See Wheaton Coll., 134 S.Ct. at 2807; Eternal Word Television Network, 756 F.3d at 1349 (William Pryor, J., concurring) (“The United States, for example, could require the Network to provide a written notification of its religious objection to the Department of Health and Human Services, instead of requiring the *1159Network to submit Form 700 — an instrument under which the health insurance plan is operated — to the third-party administrator.”). The Departments have responded to and addressed this concern by revising the accommodation procedures to allow eligible organizations notify HHS directly of their desire to opt out of the contraceptive mandate. 79 Fed.Reg. at 51094-95. With that potential alternative incorporated into the regulatory scheme, we turn to the alternatives proposed .by the plaintiffs and the dissent.

(a) The Plaintiffs’ Proposals

The plaintiffs propose two less restrictive, alternatives. First, they suggest that the government could pay directly for all contraceptive coverage, in effect a single-payer system for contraceptives only,41 either by creating a new government program or expanding an existing one.42 Either way Congress would need to pass legislation that would ..fundamentally change how the majority of American women receive their healthcare coverage for contraception.43 See Jessica C. Smith & Carla Medalia, U.S. Census Bureau, Health Insurance. Coverage in the U.S.: 2014 at 3 (2015) (55% of Americans had insurance coverage provided, by an employer in 2014). Among other things, adopting a single-payer system for contraception would require Congress to squeeze insurance companies out of an entire segment of the health insurance business.44 Second, the plaintiffs assert that the government could provide tax credits to reimburse women for purchasing contraceptive coverage.45 Under either the single-payer or tax credit proposals, all coverage for contraception and related services would *1160operate outside the existing, largely employer-based, insurance system.

Most importantly, these proposals aré not less restrictive alternatives because they, would not serve the government’s interests “equally well.”46 Hobby Lobby, 134 S.Ct. at 2782. As'the Departments explain, these proposals would cause all women who have existing contraceptive coverage through group health insurance plans to lose such coverage, forcingthem instead to “take steps to learn about, and to sign up for, a new health benefit.” 78 Fed.Reg. at 39888. Indeed, under these proposals, women would have one employer-provided health insurance plan covering healthcare Other than' contraception. Then, they would have to take additionál, separate steps to secure- contraceptives or contraceptive coverage. Under a single-payer system for contraceptives, they would have to research the federal entitlement for contraceptives and register for the program. Under a tax-credit system, they would have to research plans offering separate contraceptive coverage, select a plan, purchase coverage, and later file for a tax credit as part of their individual tax returns.47 Thé mandate and accommodation present an easier, simpler, and more certain path for women by ensuring that, by obtaining health insurance, they also secure contraceptive coverage, even when their employers opt out.

Because plaintiffs’' proposals impose greater barriers ■ to contraceptive access than exist under the mandate and accommodation, their proposals likely will lead to lower rates of contraceptive usage (along with use of less effective forms of contraception), meaning these proposals will be less effective at preventing unintended pregnancies and concomitant health consequences.48 See IOM Report at 104-09; Foster, supra, at 566 (reflecting that when obtaining contraceptives became less convenient, the rate of unintended pregnancy increased); see also 78 Fed.Reg. at 39888 (recognizing that these proposals would be “less effective than the employer-based system of health coverage in advancing the government’s compelling interests”).

Plaintiffs’ proposals would make contraception less accessible not only to women who currently receive contraceptive coverage through a group insurance plan, but *1161also to women who currently purchase health insurance through the exchanges, including women who work for an employer with fewer than 50 fuE-time employees. Under the current framework, these women must research and compare potential health insurance plans sold on the exchanges and then purchase and sign up for a plan. As a result of their efforts, they receive health insurance that includes contraceptive coverage. See 42 U.S.C. § 300gg-13(a)(4). Under the. plaintiffs’ proposals, these women would stiE-have to procure health insurance from the exchanges. But then they would have to take the additional steps described above to obtain coverage for contraceptives. In other words, women who currently' purchase insurance through the- exchanges would also face greater burdens accessing contraceptives under a single-payer system.49

*1162After careful consideration, we conclude that the government has shown that contraceptives would be less accessible — and used less frequently or effectively — under the plaintiffs’ proposals then they are under the mandate and- accommodation. Given the government’s compelling interest in minimizing the barriers women face in accessing contraceptives so that they will use contraceptives to lower the rate of unintended pregnancies, we conclude that the plaintiffs’ proposals would not serve the government’s interest equally as well as the mandate and accommodation. Thus, they fail to qualify as less restrictive alternatives. ■

The dissent criticizes our position as giving the Departments a “free pass” on the least restrictive means requirement. Dissent at 1193. ' Our dissenting colleague takes our analysis to mean that the government can defeat a potential alternative merely by showing that the alternative would take away a benefit — any benefit— that the government’s existing framework provides to “third parties” (here, the women who are the intended beneficiaries of the mandate and accommodation). Id. at 1189-90. The dissent overstates our position. We are not saying that the government can.always overcome strict scrutiny by showing that proposed 'alternatives would take away a benefit that the current framework provides. Rather, on the facts and record of this case — including the evidence that when women face greater burdens (whether financial or administrative) in accessing contraceptives or contraceptive coverage, they are less likely to use contraceptives — we must conclude that plaintiffs’ alternatives, which make contraceptives less accessible, would 'be significantly less effective than the mandate and accommodation at reducing the rate of unintended pregnancies and thus would thwart the government’s interests.50

(b) The Dissent’s Proposal

The dissent suggests that Congress could “slightly tweak” the ACA and ERISA to “eliminate the need for eligible organizations to affirmatively designate the third-party administrators of their health plans.” Dissent at 1192. We understand the dissent’s proposal to be that Congress should pass legislation and the Departments should enact regulations that would designate the TPA for a self-insured eligible organization as plan administrator for purposes of contraceptive coverage without requiring the eligible organization to communicate its .religious objection to anyone.

*1163The dissent’s proposal fails .to serve the government’s interest equally as well as the accommodation because the alternative would make contraceptives less accessible to women covered by eligible organizations’ plans than would the accommodation. The dissent fails to explain — and we cannot imagine — how a TPA would know when an employer has a religious objection to providing contraceptive coverage under the proposal and thus that the' TPA is required to provide the coverage in the employer’s stead if the employer is not required to notify anyone. Like the TPAs, the government must also be able to identify women whose employers object on religious grounds to providing Contraceptive coverage. Otherwise, the government will be unable to ensure that the participants and beneficiaries of the abstaining organization’s health insurance plan receive the coverage the law mandates. Without an effective way to identify any gaps, the government would be hamstrung in. its ability to accommodate employers’ sincerely held religious beliefs while also pursuing the interests that Congress intended to achieve in passing the Women’s Health Amendment.51

The dissent’s proposal would create gaps or delays in contraceptive coverage for plan participants and beneficiaries of eligible organizations that refuse to provide contraceptive coverage or tell anyone of their objection. Until the insured, the TPA, or HHS learned of the silent omission of contraceptive coverage, these women would be denied the contraceptive coverage to which they are irrefutably entitled. During this period, such eligible organizations would, in effect, be imposing their religious beliefs on women who wish to take advantage of their rights under federal law. These gaps in contraceptive coverage would frustrate the government’s interests. Because the dissent’s proposal substantially burdens religious exercise and fails to meet the government’s compelling interests, it cannot constitute a less restrictive alternative.52

*1164We hold that, even if the accommodation substantially burdens the plaintiffs’ religious exercise, it does not violate RFRA because it is the least restrictive means of furthering the government’s compelling interests in the contraceptive mandate.

B. EWTN’S Free Exercise Claims

Plaintiff-appellant EWTN additionally claims that the contraceptive mandate violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. The Supreme Court’s Smith decision continues to apply to Free Exercise claims outside of the RFRA context; thus, neutral and generally applicable laws need not be justified by any compelling interest even if those laws incidentally burden religious exercise. Smith, 494 U.S. at 885, 110-S.Ct. 1595. A law is neutral unless “the object of a law is to infringe upon br restrict practices because of their religious motivation.” Lukumi Babalu Aye, 508 U.S. at 533, 113 S.Ct. 2217. And a law is generally applicable if it does not “in a selective manner impose burdens only on conduct motivated by religious belief.” Id. at 543, 113 S.Ct. 2217. “A law failing to satisfy these requirements must be justified by a compelling governmental interest and must be narrowly tailored to advance that interest.” Id. at 531-32, 113 S.Ct. 2217. But if a law indeed is neutral and generally applicable, “then rational basis scrutiny should be applied, requiring that the plaintiff show that there.is not a legitimate government, interest or that the-law is not rationally related to protect that interest.” GeorgiaCarry.Org, Inc. v. Georgia, 687 F.3d 1244, 1255 n. 21 (11th Cir. 2012).

Congress, included the contraceptive mandate in the ACA to improve women’s health and public health generally. There is no evidence whatsoever that the mandate was enacted in an attempt to restrict religious exercise. To the contrary, in implementing the contraceptive mandate the Departments have attempted to accommodate religious interests by granting exceptions for' religious employers and those *1165organizations with religious objections to providing contraceptive coverage. EWTN nonetheless argues that the mandate is non-neutral because the exemption and accommodation “discriminate! ] among religious objectors, creating a three-tiered system.” EWTN Appellant Br, at 54! But the regulations do not discriminate between religious denominations or infringe upon or restrict conduct because of its religious motivation. Rather, the procedures distinguish among organizations on the basis of their tax status. Thus EWTN has failed to show that the mandate is non-neutral.

EWTN also argues that the mandate is not generally applicable because the ACA carves out small employers and grandfathered plans. For the same reasons we rejected this argument as it pertains to the plaintiffs’ RFRA claim, we reject it here. Just as these exceptions do not undermine the government’s compelling interests justifying the contraceptive mandate, they do not prevent the mandate from being generally applicable as defined by Lmkumi Bdbalu Aye. The exceptions for small businesses and grandfathered plans apply equally to religious employers and nonreligious employers. The exceptions in no way “impose burdens only on conduct motivated by religious belief.” Lukumi Babalu Aye, 508 U.S. at 543, 113 S.Ct. 2217.

Because the contraceptive mandate is neutral and generally applicable, to invalidate it the plaintiff must show that is it not rationally related to a legitimate government interest. See GeorgiaCarry.Org, 687 F.3d at 1255 n. 21. EWTN cannot make such a showing. We have already concluded that the government has a compelling (and therefore legitimate) interest in ensuring women have access to contraceptives without cost sharing. See swpra Part III.A.2.c.(i). The mandate is clearly rationally related to that interest and thus passes muster under the Free Exercise Clause.

C. EWTN’S Establishment Clause Claim

EWTN next argues that the contraceptive mandate violates the Establishment Clause lay discriminating among religious 'Organizations. Specifically, EWTN objects to .the way the exemption and accommodation -distinguish between houses of worship and other types of religious organizations. As an initial matter, the Supreme Court “has long recognized that the government may (and sometimes must) accommodate .religious practices and that it may do so, without violating the Establishment Clause.” Hobbie v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n of Fla., 480 U.S. 136, 144-145, 107 S.Ct. 1046, 94 L.Ed.2d 190 (1987); see also Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38, 83, 105 S.Ct. 2479, 86 L.Ed.2d 29 (1985) (O’Connor, J., concurring) (“It is disingenuous to look for a purely secular purpose -when the manifest objective of a statute is to facilitate the free exercise of religion by lifting a government-imposed burden. Instead, the Court should simply acknowledge that the religious purpose of such a statute is legitimated by the Free Exercise Clause.”).

Like its' claim based on the Free Exercise Clause, EWTN’s Establishment Clause claim fails because the accommodation does not distinguish among religious groups on the basis of denomination, but rather on non-denominational attributes of an objecting organization. The accommodation relies on tax status, which is a permissible way to distinguish between organizations for the purpose of drafting a religious exemption. “[R]eligious . émployers, defined as in the cited regulation, have long enjoyed advantages (notably tax advantages) over other entities,1 without these advantages being thought to violate the *1166establishment clause.” Geneva Coll., 778 F.3d at 443 (alteration in original and internal quotation marks omitted); see also Walz v. Tax Comm’n of N.Y., 397 U.S. 664, 666, 672-73, 90 S.Ct. 1409, 25 L.Ed.2d 697 (1970) (upholding a tax exemption on social welfare services that churches performed and emphasizing that “[t]hé limits of permissible state accommodation to religion are by no means co-extensive with the noninterference mandated by the Free Exercise Clause.”). We therefore reject EWTN’s Establishment Clause challenge.

D. EWTN’S Free Speech Claim

Lastly, EWTN contends that the contraceptive mandate violates the Free Speech Clause by compelling the organization to speak in order'to avail itself of the accommodation.53 “[T]he right of freedom of thought protected by the First Amendment against state action includes both the right to speak freely and the right to refrain from speaking at all.” Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705, 714, 97 S.Ct. 1428, 51 L.Ed.2d 752 (1977). In Wooley, the plaintiff objected to the slogan on New Hampshire’s license plate: “Live Free or Die.” Id. at 707-08, 97 S.Ct. 1428. He argued that by criminalizing his efforts to cover up the slogan, the government forced him to express a message contrary to his beliefs. . The Supreme Court agreed that the license plate was forced speech. The Court then applied United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367, 88 S.Ct. 1673, 20 L.Ed.2d 672 (1968), to hold that the government’s stated interest in identifying passenger cars was not sufficiently compelling because passenger cars could be identified in other ways. Id. at 715-17, 97 S.Ct. 1428.

Assuming, arguendo, that the act of filling out Form 700 or notifying HHS implicates the Free Speech Clause, this Court must ask whether the government’s “countervailing interest is sufficiently compelling to justify” the forced speech. Id. at 716, 97 S.Ct. 1428. Our disposition of the plaintiffs’ RFRA claims decides the issue. Because the government has a compelling interest in ensuring that women have access to contraceptive care without additional financial or administrative burden, it may force the plaintiffs to speak simply to opt out of the mandate.

IV. CONCLUSION

We hold that the accommodation for the contraceptive mandate does not violate RFRA because it does not substantially burden the plaintiffs’ religious exercise and because the government’s regulatory scheme is the least restrictive means of furthering its compelling interests. The regulations also do not violate the Free Exercise, Establishment, and Free Speech Clauses of the First Amendment. With regard to EWTN, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the government. With regard to CENGI and Catholic Charities, we vacate the district court’s grant of summary judgment on the plaintiffs’ RFRA claim and remand to the district court with instructions to grant the government’s summary judgment motion.

The question of whether the mandate and accommodation violate RFRA is currently before the Supreme Court in Zubik v. Burwell, Nos. 14-1376 and 14-1377, and other consolidated cases. The Supreme Court will hold oral argument in these cases on March 23, 2016. Because the Supreme Court will soon render a decision addressing this issue, we believe it is appropriate to stay enforcement of the *1167mandate and accommodation against the plaintiffs until the Supreme Court issues a decision. Accordingly, the Secretary of Health and Human Services is enjoined from enforcing against EWTN, Catholic Charities, and CENGI the substantive requirements set forth in 42 U.S.C. § 300gg-13(a)(4) and from assessing fines or taking other enforcement action against EWTN, Catholic Charities, or CENGI for non-compliance. The parties are directed to file a notice with this Court once the Supreme Court has issued its decision in Zubik'.

AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.

APPENDIX: FORM 700

[[Image here]]

I certify the organization is an eligible organization (as described in 26 CFR 54.9815-2713A(a), 29 CFR 2590.715-2713A(a); 45 CFR 147.131(b)) that has a religious objection to providing' coverage for some or all of any contraceptive services that would otherwise be required to be covered.

Note: An organization; that offers coverage through the same group health plan as a religious employer (as defined in 45 CFR 147.131(a)) and/or an eligible organization (as defined in 26 CFR 54.9815-2713A(a); 29 CFR 2590.715-2713 A(a); 45 CFR 147.131(b)), and that is part of the same controlled group of corporations as, or under common control with, such employer and/or organization (within the meaning of section 52(a) or (b) of the Internal Revenue Code), is considered to meet the requirements of 26 CFR 54.9815-2713 A(a)(3), 29 CFR 2590.715-2713 A(a)(3), and 45 CFR 147.131(b)(3).

I declare that I have made this certification, and that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, it is true and correct. I also declare that this certification is complete.

Signature of the individual listed above

Date

APPENDIX: FORM 700

The organization or its plan using this form must provide a copy of this certification to the plan’s health -insurance issuer (for insured health plans) or a third party administrator (for self-insured health plans) in order for the plan to be accommodated with respect to the contraceptive coverage requirement.

*1168Notice to Third Party Administrators of Self-Insured Health Plans

In the case- of a group health plan that provides benefits on a self-insured basis, the provision of this certification to a third party administrator for the plan that will process claims for contraceptive coverage required under 26 CFR 54.9815-2713(a)(J )(iv) or 29 CFR 2590.715-2713(a)(Z )(iv) constitutes notice to the third'party administrator that the eligible organization:

(1) Will not act as the plan administrator or claims administrator with respect to claims for contraceptive services, or contribute to the funding of contraceptive services; and

(2) The obligations of the third party administrator are set forth in 26 CFR 54.9815-2713 A, 29 CFR 2510.3-16, and 29 CFR 2590.715-2713A.

As an alternative to using this form, an eligible organization may provide notice to the Secretary of Health and Human Services that the. eligible organization has a religious objection to providing coverage for all or a subset of contraceptive services, pursuant to 26 CFR 54.9815-2713A(b)(1)(ii)(B) and (c)(1)(ii), 29 CFR 2590.715—2713A(b)(1)(ii)(B) and (c)(1)(ii), and 45 CFR 147.131(c)(1)(ii). A model notice is available at: http://www.cms.gov/ cciio/resources/Regulations-and-Guidance/ index.html# Prevention.

This form ór a notice to the Secretary is an instrument under which the plan is operated.

PRA Disclosure Statement

According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. The valid OMB 'control number for this information collection ■ is 1210-0150. An organization that seeks to be recognized as an eligible organization that qualifies for an accommodation with respect to the federal requirement to cover certain contraceptive services without cost sharing may complete this self-certification ■ form, or provide notice to the Secretary of Health and Human Services, in order to obtain or retain the benefit of the exemption from covering certain contraceptive services. The self-certification form or notice to the Secretary of Health and Human Services must be maintained in a manner consistent with the record retention requirements under section 107 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, which generally requires records to be retained for six years. The time required to complete this information collection is estimated to average 50 minutes per response, including the timé to review instructions, gather the necessary data, and complete and review the information collection. If you have comments concerning the accuracy of the time estimate(s) or suggestions for improving this form, please write to: U.S. Department of Labor, Employee Benefits Security Administration, Office of Policy and Research, 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Room N-5718, Washington, DC 20210 or [email protected] and reference the OMB Control Number 1210-0150.