this is their health insurance plan established under orissa and you are putting a new objectionable element into the plan isn't that correct? mr. verrilli: i don't think that's quite right. i think her has been some confusion about that on the petitioners side. there are two separate notices. the first is the notice that the employer provides to the government -- that is an orissa plan document. the legal effect is to exempt the employer for many obligation to provide contraceptive coverage. there is a second document, a different document that the government then sends to the third-party administrator. that document is the document that has legal effect victories the obligation of the third-party administrator to provide coverage. it is not the case that the document comes to us is authorizing document. that is in exempting document. >> is their plan, and you admit you are putting something into their plan that they object to on religious grounds? involvesrence is one something tangible, physical property. the other involves something that is not. mr. verrilli: is not just that it'

and is of the essence orissa meyer said this whole process could take more than a year.: why du think she is in her job still? guest: quite frankly, i think the board was supportive. you have to give her some credit. she came into a situation that was untenable. fore was not any chance anyone to turn it around. she made some acquisitions at the time which could have been good, but nothing she has done has proven itself in terms of reigniting the revenue growth. really hasund plan no traction and i think the board has come to grips with theyand therefore, i think are aware of setting off the business and hiring investment bankers. could her leaving be part of the answer? guest: it could be, but can anybody do a better job? this is a company that has been on and off a disaster. there's been five ceos of yahoo! since 2011. the company has been in and out of crises since 2008 when microsoft made a hostile offer. a rightsure there is ceo for yahoo!, if there were, that ceo would he him place right now. people aresure speculating at the very least, people are talking about her

no wa - -- orissa to obtain coverage. situation,i: in that with a still be subject to fines? we do not think so. asked the court to weigh the alternatives we have put before you in this case. on the one side, you have a serious effort to respect the petitioner's religious police are treating a system that allows him to exempt himself from the requirement in a straightforward manner that protects fundamental rights and liberties of their employees, many of whom may not share their religious beliefs about contraception. on the other side, what you have, demand, those rights for those employees who may not sure if petitioners beliefs be extinguished. congressh time as creates an index a different -- and ask -- ennacts a different program that provides a way to pay for contraceptive coverage that will impose precisely the burdens that congress said in the relative statutory that is relevant for all services. said that thisbe is a case in which a great array of religious groups, not just catholics and baptists or evangelicals, but orthodox jews, muslims groups, the church of jesus