Government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person—Is requiring a closely held company to pay for abortifacients a "compelling governmental interest?" If so, the case should have been decided the other way. If you're prepared to make that argument, you have to believe that it's well-nigh impossible for the employees of a closely held company to find abortifacients without the government's involvement, and that it's such a compelling interest of the government that it is necessary to compel Hobby Lobby and its fellow plaintiffs to pony up the money.
(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
Now, if you want to get rid of the RFRA, you can certainly ask your congresscritters to do so. I'm guessing Obama would sign a law repealing it. Go for it. See what happens.
From what I can tell, the reaction to this ruling is so over the top that most of the people who are making the arguments actually know it, but they've decided to go full Bork on it. Consider this gem from my Facebook feed:
|C'mon, forget yer boss. Al's yer boss|
Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor, Al? For what it's worth, I think that the other case decided today, Harris v. Quinn, will be significantly more important in the long run. And we'll talk about that anon.