I don't know how the timing of this press release lines up with Dolan's statement in Grant's post below, but it sounds significantly less open to compromise. Here's the key paragraph (emphasis in the original):

These changes requirecareful moral analysis, and moreover, appear subject to some measure of change. But we note at the outset that thelack of clear protectionfor key stakeholdersfor self-insured religious employers; for religious and secular for-profit employers; for secular non-profit employers; for religious insurers; and for individualsis unacceptable and must be corrected. And in the case where the employee and insurer agree to add the objectionable coverage, that coverage is still provided as apart of the objecting employer's plan, financed in thesame way as the rest of the coverage offered by the objecting employer. This, too, raisesserious moral concerns.

The reference to the absence of a conscientious objection for "individuals" and "secular for-profit employers" strikes me as inserting a new demand into this discussion. The bishops insist earlier in their press release that this has been part of their position all along. I don't remember this issue being raised in the public debate until the USCCB's general counsel started talking about opening a Taco Bell franchise, but, as I noted in the post below, the demand is certainly consistent with the assertion that forcing Catholic institutions to purchase insurance that covers contraception would constitute an intrusion on religious conscience.