before the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee last month about the importance of providing free contraceptive services to students and others at religiously affiliated institutions.

Her comments drew a caustic and mocking response from conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh, who called her and a “prostitute.” He later apologized, but many advertisers on his show have .

Under the health care overhaul, new health plans (or those that change their benefits enough to lose grandfathered status) have to begin providing to women in August.

Religious insitutions, such as churches, are exempt from the requirement, but colleges and hospitals and other employers that are affiliated with religious institutions aren’t.

After some of them protested the requirement impinged on their religious freedom, the Obama administration announced an that will allow employees at these institutions to get the free birth control services through the insurer rather than their employer.

There’s a wrinkle in the timing, however. Religiously affiliated institutions have a one-year transition period before they have to be in compliance.

Could that mean that students at , a Catholic and Jesuit institution, as well as other religiously affiliated colleges might have to wait until August 2013 for the provision to take effect?

Not a problem, says Marcia Greenberger, co-president of the . The one-year delay applies to religiously-affiliated institutions in their role as employers, and thus would only affect the employees that are covered under the organization’s health plan.

Students aren’t employees, and student health plans are generally individual policies that the students buy on their own, even if they’re offered through the college.

“Since the students deal directly with the insurance company, it’s not the same relationship as it is with the employer,” says Greenberger. “We don’t believe the one-year accommodation should apply.”

“Since the students deal directly with the insurance company, it’s not the same relationship as it is with the employer,” says Greenberger. “We don’t believe the one-year accommodation should apply.”

Of course, what advocates hope will apply is still to be determined.