Still, the only way that anything Congress does - even amending the Constitution - qualifies as a “Reveral” of a prior Supreme Court interpretation of existing law, is if Congress changes HOW such interpretations can be reversed.
So even if Congress wrote an amendment that, for example, made employer-paid contraception a new “right”, then even though such an amendment would then supersede a law like the RFRA, it would not effectively be a reversal or the court’s interpretation of the RFRA at the time the ruling was made. Rather, the court would then have to make a new ruling, not based on the RFRA, but based on the amendment which would then take precedence.
However, that while that would be a different case, with a different result, based on a different law (the new amendment), it would still not be a reversal, just a new ruling.
Under the Constitution, a “reversal” only occurs when a new SCOTUS re-interprets the same law differently than an prior SCOTUS, and then makes a ruling that completely changes what the prior court had decided. So unless you change the part of the Constitution that describes how this gets done, than anything else you do to any federal law, including the Constitution, is not a reversal, but rather an accommodation that is made in deference to what the court had ruled, in order to get the result you want.