What they are saying is that they’re okay with running religious people out of their jobs.  I’d LOVE to see how they would respond if directly confronted with this.

I’d say that Catholics have about as much chance of taking contraceptives out of government-mandated health care coverage as liberals have of getting guns out of the hands of individual Americans. When people feel as passionately as they do about these issues, the Constitution is interpreted accordingly.

No one is trying to prevent anyone from living how they want, 24/7. At least no one in the government. The administrators of the catholic church, however, wish to impose their will on others.

Why are others forced to financially support religions?  There should be no tax exemption for regions.

Religions, not regions….

It’s amazed and disappointed me how many of those objecting to the HHS Mandate haven’t clearly articulated and communicated the fact that the constitutional rights directly breached by it are human rights inhering in the individual by dint of his humanity. The proposed law would breach the inalienable human (and constitutional) rights of conscience and religion of EVERY MAN WOMAN AND CHILD in the federal jurisdiction of the USA, regardless of their individual views on the Mandate. This is an objective reality, not a subjective one. Everyone’s rights are breached because the PRINCIPLE being breached - that of forcing one to do something regardless of the fact that it may, as a matter of objective reasonableness, be against one’s moral reason - is much wider than the particular practical circumstances provided for in the legislation. The law claims that the State has a power to force an individual to act against his (objectively reasonable) conscience, which it does not. If implemented, it would be unconstitutional and invalid and people would (as a matter of law) have no duty to comply with it. Of course, as a matter of moral law, there would be a duty to not comply with it.

What are you talking about Rick?  As far as I can see you can choose to be a Catholic or not.  The church doesn’t force you to be one.  The Supreme Court said that “the power to tax involves the power to destroy.” Taxing churches breaks down the healthy separation of church and state and leads to the destruction of the free exercise of religion.
Those conditions break down the healthy “wall of separation between state and church” articulated by Thomas Jefferson in his letter to the Danbury Baptists. Taxing allows the state, through its discretion and power, to punish disfavored views and to reward favored ones. The free exercise of religion cannot survive in such conditions. The camel has had its nose under the flaps of the church tent for far too long. It’s time to push him outside, where he belongs.

Excellent, Mr. Archbold, excellent.

Another example: where citizens object to same-sex “weddings” are forced to rent their facilities for these “celebrations”
Or where they will soon claim that anyone who performs weddings will have to perform all “types”

Pat:  If it was true that forcing an individual (or business owner) to fund something they find religiously repugnant could be interpreted as prohibiting the free exercise of religion, I would agree with the church opposition to the mandate. But I think that you (and indeed all those at NCRegister) assume that the exemption the White House is an “accounting trick” has been established as fact. Furthermore, not everyone who welcomes the Affordable Care Act or feels that the accommodation to religious institutions legitimately solves the problem is part of the secularist left that you rail against.

Does it not give you pause that the Vatican and US Catholic Bishops are clear on its opposition to many moral positions that the Christianist right has adopted as gospel?  To demonstrate that they are the polar opposites of Obama, they are critics of welfare, advocate pre-emptive war, support the death penalty, and resist sensible handgun regulations. Yet you paint Obama as anti-Catholic?

Mark: “Christianist right”?

There is no such thing.

As for welfare, pre-emptive war, handguns, and the death penalty: not one of those is considered an intrinsic evil by the Catholic Church.

Meanwhile the secularist—or hell, “Anti-Christianist”—left is absolutely committed to abortion and contraception, which are considered intrinsic evils.

PS. RE: “sensible handgun regulations”, which ones are those, little boy? The one that bans guns because they look like other guns that operate differently? The one that limits guns to an arbitrary magazine capacity? Or do you maybe mean the one that bans heat-insulators from rifle barrels—the one whose author admitted to not knowing what her own bill actually banned (Google “Carolyn McCarthy” and “shoulder thing that goes up”)?

Sorry, but essentially nobody on the right opposes “sensible handgun regulations”—since the actually sensible ones were imposed by the Firearms Act of 1939. But admit it: you didn’t know that.

Tom: here you go big fella - “As bishops, we support measures that control the sale and use of firearms and make them safer—especially efforts that prevent their unsupervised use by children or anyone other than the owner—and we reiterate our call for sensible regulation of handguns. However, we believe that in the long run and with few exceptions—i.e. police officers, military use—handguns should be eliminated from our society.”

http://www.uscatholic.org/news/2011/01/gun-control-church-firmly-quietly-opposes-firearms-civilians

Didn’t claim the church deemed the others as intrinsic evils, merely pointed out that the church’s position on those issues is the exact opposite of the Christianist right. You seem to know about Google, look it up.

In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the Catholic Church was vehemently opposed to Women’s Suffrage.  If I voted the way the Catholic Church wanted me to vote, I actually wouldn’t even HAVE a vote.  Sorry, but when it comes to many social issues, I look to my own conscious and the life of Christ, NOT to the Institution of the Catholic Church.  And btw, name calling and making blanket statements about groups of people you hold in opposition to yourself is infantile and un-Christian, regardless of the flavor of Christianity you espouse.

We all must separate the Church’s positions on political issues, formulated by men in response to man’s adventurousness, with those of profound and fundamental teaching.  “Voting rights,” in a narrow political context are much different that the right to adhere to and conduct oneself in a spiritual manner derived from freely chosen religious tenets.

Mark,

The position statements on regulation of firearms is not a doctrine or even a teaching. It is not binding in any way. It is guidance only. The teaching on contraception and abortion is binding. Abortion and contraception are intrinsically evil, they can never be morally acceptable. Firearms are not intrinsically evil and we may differ on our approaches to how to regulate them. It is not immoral to own a firearm not is it immoral to disagree with the Bishop’s statment on policy for reulation of firearms. You are being either disingenuous or ignorant when you equate these issues.

BTW, there is not such thing as the “Christianist right” but there is such a thing as individuals who are Christian with a wide range of opinions on issues like firearms regulation, immigration and the structure of welfare programs but who are firm on issues like abortion, contraception and gay “marriage”. I am astounded at the ignorance of the “left” and their inability to understand what is intrinsically evil and what is not.  Either that or the “left” understands just fine and is lying outright.

Mark: sigh. Little boy, the bishops are not the Church—given how many of them have been outright heretics and apostates over the years, that simply follows logically.

What a career-politician nomenklatura believes has no actual weight, unless they speak with the Magisterium’s backing. Even the Pope has no authority to command the assent of Catholics, unless specifically teaching on faith and morals—and his opposition to capital punishment, for instance, is a position on criminology and corrections, two fields where he has no authority at all. If a Pope says “it is sinfully negligent to fire blindly, without being sure that your target is a deer and not another hunter”, he speaks with authority; but he has no authority at all on the question “is the target a deer or another hunter?”

We’ve spent 2000 years defining what is and is not an authoritative teaching of the Church; your ignorance is an eyesore.

Sue: Again, nowhere did I claim that the Vatican or USCCB position on those issues is doctine or teaching. Whatever you want to call it, “position” or “statement” or “opinion”, considerable thought and broad consensus precedes publishing something like this. I think you’re the one being disingenuous suggesting that I’ve somehow misrepresented their position.
Sure, Catholics may hold opinions that differ from the Vatican’s on social issues like war, welfare, poverty, gun control, the death penalty, etc. I’m merely pointing out where the church stands. I didn’t coin the word Christianist, but I use it correctly to refer to members of the Christian faith who seek to use a religion of peace and tolerance for political and personal gain.

Please do not hijack this comment box.  My post was about what the Constitution says, not about the Bishops.  Happy to debate that another time.

Tom, the use of “little boy” negates your credibility.  As I said above, name calling is infantile.  If you take such a superior stance, you are committing the sin of pride.  That kind of arrogance is exactly what causes people who actually might listen to you to turn off.  Your pomposity is an “eyesore.” (BTW, if you want to “appear” educated about more than your own superiority, you might want to look into how to use the word “eyesore” correctly - LOL).

Rich, the suffrage movement was about MUCH more than “voting rights.”  It’s that kind of shallow knowledge of an issue that causes so many to spout sound bites they’ve heard without truly understanding the complexities of a subject.  The Institution of the Catholic Church did understand what it was doing at the time it decried the movement, just as it understands its “vow of poverty” for priests while holding some of the greatest material riches in the world, it doesn’t decry the use of guns though Christ said he who lives by the sword dies by the sword, it is fine with Viagra and “natural” family planning that allows couples to behave intimately WITHOUT the intent to procreate but does not allow barrier methods of birth control that allow no conception;  all of these issues convince me and MANY Catholics that the Institution of the Catholic Church as developed over the centuries by human men is not necessarily all powerful or theologically in the right.

Great Big Tom: solid logic there. In the absence of official magisterium teaching on any issue, the church position on this issue is therefore unknown. It is correct that the church isn’t a democracy, nor does it matter that the majority may disagree with specific doctrine (i.e contraception). But if I was looking for guidance on moral issues where the magisterium is silent, I’d probably defer to the US Council of Bishops rather than some insulting loudmouth from AZ.

Ooops, the post directed to Sue was meant as a reply to Ann. No coffee yet :)

Excellent article that reflects my experience. In very civil conversations with some social “liberals”, I have been told that I should not be so picky, it is only a word or only a way of speaking. The peculiar thing is I don’t perceive malice or trickery. I am told in essence that sloppy thought with out correction can lead to a proper decisions. Does the statement, “The lifeboats have been launched”, mean they are all gone or boarding has begun.

Pat: good point, your article is about the constitution/1st amendment rights to freely exercise religion, not about the Vatican or USCCB position. I agree that it’s a political issue. I simply disagree that denying others similar access to contraceptives is somehow preventing Catholics from exercising their religion freely. And that anyone who also feels this way is part of the secularist left.
I think the argument that the HHS accommodation is a mere accounting trick, and that insurance premiums paid for a Catholic employer health inevitably subsidize contraceptives, is flawed. It is remarkably easy to observe that these same insurance companies operate across religious, state and even national boundaries, and will continue to provide contraceptives to millions of people through the revenues they collect as premiums. So by this logic, even if the Catholic church wins this battle, they cannot prevent even a church-sanctioned health care plan from somehow funding contraception.

The secular left has used verbally schizophrenic language to confound for years. They generally don’t have the power of argument or reason, thus they obfuscate. Mr. Archbold correctly wrote of the Constitution, and the attempt once again by the nefarious, indeed malefic forces to shred such. Regarding other issues of authority,i.e., Magisterial, read the Catechism.
Following your whims to the exclusion of legitimate church authority is generally referred to as protestant.

Another great con the left have successfully introduced has even been taken up by the rest of us; namely calling themselves liberals or progressives, when what they mean is Socialists.
We should call them what they are.

One small detail that is always overlooked is that the insurance companies were able to create a non-contraceptive insurance product for years.  The insurance market met its clients’ needs - Catholic companies/schools/etc. do not want contraceptives as the client because purchase or provision of such DOES impact the practice of our faith.  We are being forced to provide something we find morally wrong.  We are being forced to complicit in abortions either directly or indirectly.  We are being asked to help fund the murder of the pre-born.
-
An analogy straight from the combox would be the forcing of a company, such as Ben and Jerry’s who are vocal about their fight against firearms, to not just make access to firearms easier to all employees but also paying for the gun and the bullets!
-
The free market provided a product that the gov’t says can no longer be provided - why?  Because they want you to believe providing of contraception is a constitutional RIGHT!  Nowhere in the Constitution should anyone be able to read that.  Funny thing though, owning a gun is a right but no one is demanding that their employee provide that for them!

Mark
Are you seriously suggesting that to refusing to provide something for free even though is it cheap and widely available is “denying others similar access to contraceptives?”

Mark said: “I simply disagree that denying others similar access to contraceptives is somehow preventing Catholics from exercising their religion freely.”
——I do not see access denied now and I do not see that “similar” is in any way compelling.
Mark said: “It is remarkably easy to observe that these same insurance companies operate across religious, state and even national boundaries, and will continue to provide contraceptives to millions of people through the revenues they collect as premiums.”
——Then it is very logical that it is not necessary to force anyone to buy an insurance policy that violates their conscience. Or work for an organization that has well known views and the force it via heavy fines and armed police to submit to your views.

There should be no tax exemption for [religions]

First of all, a tax exemption is not supporting anything.  If the gov’t turned over a portion of taxes to a church to pay ministers to perform worship services, or build the church buildings, then you might have an argument.

Second, the government paying religiously affiliated entities for services that they alos pay nonreligious entities is also not “supporting a church with tax dolalrs.”  Here, I am thinking of all the complaints about giving the religious hospitals money for treating patients under medicaid/medicare - the government is getting a service for it, just as when they pay Halliburton to do whatever it is Halliburton does.

Finally, taxing a religious institution is unconstitutional.  If you want your separation between Church and State, well, buddy, that wall goes both ways.  The Church can’t tax the State for its support, and the State can’t tax the Church either.  Either there is a wall, or there isn’t.

As for welfare, pre-emptive war, handguns, and the death penalty: not one of those is considered an intrinsic evil by the Catholic Church.

Welfare is not an evil at all really.  One can make the adminsitration of it evil.  Likewise with hand guns and the death penalty.

Pre-emptive war, on the other hand, very well may be.  It is hard to find a way to square pre-emptive war with just war teaching.  The DP, as well, while in theory not intrinsincally evil, in practice in the US it runs pretty close.  And the principles of how the DP is applied in the US very well can run afoul of Catholic teaching.

Regardless, two evils don’t make a good.  The anti-Christian left radically supports the evils of contraception and abortion.  They don’t get a pass on this because the other side has its own different evils.

I simply disagree that denying others similar access to contraceptives is somehow preventing Catholics from exercising their religion freely

You can disagree.  That does not mean you are correct.  And any objective observation of the situation would show you are not correct.  If one’s religion says doing X is a sin, and the government compels you to do X, how is that not preventing you from exercising your religion?

Put aside the fact that, based upon self-reporting, 98% of the populace uses X, and therefore “X” is hardly being denied to anyone.

Pat: Maybe “denying access” is more than a little strong, I’ll agree with you on that. But the “accounting trick” argument is that it’s NOT free, and that insurance companies providing contraception free to those they insure is a big lie. So either it is truly free to the employer, and cannot be construed as having to pay for something to which they religiously object, or it’s not. If it’s truly free, where’s the violation of conscience? It’s widely available, people (including Catholics) will continue to use them, and Catholic employers aren’t subsidizing it. If it’s an accounting trick, and that financial forensics suggests an indirect funding of an intrinsic evil, where do you draw the line on the money trail?

c matt: so help me out here. I would generally agree that if doing X is a sin according to one’s religion, and the government compels you to do X, then it could be argued that this prevents them from exercising their religion. But the X in question is USING contraception, and the government is clearly not compelling you to do so. It’s not even compelling you to pay for others to use it.

Mark said: “So either it is truly free to the employer, and cannot be construed as having to pay for something to which they religiously object, or it’s not. If it’s truly free, where’s the violation of conscience?”—-The violation is in forcing the Church to facilitate access. If forcing insurance companies to provide a free service is not an accounting trick, then it makes sense to force them to provide ALL services free.

Howard: Wait, so now the 1st amendment violation is that the government is forcing the church to facilitate access? Employees still must go to their pharmacy to get contraceptives. The church says they don’t want to pay for them, the government says fine, then you don’t have to pay for them. How is this facilitating access?
The insurance companies are glad to provide it free, there’s no forcing involved. Otherwise, wouldn’t you expect them to be screaming about this? To say it makes sense that they should provid free coverage for all services is ridiculous, how would they make money doing that?

You only worship for one hour a week?
—-
Your hate-mongering is doing worse harm to the nation than anything the Left would even think of doing. The first shot will be from a rightist neo-facist conservative killing a woman to stop her from using contraception.
—
You have the right to bear arms, but you don’t have the liberty to randomly kill people. You can worship whatever and when ever you damn well please, but you can’t force others to believe your horse s—t!

All this left-right arguing about what “the Bishops say/believe” needs to be clearly distinguished from what Holy Mother Church says/believes.  The Bishops are NOT the Church. 

Lots of Bishops and the USCCB as a whole have issued formal statements and decisions that are merely their opinion and have no authority as official Church teaching.  Naturally this is hard for non-Catholics to comprehend, if not Catholics themselves.

In our country at least, it’s a bunch of knucklehead leftist idealogue (and somewhat naive) bishops and their ivory tower politicking of the past 40 years that has us now backed against the wall. 

Plainly put, although they may have the best intentions, some bishops just aren’t really Catholic.

Right on target religious freedom applies not just to the organization made up of believers but to every citizen..

Excellent sighting… The constitution applies to individual rights, not corporate. “The solution to pollution is dilution.” Unfortunately dilution is exactly what is being attempted. Satan does that with Christianity in general. Christ Founded One Church.

Amazed how many people don’t understand how insurance works!
@Mark… no the insurance companies aren’t going to cover it for FREE!!!  They’re going to provide coverage… and just like anything else THE EMPLOYER PAYS for the insurance coverage. So, duh, that’s why Catholic institutions don’t want to be responsible for paying for coverage.
.
Even everyone who votes for Obama is this dense… well, that kind of explains it doesn’t it?!!!

that was supposed to be “IF everyone…”

As long as there are people like “Rick” who uncritically swallow the juicy ooze spewed from the orifices of the quasi/neo/Bizarro fascist propaganda machine, we will face the possibility of mindless Banzai charges in the fora and lobbys of hospitals and other Catholic institutions. If “Rick” can be this easily fooled, he can be armed and told to charge “the evil enemy” without questioning where the evil really lies.

Renae: yeah, it’s a complete mystery to us how insurance works, thanks for clearing that up.

Mark said:“Wait, so now the 1st amendment violation is that the government is forcing the church to facilitate access? ..... How is this facilitating access?”—-If you were attending a group session for alcoholics and the leader asked you how were you facilitating your partner’s access to alcohol and you said - I provided a way so he could get it easily free through me instead of finding it for himself. Would that be something you should stop doing?

Mark said: ”The insurance companies are glad to provide it free, there’s no forcing involved. Otherwise, wouldn’t you expect them to be screaming about this? To say it makes sense that they should provide free coverage for all services is ridiculous, how would they make money doing that? “—My point exactly, “making money doing that” means the expense will be covered by premiums. What is to complain about. If the expense is covered by government subsidy, then Mr. Obama is a liar. There is no way to maximize net profit without covering expenses.

I am not sure what a “swallow the juicy ooze spewed from the orifices…” means, but, Rick I would wash my mouth out to be safe.

I paid $91 this year for AAA membership. Towing is free, gas is free if I run out, maps are free, and trip planning is free. Free towing is for 100 miles. If I want free towing for up to 200 miles the cost to make it free is $119 a year. The words “free towing” to be accurate should be substituted by “We will not bill you again towing”. Also, excessive use of free towing will result in a loss of the free towing privilege. Trick wording or really free.

Rick 7:43: Living 24/7 without a soul is not living at all. Religion is man’s response to God’s gift of Faith. There are as many responses to God’s gift of Faith as there are human souls. The free will inhering in the human soul constitutes the state. Taxes are not free. The free will of the human soul chooses to express himself in Church. Donations and free will offerings support the church and cannot be taxed because the parishioners have already paid their taxes as citizens and it would be taxation without representation. Two taxes, one vote. Government is a servant of the people. The Church is a servant, a faithful servant of God. “or prohibit the free exercise thereof” “undue burdens” on freedom is tyranny.

Lynda 7:51 The human being is composed of a human body and a rational,  immortal soul. It is our rational, immortal souls who are being denied by this HHS mandate and by every evil imposed upon us as free men. I say “WHO”, because sovereign personhood who constitutes our government is a trait of the human soul. No soul, no government. This HHS Mandate is pure ingratitude, to God for His Divine Providence, to every person who constitutes our government, to our founding fathers who gave their lives that their constitutional posterity might enjoy freedom. May the Spirit of ‘76 reign forever.

Nothing is free.  Your AAA membership does not give you “free” gas, towing, maps or anything else.  Your yearly fee of $91 is the charge for those things.  You are indeed paying for them.  You are paying $91 per year.

No contraception is free.  The pharma companies that manufacture these pills do not go hand them out on the street corner.  If a Health Plan COVERS (not gives for free) some or all types of contraception, believe me, someone is paying.  They simply charge a higher premium, or raise rates on some “non-covered” item, etc.

A cheap, readily available product that is NOT a medical treatment, but a lifestyle choice, should not be forced on anyone, regardless of religion.  Why should Health Plan ABC supply a 25-year old woman with BCP?  It is not in their financial interest.  If a woman wants BCP, or if a man wants condoms for that matter, they will get them.  Easy, quick, cheap.  It’s the last thing, since it is NOT medical care, that should be forced on ALL of us to pay for with our tax dollars, or with higher insurance premiums. 

The first thing we have to do is stop using the misnomer “preventive services”...that means prevent disease, like blood pressure medicine.  If people don’t want to get pregnant, they can abstain or purchase their own method of contraception.  It’s not merely something Catholics should not have to buy, NO employer should have to buy it.  And they are buying it if they are paying an insurance premium.

Bryan 8:51 Gay marriage denies the rational, immortal soul of the partner, redefines the human being as an animal and the practice of LUST as LOVE. Consider if you will, a practicing homosexual practicing homosexual acts forever, and forever and forever…ad infinitum. This is what is going to be the future of the practicing homosexual. No right to choose, no freedom to rest, no rational purpose.

Mark 9:35. Affordable Care Act. In Canada, one had to wait 2 years for heart surgery and the Canadians were flooding across the border to get health care. This conscience clause is Divine Providence’s way of defending us against a monstrosity, a blank check. We are signing onto a blank contract. The government is extorting our trust and our money. We would sooner be able to fly or walk on water than get what this Obamacare promises.

Rachel W. Before Ben and Jerry’s ice cream was bought by a conglomerate. Ben and Jerry were homosexual partners and refused to hire straights. No, there is no inequality here.

“Or prohibit the free exercise thereof” What part of free does the government not understand?

I don’t distinguish between the secular left and the religious left. To me, it’s all left, and I left it all behind.  But I’m fair and balanced.  I can’t stand the religious right either. I’d be much more sympathetic toward religion if religion were kept out of politics altogether.

I have the right to bear arms, but that doesn’t mean that everybody else must therefore be forced to pitch in and buy me a revolver and some bullets, even if they’re opposed to firearms.  It just means that it’s legal for me to buy one, with my own money, if I so choose.  If you have the right to birth control, that’s fine and dandy.  But you should no more expect me to buy that for you, than I should expect you to buy me a gun.

Ignoring the multiple irrelevant posts from Mary regarding her hatred for homosexuality and some garbage about Canadians rushing across the border (I grew up in a border town in Canada and have many family members there)......
Howard: I don’t get your AA analogy. You would have us believe that employers will be required to dispense birth control pills in the company lunchroom. You still need a prescription to get birth control pills, and just like other prescriptions, you go to your pharmacy to get them. There’s no facilitating here.
You (and others) continue to claim that it’s not really free - health insurance companies will necessarily increase their costs and will have to raise premiums accordingly. However, a 2000 study by the National Business Group on Health estimates that NOT providing contraceptive coverage in employee health plans winds up costing employers 15% to 17% MORE than providing such coverage. Why? Because helping women to avoid unwanted pregnancies saves them a ton of money down the road. There IS a way to maximize net profit without increasing revenues, it’s called reducing costs, and the insurance companies know it.
http://moneyland.time.com/2012/02/14/why-free-birth-control-will-not-hike-the-cost-of-your-insurance/#ixzz1pcBk9Bzk
All this aside, the issue (and Archbold’s article) is about the right to freely exercise religion. If you truly feel that this is all accounting subterfuge, and I suppose only time will tell, then I guess I understand why you feel your conscience is violated. But is government action that leaves some feeling that their conscience is violated the same as prohibiting them from exercising their religion?

“The government has no right, no right to pass any law prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

Never, never, never play into the hands of those who are try to take our rights, by confusing state authority with rights.  Governments do not have rights, they have powers and authority.  In the case of the U.S. government and the states’ governments, that authority is delegated by the People. That authority is not abrogated, it is delegated and can be taken back at our discretion.

One example of the language subterfuge you left out is the constant refering to our form of government as democracy.  Obama has practically everyone doing it.  The word ‘democracy’ is not in the U.S. Constitution. It is however, in the Communist Manifesto: “Establishing democracy is the first step in the revolution.” - Karl Marx

“Freedom of Worship” was the terminology used in Stalin’s Communist Russia and in the USSR and for the reasons given here. Words have meaning, indeed.

No respect for Human Life with a Utilitarian view and it all comes down to dollars and cents. Doesn’t it Mark? Why not a government program to teach NFP?

Great article sure generates a lot of discussion.  Thank you, I googled condoms, District of Columbia gives them for free by mail, so who pays for them?

David: I sense that you’re joking, even only a small number of Catholics use NFP, despite their own church’s official opposition to any other method. Agreed, it’s effective, likely even healthier than some contraceptive options, but its rare use isn’t because there’s some mystery about how it works.
Contraception isn’t going away David, despite your moral opposition to it, so yes, this argument is about dollars and cents; specifically if these dollars somehow interfere with exercising one’s religion.
Who knows? Perhaps the church will succeed in backing the government down on this issue. You can then rejoice that the government has not violated your first amendment rights, but I suspect this won’t satisfy your wish to banish it from the land and establish a Catholic theocracy in America.

The problem as I see it is that once you decide to swim in the government’s pool, you don’t get to pick whose pee you’re swimmming with.  Let’s take marriage, for example.  I don’t believe the government should have anything to do with it one way or the other.  But once religions bought in to the idea of government giving preferential treatment to married people, they bought the whole deal, not just the part they liked.  Once you dive in that nice warm water, it might just be impossible to get out when it starts to boil.

@Mark, the reason NFP is not more common is that it has not been tried. How’s your calculation in regard to aborting children and euthanasia for the elderly? Would the Church not accepting the government imposition on this also cause a Catholic Theocracy?!
You have a point though,  There is a religion being imposed by the present administration but it’s not Christian.And it’s not Jewish or Moslem either…

I should add that even if it were Christianity being imposed it would be wrong, it’s wrong for the government to impose any view against conscience. Isn’t that the First Amendment!

(inching forward to the edge of my seat)
The religion being imposed by Obama is…..

Adherents claim, among other things that: there is no God, rights are not inalienable, abortion and euthanasia are positive goods, and marriage is what the state says it is. It’s a worship of the state and a philosophy of
relativism. Witness the incoherent superstitious zeal of the adherents claim that there is a war on women, when this rich white college student could simply forgo a few Starbucks coffees a month to afford a $9 prescription at Walmart and have contraceptive sex.

I don’t think your argument is anything new.  Many “religions” have been tested by this.  I say “religions” because we see them as cults.  Many cults have been disbanded and leaders brought on charges based on how they “practice” their religion.  You think this is something new because now it affects you, but no one was standing up protesting religious freedoms for these cults.  They are practicing their religion the way they see fit.  What’s the difference?

David: Ah, there it is. The present administration is atheist. And his administration changed everything.
Yes, let’s go back to the good ol’ days before Obama, during the 8 glorious years of the evangelical Bush administration. He made abortion illegal, outlawed gay marriage, and wouldn’t dream of infringing on our civil rights. 
But unless we’re all greatly misinformed about the Bush years, abortion remained legal, gay marriage remained illegal federally (DOMA was signed into law by Bill Clinton, whom I’m confident you hate), and civil rights remained intact, unless you consider privacy or not being tortured a civil right. Hey, how did euthanasia sneak in here, is that legal now? Oh, right, forgot about the Obama death panels.

@Mark, Your cost equations justify euthanasia and the your absence of respect for human life point in that direction.
Do you deny that?

Um, yeah, I deny that.
Let’s face it David, pretty much everything that happens outside of the Vatican walls seems to violate your conscience. If only there was an ideal place you could live where the theocrats run the show, women can’t control their reproductive cycles, vote, or drive, and a black guy could never be president. Wait, there is - it’s Saudi Arabia.

Bravo, Mark!
—-
Hey everybody—I just had my Pap Smear done at a clinic that wasn’t Planned Parenthood—and they had free condoms and advice on other contraceptive methods right up in the displays with “How to Quit Smoking” and diabetes information! Why all the money, vitriol and politics on ruining Planned Parenthood—all they have to do is change the name to something “politically correct.”

P.S. I don’t know if Obama is atheist and pandering to religion in this country, or really does have a Christian faith. It is a damn shame that he cannot say either way and have the same odds of being elected.

@Mark,
You can have your pro death hedonistic life style, just don’t ask me to be a part of it and pay for it.

Ps. The “control” you speak of is a loss of self control. A married man using NFP is bound to his wife and her fertility. She is not treated as an object. There is no “why not - didn’t you take your pill”.

What has the government done to undermine your religious rights? It seems to me your beef with the government is that its change in vocabulary could somehow lead to an ideological subterfuge, but you give no real evidence of this except to draw a parallel between religious rights and gun laws.

Pat and commenter Raconteur have stuck to the point.  We citizens are the sovereigns from which all government power is derived.  We gave it to them in the Constitution, which clearly says the government cannot abridge my freedom of religion.  Making me pay for abortions against my moral beliefs does just that.  Making my buy a product against my will violates 300 years of contract law.  This law is wrong on many levels, and will not stand, thank God!

The Supreme Court case titled Perpich v Department of Defense is worth looking at as it rather handily guts the anti-freedom/pro-thug/pro-dictatorship cult’s contention about the militia referred to in the 2nd Amendt.

Cassandra (of Troy)

Since you’ve brought up the 2nd Amendt in a Catholic publication, i’m curious about your reaction to the Jan 14 2011 Catholic News Service story titled “Church firmly, quietly opposes firearms for civilians” posted at uscatholic.org as it appears that on the one hand the Catholic Church is adamantly opposed to govtl edicts that apply to it while on the other hand supporting them for others.

Cassandra (of Troy)

“…the bishops of the Church make no attempt to speak for all Catholics; they never have. The bishops speak for the Catholic and apostolic faith, and those that hold that faith gather around them. Others disperse.”

Very well said, Teresa Sands. Very well said.

So Pat, should Amish people be exempt from Federal income tax because some of the money collected goes to pay for wars which violate their religious precepts?

Should Jehovah’s Witnesses who own companies be exempt from paying for insurance that covers blood transfusions for their employees?

Or is this “freedom of religion” thing only applicable when it has to do with women’s reproductive tracts?

This article and its premise are ridiculous.  I love God and I love my fellow man, and I know it is not my place to judge others, but ideas, they are fair game.  I am an independant, but these days I support progressive ideals because they help the needy, they stop uneeded suffering, and these days they seem to be devoid of much of the undeserved hate I see spewing from the right.  My sincerest hope is that some of you realize that this kind of hate is exactly what is wrong with the government, they actually count on it to stop us from collaborating.  I do not agree with everything the president or other democrats do, but I certainly think them the better option than some of the bile from the right.  Truthfully, neither party is any better than the other, and the only way we will fix this nation is to stop the hate, work together as a people, and create a third party (wishful thinking I know) but for the time being, do you really think it right to carry on with so much hate in your heart.  Also, as a watcher of all news networks, and frequent verifyer of news, I can say that all media is misleading, but no media outlet is so prone to trying to incite fear and rage than fox news and many conservative websites, so please, for your own sakes, look for alternatives (reuters is a nice non-partisan outlet, also wikinews if you can handle the raw nature of their feed)  The only way out of the lie bubble is to listen to everyone with an open mind.