How can you reduce a complex issue like woman's healthcare to the following statement: "How is preventing or terminating a pregnancy a healthcare issue?"

I will give you a perfect example: Santorum's wife who in 1996 required an abortion to save her life due to an infected fetus. Does it really need to be explained to you that aborting the fetus was a healthcare issue for Mrs. Santorum?

I'm also curious if you actually know what this mandate does. Your comments seem to belie your suggested understanding of the mandate. All the mandate does is offload the cost of contraception to the healthcare company. The healthcare company is just going to raise its premiums on that religious employer and recoup the costs of the contraception anyway but it's a win-win for everyone: the religious company can object and refuse to provide contraception based on it's religious beliefs and the woman who wants contraception doesn't have her desire for contraception, possibly based on HER religious beliefs, trampled by the company.

Or is that what you are suggesting? The religious beliefs of the company trump the religious beliefs of their employee? Are you in the "Corporations are people too!" camp?

"As a side note, let’s look at what insurance is supposed to be about. People pay for insurance to protect themselves from unforeseen disasters so they are able to pay for damages and, in the case of sickness, so they can pay for healthcare."

"The government wants to force religious institutions to cover services which go against the very foundation of their belief system. Complying with this mandate is a direct violation of what the Church and other religious groups believe in.

This paragraph illustrates your failure to honestly understand this issue. The root of your misunderstanding is your inability to separate church from religious employer. Freedom of religion means the church can worship in any way they see fit. However a religious institution that employs citizens is subject to employment laws, one of which is that it's illegal to discriminate on any basis. Religions are allowed to follow their religion in the course of them being a religious institution. They must follow employment laws in the course of them being employers.

Want a battle to fight? How about fighting against taxpayers paying for the erections of men over 65 by covering Viagra under Medicare.

"is the government’s true objective to undermine our freedom of religion?"

Another week, another bizarre, logic free, ideological rant from our local Tea Party spokesperson.

There is nothing about this mandate that impringes First Amendment rights and the law on this is really pretty straight forward. Bottom line, religious institutions aren't allowed special dispensation to violate the rights of the people they employ.

Sigh. Of course you are right. People can argue all they like that Catholic institutions ought to violate their conscience, but the fact of the matter is they will not. So if closing down all the Catholic schools, hospitals, and charities is what people want, then go for it. Let the state try to take over all of these services and we will see if that actually helps or hurts societies. It amazes me that so many can be gung-ho to empower the federal government to take away their freedoms - just wait until the mandate is something that affects them. Then they will wonder what happened to their own freedom, as they happily cheered on the stripping away of the rights of their neighbor.

RoseAnn, Suze, and Sue Ann - you're all confusing the exercising of religion with discrimination laws as it relates to employment.

The three of you are 100% wrong on this as it relates to the constitution and as it relates to the laws of the land you live in. Sad.

Where does providing a service violate a person's freedom of religion? It is up to the person to choose whether to use the service; this could be based of personal, religious or other beliefs. I do not want the government or a religious institution telling me that I must obey their rules in my private matters.

What is bizarre to me is that no one sees the mission creep. The church has always maintained that contraception was against their beliefs. What is new now???? Mandate, the mandate is new. Not from the church, but from our government mandating this should be a right. Since when did we become a nation of what I do you have to pay for??

What happened to the feminist that said, I am equal? Non-existent. NOw they are to be coddled and taken care of. Sorry.

All of my life I have taken care of myself, yes at times with help of the gov. I did have a period of unemployment, 26 wks at that time. But I was not on it for that long. I have started a few businesses in my time and and am in one now. I purchase my own health care. I pay a good amount of money. I have to sacrifice other things to pay for that. Seems no one wants to make any sacrifice.

The church is not telling you can't, they do not follow you around, or have cameras allover the place. They are not mandating anything. Let me repeat the CHURCH IS NOT MANDATING anything. THE GOVERNMENT IS. You can purchase what you want when you want. You can go to Planned Parenthood from what I understand and get it for free.

If the Government can mandate a church go against their teachings, what else can they mandate YOU do.

Before anyone here makes a judgment you should refer to and gain the understanding of the following.

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.

Specifically "impeding the free exercise of religion", this is the important part.

Also, please read up on:

Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith Supreme Court decision

Also please read up on:

Religious Freedom Restoration Act

There is legal precedent for the Mandate to stand, but legal challenges will be heard because the Religious Freedom Restoration Act reinstated the “Sherbert Test,” which provides a standard that the government has to meet to prove it has a compelling reason to override the interest of free exercise.

This is an interesting topic that the Courts will decide.

To elaborate on my own, the government now has cameras all over the place. Not the church.

To date, the case law on this issue basically says that religiously owned or religiously affiliated organizations that employ people of other faiths must abide by the same laws as every other employer, including health, safety, and labor regulations. In fact, it is the religiously owned/affiliated organization's obligation to respect the liberty and religious beliefs of *all* of their employees. It's the price of doing business in our country and religion does not trump the law of the land.

If we were talking about, for example, a Catholic Hospital, treating only Catholic patients, with only Catholic doctors and Catholic staff, that would be another thing. However, as soon as that institution hires, serves and takes money from non-Catholics then they must abide by all the standard rules and laws.

More extreme right wing propoganda from those who do not want to make healthcare better for the majority in this country. No surprise here considering the source.

Once again this is not about health care. When I last checked "fertility" was a blessing and pregnancy was not a disease. This is about the government once again sticking its nose where you don't want it and it does't belong. Of course Oxy has to champion Big Chief "Light in the Shorts" and his Viagra, and leaves out Sandra Fluke's favorite recreational device that "WE the People have to pay for." So let me add a few of mine? I want a new 10' Tt. Croix Surf Rod, and Neoprene Chest Waders. OK! And as a Dr. recommended "All Blue" potatoes from Burpees for their nutritional content...y'all can pick up my Burpees bill! Also Oxy...love the reference to the <1% of people in the ministry who like ALL segments of society have their screw ups. But of course Oxy will never hear about my cousin teaching on a missionary staion in Papua New Guinea. By the way..what did YOU donate to chairty last year? I'll bet less than the liquor store and Joe Biden?! Good works never make headlines and always need $$ . So finally lets just have Govt. out of our lives as much as possible. The world, including many in the church have been content with Gubmint taking over more and more of what was once family and community (church) responsiblilty...now...the "responsible" party is Govt...and THAT govt...can and WILL kill you! Finally...as 25% of hospitals in the US are run by the Catholic Church...let this mandate pass...and let the church close their doors. The song says, you don't know what you got til

Oh...and Oxy...as long as you are taking shots at Catholics, and seemingly enjoy free fire at all people of faith, do you have some spare ammo for Obama's Church, and those who support him? Claiming to be "washed in the blood of Jesus" while they support a President who bathes in the blood of the innocents seems a pretty good target, and I don't want you to miss a shot. I mean you seem to like to vent? Also Oxy....take a hard look at th "popular culture", "hip-hop music", Hollywood, and what we call "sports heroes." I mean...be fair...you seem to have a lot of hatred and vitriol so lets make sure you pull an Obama and "spread the wealth." Hope to see you at the next Community Blood Drive, because evidently you wouldn't be caught dead in a church sponsored one!

"It is unprecedented for our government to tell religious institutions how they must operate."

Huh? So religious institutions should be exempt from the law?

I am sorry but this article does not make sense to me at all. Look at christian countries in Europe where Christian holidays are actually mandatory unlike here and where universal healthcare is law. Oh yes, and contraception and abortion are of course covered. Opinions like the author displays are considered extremist and bigoted. I guess people over the pond have more common sense than these religious folks here: Citizens for Limited Government should rename themselves to Citizen for Anarchy

I believe in the Church of Baseball. I've tried all the major religions, and most of the minor ones. I've worshipped Buddha, Allah, Brahma, Vishnu, Siva, trees, mushrooms, and Isadora Duncan. I know things. For instance, there are 108 beads in a Catholic rosary and there are 108 stitches in a baseball. When I heard that, I gave Jesus a chance. But it just didn't work out between us. The Lord laid too much guilt on me. I prefer metaphysics to theology. You see, there's no guilt in baseball, and it's never boring...

Occidentalist you have now lost the argument by mentioning "tea baggers" that is a slur on good people trying to do the right thing. I guess you are not taxed enough already.
First off the government is pushing the mandate on a religious institution. Secondly contraception is readily available at any drug store. Why is it the responsibility of government or the insurance companies to be provide contraception.
Now the insurance rates will go up and the private employer will ask for their employees to put in more money into their health care.
Occidentalist you live in a world where you want to be free of personal responsibility, right now our 4 father's are turning over in there grave saying what happened to this country. People should take responsibility and buy there own healthcare and I have an idea to curtail abortion how about put morality into our children and tell them not to have sex until they are ready for the responsibility of taking care of a child. We should be making a push, telling our teenagers that having sex comes with a huge responsibility and before you have it this is what it will be like when you have a child.

OK Occidentalist
Yes insurance rates will go up:
President Obama and Kathleen Sebelius have claimed that insurance companies will make up the money they pay out in “free” contraceptives by the number of babies that subsequently will not be born. Most pharmacists do not agree with that statement. “Pharmacy companies are businesses, and businesses – unlike the federal government – understand that the cost of providing any service has to be paid for by someone,” stated Dr. Samuel Gregg, research director at the Acton Institute. “In this instance, that means the costs of not-so-free contraception will either come out of the insurance companies’ profits, or the costs will be passed on to the policy-holders.” It is estimated that insurance plans will have to front about $360 person who uses the birth control pill. And that is just at the start."

Insurance rates will go higher because the people that have current insurance policies will increase by $360 per person so by you saying that it will no is false.

Occidentatlist think about this one if more people have sex than gues what their is a larger percentage that will contract STD's and who is going to pay for the increase of STD's? So this cancels out your perception that less babies means less money spent, how about more STD's and a large aid's population, do you have any idea what the cost is on aid's medication?
But then again Occidentalist you are probably a liberal socialist who thinks the government can solve all your problems. You probably have never been to a socialist government in your life and probably belive the Cuban health care system is better than the United States Health Care system. But then again you probably listen to Michael Moore.

And what about the whole notion that free access to birth control is a “right?” According to whom? The only rights that we have in this nation, which are expressly detailed in the Constitution, are the things that God has given to us and that no man should be able to take away. That includes the right to worship as we choose and to follow the convictions which our faith sets out for us.

Carolyn Maloney, a Congresswoman from New York, wrote today in the Huffington Post, that in the matter of the rights of the Catholic Church (or any person of faith with like convictions) to not be forced to provide insurance with contraceptive coverage versus the women who want them to, “in this collision of rights, the right of women to access health care must prevail.” However, the only one of the two that is recognized in our Constitution is the right to our religious beliefs. There is no mention of a right to health care, much less at no price. (Plus, who is stopping her from getting health care? She is free to go wherever she wants!)

One thing you're missing is that the Health and Human Services regulation includes an exemption for religious groups who primarily serve and employ members of their own faith. The mandate simply assures that an employers beliefs do not trample the rights of an employee if that organization employs a percentage (I don't know the exact number) of people who do not share the organization's beliefs.

I can understand the possibility that health insurance companies will pass the costs on to policy holders, however at this point that is just speculation. I think it needs to be looked at as to whether those premium increases would be limited only to the people who are opting to have contraception coverage. If that's the case, why does anyone care? You're not paying for nothing you don't want. Isn't that a part of personal responsibility?

Why should your beliefs deny a service to someone who doesn't share your beliefs?

You're still not understanding that contraception is covered under health insurance as preventative care.

Oh, and since you asked me if I've ever visited a socialist country, I have a challenge for you: Have you ever visited a Libertarian country?

My guess is no. Why? Because they don't exist. Because totalitarian libertarianism DOESN'T WORK.

My guess was right you are a socialist. You have never seen socialism up close and personal and you will never understand the horror it brings.
You have been given this wonderful bright idea from your liberal college professor (who probably at the time was snorting massive amounts of cocaine." about how well socialism works and how great it would be if we all follow it. Just remember this eventually you will run out of other people's money and also the Health Care law that was supposed to bring down the cost of health care, the CBO now states that it will double the cost.
Oh and by the way to force any institution or personal business to provide contraception is a in infringement on their first amendment beliefs. But obviously you did not read the following:
"And what about the whole notion that free access to birth control is a “right?” According to whom? The only rights that we have in this nation, which are expressly detailed in the Constitution, are the things that God has given to us and that no man should be able to take away. That includes the right to worship as we choose and to follow the convictions which our faith sets out for us." But you are not smart enough to understand what the original framers were trying to create. It is called personal responsibility unfortunately you want to have this responsibility taken away. Just like a liberal you distort the facts and assume it is the truth and like a typical liberal bully you call people names.

LOL, like Butterfly says, you have no idea what socialism is.

Are you saying you have seen socialism up close and personal and know what horrors it brings? Please share with us! LOL

They would indeed be the first to cry foul if a Muslim owned school or hospital expected all female employees to wear burqas (or maybe not, since they aren't too fond of allowing women to have the same freedoms as men) or eat with their right hand or expect men to have multiple wives. Or if a Buddhist or Hindu employer told employees they couldn't eat meat on the premises. This is not about CHURCH employees (i.e,. people who are Catholic and work for the Catholic Church) this is about teachers, nurses, doctors and aides who work in large institutions run by religious institutions. NO ONE is asking any church to hand out contraception. The law is simply providing for equal INSURANCE coverage for all employees of these institutions, or lose tax dollars. Personally, I don't want my tax dollars funding any institution that impinges upon anyone's religious liberties by allowing the employer's religious beliefs to trump those of it's employees.

Also, there is legal precedent. Scalia would agree based on a previous Supreme Court decision regarding the religious use of peyote.

Believe whatever nonsense you want, just don't force me to buy into your ideas of what is morally if you have hired me to be a professional in your organization.

Actual no the law does not trump religious beliefs because the freedom of religion is defended in the 1st amandment. Occidentalist you are a piece of garbage but that is who you are. Yes socialism is why my parents fled to the United States because they got tired of waiting in lines for food and watching the government take away any money they had earned. But you would not understand this bc you cannot comprehend this because you have blinders on given to you by the liberal college professors who have no idea what they are talking about. I have backed up my opinions in fact and you have not stated one. So basically you and gurl are down to ridiculing what you can't fight fact with. Simple Alinsky tactics, but in the meantime. How about this let's close all the hospitals and colleges run by religious institutions only than Liberals will be happy.
The government is trampling over religious freedom I feel sorry for you that you do not believe this. If a person wants contraception couldn't they just go get a different job, why is it that the religious institution have violate their beliefs? Because government says so? This is a violation of the constitution, where in the constitution does it say that health care must be provided?

And here are a few that will really hit home with all the "taxes aren't constitutional" people.

From Wikipedia:
In the case of Adams v. Commissioner, the United States Tax Court rejected the argument of Priscilla M. Lippincott Adams, who was a devout Quaker. She tried to argue that under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, she was exempt from federal income taxes. The U.S. Tax Court rejected her argument and ruled that she was not exempt. The Court stated: "...while petitioner's religious beliefs are substantially burdened by payment of taxes that fund military expenditures, the Supreme Court has established that uniform, mandatory participation in the Federal income tax system, irrespective of religious belief, is a compelling governmental interest."[15] In the case of Miller v. Commissioner, the taxpayers objected to the use of social security numbers, arguing that such numbers related to the "mark of the beast" from the Bible. In its decision, the U.S. Court discussed the applicability of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, but ruled against the taxpayers.[16]

And there it is! The direct proof that you don't form your own opinions - you regurgitate ones that are fed to you by Hannity, Beck, Limbaugh, et al.

I refer of course to your conjuration of Alinsky.

Do you even know who he is or what he did? Because he's actually someone a true libertarian would love.

So how's the weather up your own ass Magneto? LOL

You still have yet to answer my questions:

Have YOU ever visited a socialist country?

Have YOU ever visited a libertarian country?

Would you be okay with a Muslim company forcing non-Muslims in their employment to wear burkas, not eat pork at lunchtime, and eat only with their right hands?

Would you be okay with a LDS owned company refusing to allow it's non-LDS employees to receive blood transfusions?

Please answer these questions and we will see how far your hypocrisy runs.

Oh, and xmen, my entire family is from Eastern Europe. I would not want to live under any totalitarian regime, and I am glad that in this country I am free (religious liberty) from having to practice what my employer believes. It's the law.

I couldn't disagree with this argument more. First of all, freedom of religion does not include the imposition of one's religion on others. For a private company to be able to deny medical coverage to a woman based on the owner's religious beliefs is incomprehensible. Where is the burden of proof? Any and all business could cut contraception completely out of their healthcare package under the disguise of religious beliefs. Furthermore, this argument doesn't even belong in the real world, as most women don't even use birth control for the purposes of contraception. Birth control is primarily, without a doubt, used for women's health reasons....something I would expect a women to know and understand!!! I can't even support the President's decision to exempt churches from this rule. Where does it stop? Will churches be able to commit fraud, money laundering, mass murder, rape, etc. because they may be in line with religious beliefs? This is ludicrous. If a church wants to employ people in the U.S., they are obligated as an employer under U.S. law to comply with any and all labor laws, without exception!

In addition to ending the assault on women's health, I say we end the imposition of religious will on people that simply don't want it. The fictitious, ancient government mask of religion needs to go. Worship on your time in your own privacy and leave everyone alone! FREEDOM AND RIGHTS >>>>> your own independent system of religious belief

Again, most of these posters would cry could if a church opened in their neighborhood that required human sacrifice and ingestion of hallucinogenic drugs. And it would be shut down for illegal activity anyway. There is nothing in the Constitution that exempts religious institutions from the law.

Whoever said liberalism is a mental disease wasn't lying or exaggerating!

This is about religious institutions that hire employees! This isn't about any employer forcing his religious beliefs upon his employees.

If you don't believe in the edicts of the religion, you can then CHOOSE to work somewhere else that is more in line with your beliefs or lack thereof.

it is also about government mandates. Why do you want the government to have more and more say in your life and be responsible to pay for things? What the government gives, the government can take away. What happened to self-reliance?

Insurance is purchased by people to pay for the unforeseen. It is not meant to pay for activities and lifestyles that people choose to participate in and the consequences of those choices!

And finally, look at the vicious comments and attacks they make on those with opposing view points. I saw an interesting post the other day, which was "a liberal can be different than you but don't you dare be different than a liberal. Tolerance is a one way street for them."

Is it really necessary to resort to such demeaning tactics towards people you don't even know?? People who are merely stating a difference of opinion from yours?

TEA = Taxed Enough Already along with an undying belief in the Constitution of the United States and a love this country and all that it offers.

I don't believe I have made any vicious comments about anyone here, and you have still skirted the issue. A ruling on a similar issue has already been decided by the Supreme Court. As for the government in my life, I do want the government to protect me from discrimination based on my religious beliefs. Again, it's the LAW. Our laws protect employees from discrimination based on gender, race and religious beliefs. That's what religious freedom is. It's protected under the law. And by your example above, regarding lifestyle choices, you would allow insurance to deny benefits to pregnant women. It's their choice to get pregnant, right? Why should my tax dollars pay for someone to give birth in a hospital. Or how about skiing? You choose to ski, you pay for the cast when you break your leg. Or that cold? Well, if you didn't expose yourself to the virus, you wouldn't have gotten sick. How about the obese ? Let's not pay for their medical insurance either.
What you have proposed is not a cogent argument for not ensuring based on lifestyle choices. What you're saying is you don't think insurance should cover lifestyle choices with which you don't agree. And contraceptives are also used as medication, and not just to prevent pregnancy.

Mr. Smith,
I could not put it any better. People have the right to choose where they work and if you do not like the benefits you receive change your job go somewhere else.
First off the law will go to the supreme court and be overturned. Secondly they lied about the cost of this law so it should be overturned on that premiss alone.
Liberals do not understand that this country is broke and we can't afford the quote un quote free stuff. Taxing the Rich is not going to solve this problem but then again a liberal cannot possibly understand that. Remember this a rich man will give you a job a poor man can't. Mr. Smith you are so correct!!!!!!!

A lot of very passionate comments and expressions about other people's lifestyles, but little with regard to the facts and very little understanding of what Freedom and Freedom of Religion actually mean in the USA. With all these hits I can see why Patch likes Ms Penna's commentary.

Mr Skinner, 98% of women in the USA have used birth control. Regardless of whether you think contraception is health care or not, the vast majority of the world agrees that it is.

Mr Smith, as soon as religiously affiliated organizations hire prople outside their religion they must abide by the laws that govern employment. No employer, religiously affiliated or otherwise, can force it's employees to abide by the rules laid out by any religion. When a church CHOOSES to hire people outside the church then it must follow the law. The church rules do not trump the law of the land.

I couldn't agree with you more. No matter what your stances is on abortion the government is still forcing a religous institution to change their beliefs.

No, the government is not forcing a religious institution to change it's beliefs. That is completely false. The government is saying, that as an employer, religious institutions need to allow for their insurance carriers to provide basic coverage for it's employees. The law is on their side. The institution can continue to believe and preach whatever doctrine it wishes and ask it's members to comply with those doctrines. And this does not apply to actual church employees, it applies to employees of organizations like schools and hospitals that are run by religious institutions.

"These are widely and cheaply available at any pharmacy chain, planned parenthood location or other community medical establishments." This argument is as invalid as suggesting an employee quit if they don't like the benefits being offered. The onus is not on the employee to seek other employment or to pay out of pocket for medical care, it is on the employer to comply with the law. You may not like it, but that's how it works.

Invalid? Seriously? It doesn't suggest that an employee quit at all. (I honestly don't know where you can draw that conclusion.) It does mean that these are widely available and easily affordable. Nobody is denied access nor are they required to change their beliefs or behavior.

And by the way, the conversation is about whether this becomes law or not, isn't it?

Well I guess we will see if it ecomes a law or not.

The mandate actually is already a law.

Well then if it is repealed or ammended further

The administration has tried it to give the Church a loophole, but they have rejected that and they are likely to reject anything that's offered that still allows their employees to be covered for the services in question. Repeal, well that depends on who is in office next year and whether or not the lawsuits hold up.

So, you state "the administration has tried to give the CHURCH a loophole." The Church, a religious institution, which is protected under the First Amendment to practice its religion freely without government intervention.

Once again, I will state, if you choose to work for a religious institution, then you abide by their rules. If a non-muslim woman worked for a mosque she would be expected to wear a burqua. But she could CHOOSE to not work in a mosque if that went against her beliefs.

This is about religious institutions being protected from doing what goes against their beliefs. Whether or not you agree with them or abide by them in your private life is your choice, but it's their teachings. You have a right to your beliefs and how you live your life and so do religious institutions. No one is forcing you to participate in any religion or forcing you to work for them.

This is NOT about an employer being able to force his/her religion on employees. That is not Constitutional.

Don't like the religious institution - then don't apply for a job there.

Freedom of choice to apply to jobs, companies, educational institutions, religious institutions, private companies, public companies, etc as a matter of your choice.

Liberty is a beautiful thing.

It's not the law that agrees with you. It's a President who has a total lack of regard for our laws and Constitution and circumvents them every chance he gets.
"America, Land of Free" actually has a current president who appoints Czars. Where are they allowed in our Constitution? Our laws??

Enjoy your Kool Aid. Ignrance is apparantly bliss and you are blissfully ignorant. It certainly makes it much easier to be that way than have to actually face the reality of this current administration who has no belief in our Country and only looks to knock it down.

Socialists. They want a level playing field for everyone. Problem is they try to even the playing field by taking from those who are productive to make them less productive instead of championing causes that will bring people up a level to reach success. It's never about making the way to have more successful people. Just about taking from the haves to give to the have nots.

This country is in a sad state under this Administration.

Mr. Smith,

It is the law that agrees with me. You might not want to believe that, but it happens to be true.
1. There is nothing in the constitution allows religious institutions to not follow the law. The law trumps religious beliefs. Period.

2. There were about 33 Czars under Bush, the term started being used during FDR's presidency.

3. Kool Aid. Ignorance is clearly not bliss, it's just means people are sadly misinformed about the law. And about socialism, it's meaning and how it relates to public policy.

You may not like the President or his policies, but the facts are not on your side of this constitutional argument and maybe you can read up on some previous cases that have gone to the Supreme Court.

"The Church, a religious institution, which is protected under the First Amendment to practice its religion freely without government intervention."

That's not what the constitution says. That's why Mormons can no longer practice polygamy.

As for repeal or an amendment, the majority of voters are women and 98% of them have used contraception. Rush's exemplary showing of moral rectitude on the subject, along with the Virginia law have inched the poll numbers toward supporting Obama among all women, including Republican ones. So let's keep this dialogue front and center.

"Aren't the laws against the practice of polygamy State laws? This is a Federal issue."

Is there something that's unclear about the Constitution not protecting religious groups from non-compliance with the law whether state or federal?

I don't know that this is strictly a gender issue as access to contraception is not the issue here. Also, 98% of women voters having used some sort of contraception is really misleading, so yes, let's keep the dialogue front and center.

Oh, and before the comment above becomes another whole discussion, here's the qualifier:
“Data shows that 98 percent of sexually experienced women of child-bearing age and who identify themselves as Catholic have used a method of contraception other than natural family planning at some point in their lives.”

Uh, Kevin, that's exactly what I posted right above your comment. What's your point? Also, "Mormons can no longer practice polygamy( although many still do) due to the laws of the State of Utah (primarily) not due to any violation of the Constitution."
Do you realize you just said that having a church comply with a law doesn't violate the Constitution? You might want to rethink that argument.

What really bothers me is the stubbornness of these mindless talking points from the religious extremists. Their argument about 'religious freedom' can be used to justify anything, even gender selective water boarding as a form of baptism. How about animal sacrifices? Or human sacrifices?
What are the limits of 'religious freedom' ?

'The point is that you are pointing to the Constitution while quoting State law. That is the point! State laws are very different from Federal laws.'

Kevin, the "point" of this entire discussion - from your side of the fence, quoted from above, is "This mandate absolutely goes against the First Amendment, which specifically prohibits the making of any law that impedes the free exercise of religion."

I say, that isn't true,that's not what the Constitution says and there is nothing in the constitution that allows for religious non-compliance with the law.

So now you are saying that a state law that impedes the free exercise of religion is okay, because it's a state law. So, if each state adopted this mandate, that would be okay with you? If you don't see the foolishness of this argument, you should probably give up now because you are arguing against your own point of view.

There is no issue here with the free exercise of religion. The issue is whether an organization that provides services to the general public is bound by the law, and the answer is yes. Freedom of Religion is not absolute, and it resides within the boundries we sent a a free society. Society as a whole determines what is acceptable behavior and what is not, and where one person's freedom of religion stops and where the next person's begins. Religious institutions that operate businesses or provide services to all people, not just those within their religion, must do so within the framework of the law. They know that going in. If that framework is no longer acceptable then it is that institution that must consider whether it wants to continue to operate those business and services. It is not secular society that must adapt to the beliefs of the religious institution.

If this is a freedom of religion issue then how can the governmet tell the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints that they cannot practice polygamy or marry 14 year old girls. How can they tell the Rastafarians they cant smoke marijuana. What about ritual animal sacrifices, more common in South Florida among practitioners of Santeria and forms of Haitian Voodoo is that ok. There are all sorts of laws that religious institutions have to follow. All someone would have to say is my religion requires human sacrifice to appease the gods and you would not be able to charge them with murder. If this was not the Catholic church and some minority religion like Buddhism or Hinduism none of you would have a problem with it. Minority religions have problems with the government all the time and no one cares.

It really is a bit silly to make a comparison between forcing religious people to support something they find morally wrong to preventing people from committing animal sacrifices and murder. Please!

Hey Shill and Peter Mock - what about all the waivers obama gave to corporations and unions that support him? Over 1,300 waivers in one year.
Peter, you stated, "There is no issue here with the free exercise of religion. The issue is whether an organization that provides services to the general public is bound by the law, and the answer is yes." So how do you account for all the waivers?
That sure is some sense of fairness. Please explain to me how it is fair that some are completely exempt while religious institutions, which are only looking to be exempt from things that go against their conscience, can't get an exemption.
And who is going to pay for the healthcare of all those who are exempt? And why do these companies and unions want to be exempt? Because they know this bill is NO GOOD - that's why.