Whether of not all Catholic women follow all of the tenants of the faith is not the issue here. The Church takes positions on a multitude of subjects--for this discussion birth control and as previously stated and not commented on, birth control that acts as an abortifacient--not all Catholics are going to be in agreement with those positions (just like not all Protestants, Jews, etc. follow their teachings to the letter). The acts of individual Catholics are irrelevant for this discussion.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

People believe the First Amendment prohibits all government interference with religion. It doesn't. It prohibits laws respecting the establishment of religion (this doesn't), and laws prohibiting (not affecting, prohibiting) the free exercise of religion (this doesn't).

And before anyone comments, I'm well aware that there is an extensive body of caselaw that interprets that language more broadly than the text appears to indicate is appropriate. But a great many of the people who will complain about this horrible infringement on their religious freedom take a textual, strict constructionist view of OTHER freedoms - say, for example, the right to privacy re abortion and sexual behavior. So let's level the playing field, shall we? Either the constitution is a living, breathing document, or it isn't - but if it isn't, pipe down about this horrible affront to constitutional rights. Because it simply doesn't exist.

I say let them opt out. And if they do, they lose their tax exempt status. See how strong their convictions are then.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The true issue is money, not the use of BC.

Yes, and whether religious institutions can be forced to spend money to provide a service that is in direct conflict with their basic theological views, which the Constitution forbids.

Really? Where?

Presumably on the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

The question is: (a) Does a Church-owned business exercise religion, and (b) is denying money to others trying to exercise their individual rights constitute such exercise?

But I'll repeat that although I disagree that this is violates the First Amendment, I support the idea that the government has a responsibility to avoid acting in ways that are perceived as an insult to a large number of citizens.

Anonymous wrote:

The true issue is money, not the use of BC.

Yes, and whether religious institutions can be forced to spend money to provide a service that is in direct conflict with their basic theological views, which the Constitution forbids.

Really? Where?

The true issue is money, not the use of BC.

Yes, and whether religious institutions can be forced to spend money to provide a service that is in direct conflict with their basic theological views, which the Constitution forbids.

Anonymous wrote:... Even if they are a very small minority, aren't minorities the very people the First Amendment is designed to protect?

Once again, this brings us to the point that nobody is being mandated to use BC, just to give the same help to those who wish to use it that is given to people who use other medical services. The true issue is money, not the use of BC.

Anonymous wrote:Even if they are a very small minority, aren't minorities the very people the First Amendment is designed to protect?

You mean the way it's protected Socialists and Communists, Jehovah's Witnesses, native Americans, pacifists...? Or is it the way it's protecting politically minded corporations and billionaires, and Christian local governments, today?

The 1st A's protection of unpopular minorities has always been largely mythical. Regardless, this is about the actions of the Church, a very powerful entity, not the actions of a small minority.

Anonymous wrote:I do not know a single Catholic woman who does not, or has never used BC. Not one. When I was a kid, I had friends with 10 siblings. When was the last time you met a young Catholic family with more than 5 kids? Clearly, Catholic women use BC. They don't seem to have an issue with BC.

Ha ha. You clearly don't know anyone who sends kids to the Heights or Oakcrest. Plenty of families with at least 5 kids, including faculty. If 98% of American Catholics use birth control, I think most of the remaining 2% are at these schools! Yes, Viginia, there really are Catholics who follow the Church's teachings on birth control. Even if they are a very small minority, aren't minorities the very people the First Amendment is designed to protect?

I do not know a single Catholic woman who does not, or has never used BC. Not one. When I was a kid, I had friends with 10 siblings. When was the last time you met a young Catholic family with more than 5 kids? Clearly, Catholic women use BC. They don't seem to have an issue with BC.

Anonymous wrote:For all of you relying on the peyote case, one word (or acronym): RFRA. A generally applicable law cannot substantially burden one's free exercise of religion unless it is necessary to further a compelling governmental interest and is narrowly tailored to further that interest. If the legality of the mandate is resolved in court, this will be the relevant test.

That's interesting - I wasn't familiar with that law. Its interpretation history is interesting, too.

By precedent, it looks like an RFRA challenge to this has little chance, unless the S.Ct. is going to start picking their preferred government programs (not that they're above that).

Then an easy solution would appear to be for them to buy general coverage that includes birth control, rather than a specific add-on. That would be a pretty close parallel to the tax question.

How is that the easy solution? Employers don't generally buy a "general plan"...they contract for the specific coverage and then pay for it. It is an "add-on" now because their current plans don't include it because it contradicts the fundamentals of their beliefs. Just like other employers choose other plans/coverage based on costs, etc., this component is not inlcuded in the coverage of many Catholic employers because it violates their faith.

For all of you relying on the peyote case, one word (or acronym): RFRA. A generally applicable law cannot substantially burden one's free exercise of religion unless it is necessary to further a compelling governmental interest and is narrowly tailored to further that interest. If the legality of the mandate is resolved in court, this will be the relevant test.

Some forms of birth control do not stop fertilization, they simply stop implantation. Requiring the Catholic Church to fund birth control that acts as an abortifacient is requiring it to financially support the destruction of human life (as viewed by the Church). The Church will not back down on this issue nor should it be expected to capitulate.

Anonymous wrote:I see a distinction in what is being required of employers here vs. taxpayer dollars going to support the general functions of government. I don't have the specific case cites, but I think the cases were individuals have sought to be exempt from general federal income tax on the basis of their pacifist beliefs have not been upheld because there is no specific dollar amount of that tax payment that can be determined to be supporting the defense department. In effect, the government can say your specific tax dollars may not be going to the defense department, but your neighbor's are. On the other hand, in this instance, specific, individual employers are required to purchase specific coverage for the specific purpose of covering contraceptive care and offering it in their health plans. I see that as the distinction between these situations.

Then an easy solution would appear to be for them to buy general coverage that includes birth control, rather than a specific add-on. That would be a pretty close parallel to the tax question.

Actually, I'd bet that's exactly what is happening now, since I think it's the insurance companies that are required to include birth control in their coverage. Or am I wrong about that?