The compromise that I was referring to was Obama allowing religious institutions to be exempt from funding things like birth control, while still allowing coverage for people who needs such medications. I think that this is a pretty good compromise, I’m not really sure why you disagree. If this truly was an act of tyranny, there would have been no such compromise.

“No Congress and no President has the authority to negociate away First Amendment Rights”

But I think that there comes a point where First Amendment freedoms are limited. Rastafarianism for example is not given a religious exemption to smoke marijuana even though it is a religious sacrament for them.

We also have to accept some limitations to religious freedom, especially in this scenario because several religions don’t believe in surgeries or blood transfusions, yet they likely won’t get an exemption for covering these sorts of things. This is something that you’re completely ignoring.

“The Bishops were sent a clear message.”

And yet they were given exemption….so I’m afraid that this statement holds little weight in light of that fact.

To compromise requires 2 parties who negociate. The Bishop’s were never invited. Like the original mandate, the “compromise” was nothing more than a top-down mandate. In any event, one doesn’t negociate with enumerated rights. The Church obviously is being prevented from freely excercising its religion. Forcing it to participate and in many cases subsidize a therapeutic form of medicine that it has considered offensive to God ( and a Sin Sin) for 2000 years is the definition of tyranny.

“The question is should we allow a religious institution to cut their coverage costs because they don’t believe in a certain form of medical procedures?”

Which goes back to the religious exception. No Congress and no President has the authority to negociate away First Amendment Rights. This is just one area where ObamaCare’s true intentions come out. ObamaCare has nothing to do with healthcare and everything to do with power and control. There was no reason for the President to pick this fight other than to make clear where everyone stands in relation to the State. The Bishops were sent a clear message.

For starters, birth control is an acceptable and safe treatment for several conditions, including forms of bipolar disorder. So claiming that it is merely a lifestyle choice is misleading and false.

Second, the constitutionality of the question is whether and employee can opt out of coverage based on their religious beliefs. You claim that being on birth control is merely a lifestyle choice, and several people of various religions would argue that going through surgery or even blood transfusions is also a lifestyle choice.

The article doesn’t address the right to life, nor did the Catholic church raise that as an objection. The Catholic church isn’t trying to make the government accept their worldview about contraception, they’re saying that requiring them to cover something that contradicts their religious teaching violates church and state separation .

Blake this is very distinct from what you’re talking about.

The question that this issue raises is not when life begins or whether contraception is moral. The question is should we allow a religious institution to cut their coverage costs because they don’t believe in a certain form of medical procedures?

I’m not saying that in this scenario, the Catholic church was wrong or right. I’m thankful that Obama made a pretty sensical compromise (finally did something for once).

But I just think that we need to be careful when we open the door for allowing any institution to cut their costs that other employers are required to pay.

The right to life is a more fundamental right than any right of conscience.

The right to free birth control is not the same – it is not even a medical procedure; it is a lifestyle choice.

Defining birth control as “medical” requires that we change our definition of what medicine is and is not – instead of defining medicine in terms of what is necessary to maintain or restore health, we must redefine medicine in ways that ignores motive and questions of health, and focuses instead on the question of whether the product or service requires the involvement of a particular type of specialized professional for proper, risk-free dispensation.

Given the technologies we are probably going to be seeing in the next decade or three (involving all kinds of controversial potentials in reproductive, cosmetic, and other “lifestyle” technologies), where we draw the line between what is and is not medicine is going to have a huge impact on what – and who – we prioritize in the future.