Remember, the lawsuit is about religious liberty

It's funny how the media portray the lawsuit of 43 Catholic entities, which joins earlier lawsuits involving Catholic and non-Catholic religious organizations. I leave it to you to find all the myriad errors in the reporting and comboxes.

I will say this, though, that the media try to portray the lawsuit as being about contraception. First, that is only partially true. It is about contraception, sterilization of women, sterilization of men, surgical abortion, abortion drugs, in vitro fertilization, and artificial insemination. Second, it is about contraception only insofar as the government has illegalized health insurance plans that do not cover it (and the other products and procedures) and thereby forced religious organizations that object to these products and procedures from paying insurance companies to cover them.

They will talk about the "accommodation," and that Catholic (and other) organizations are not paying for the coverage, because it's on the insurance companies. I and others have dealt with this canard before, so I won't go much into it now.

They will talk about how the Catholic Church has become the unabashed tool of the Republican party. What they really mean is that they're ticked off that the Catholic isn't bending over for our "First Gay President" like good little tools of the Democrat party should. Remember how shrill Planned Parenthood became over the Komen Foundation and how they bullied and bullied Komen until Komen caved in to the bullying? Remember how Dan Savage (so aptly named) bullied kids to stop bullying gays? We should expect to be bullied and called all kinds of names, "Republican tool" being a rather tame one, because we're not falling in line behind Obama.

What they won't talk about, except as opinions of the Church hierarchy, is that this is really a religious liberty issue. People should be free to EXERCISE their religion. I suppose it's a matter of how one defines "free exercise." If by "free exercise" you mean freedom to do what the religion teaches during religious services inside a church building or perhaps a private home behind closed doors, but at any other time, no one has a right to act in accord with his religion, then well, I guess, the government is totally not violating the Constitution at all. But if that's your definition, your definition, well, frankly, sucks. I mean about the "free" part. "...nor restrict the free exercise thereof..." means Amish can drive horse-drawn buggies, not serve in the military, not have government mandated insurance at all, and all the other things that I really am not all that familiar with about the Amish but which set them apart from the rest of Americans. I think they're kind of strange, but you know what, I'm darn glad they're there.

No, "free exercise" means the government can't restrict me from acting in accord with my faith at any moment in my life. I can live and act in accord with my faith without government restrictions at all times. PERIOD. Don't like it? Fine, have the First Amendment repealed through the proper process. Then the Constitution will say something different, then you can do what you want. But for now, the Constitution says what it says, and until it says something different, this lawsuit is about religious liberty and how the man who swore he would uphold the Constitution has violated. He probably violated it with Obamacare (we'll soon find out, anyway), but he certainly violated it -- wantonly -- with this Mandate.

Yes it's about contraception. In pretty much the same way as an electric car is about using batteries. It is about contraception, but anyone who makes it look like that is the whole story is:
A) Lying
B) Trying to fool you
C) Thinking you're too much of an idiot to understand complex things like politics, so you should leave it to professionals like them and just listen to what they say
D) Hiding something
E) About to bully you if you disagree
F) Irritated that ANYONE could DARE oppose OBAMA and obey GOD instead
G) Ignorant
H) All of the above.

Maybe, just maybe, the government should let religions do what they want, unless it involves human sacrifice, assault, murder, theft, rape, or anything universally considered crimes by civilized people.