Maybe they can slip this into the 5 1/2 hours of arguments in front of the Supremes?

Of course it's unconstitutional.

P.S. Betcha Kagen won't recluse - even though there is ample proof that she dealt heavily in that sick/ill conceived bill. She has NO BUSINESS BEING A JUSTICE!!!!!!

This is what comes from Christians letting their adversaries frame the debate. In this instance, the argument was framed in 1789 with the ratification of Amendment 1's freedom of religion (read that freedom for polytheism) provision. Consequently, ever since, most Christians have not only been involved in the wrong debate, but they find themselves on the wrong side of the debate. I am astounded at how many pastors argue for instead of against the First Amendment's provision for First Commandment violations.

Christians hang their religious hat on Amendment 1, as if some great moral principle is carved therein. They have gotten so caught up in the battle over the misuse of the Establishment Clause – the freedom from religion – that they have overlooked the ungodliness intrinsic in the Free Exercise Clause – the freedom of religion.

For more, see "Amendment 1: Government-Sanctioned Polytheism" at http://www.missiontoisrael.org/biblelaw-constitutionalism-pt11.php.

Find out how much you really know about the Constitution as compared to Yahweh's moral law (His commandments, statutes, and judgments). Take our Constitution Survey at http://www.missiontoisrael.org/constitutionsurvey/constitutionsurvey.php and receive a free copy of the "Primer" (an 85 page book, normally $7 plus shipping) of "Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective."

Just testing here.

Of course, a good Christian can always just choose not to utilize these services. Nothing in the insurance policy says contraception or sterilization is mandatory if you subscribe. Are you saying you don’t trust good Christians to make good choices when presented with options? Or, perhaps, are you saying, if it was up to you, you would prefer good Christians to not have any options?

Christians and ministries must resist these unjust new laws and challenge them in court, rather than submit to this authority that is abusing its power.

Thank you for writing this. As a Catholic, I am sick at heart about what this president is doing. I'd like to add, as way of explanation for those who are not Catholics, that a huge part of the objection to providing these services is that it makes the Catholic employer materially complicit in obtaining services that we consider sinful, which means the employer partakes of the sin. If I pay for someone to have an abortion, I am complicit in that abortion. Contraceptive pills work as abortifacients; the mini-pill works solely as an abortifacient. The morning after pill--well, that one is obvious. As a Catholic, I cannot buy someone birth control pills, I cannot buy them the morning after pill, I cannot pay to have someone sterilized. It's not a simple matter of sort of not approving of something--if it could be left between the employee and her conscience, that would be one thing. But when it comes to abortion, it cannot. This aspect is not covered well in the media (surprise, surprise). Anyway, thank you again for talking about this, and the real reasons behind the Obama administration's decision.

In response to John, the issue is whether Catholic institutions that provide their employees with health insurance coverage should be compelled to pay for services or devices that the Church regards as immoral, irrespective of whether the employees are faithful Catholics, unfaithful Catholics, or even whether or not they are Christian. Contraception, sterilization, and abortion are, in Catholic understanding, violations of the universal natural moral law. Assisting people to violate the natural moral law is morally repugnant. I am grateful to Chuck Colson as an evangelical for his fair minded and fraternal attitude toward the Catholic Church.