The Catholic Bishops say it's not about contraceptives !
It's also about gay marriage and loss of control over their flocks.

NY Times
LAURIE GOODSTEIN
February 9, 2012
Bishops Were Prepared for Battle Over Birth Control Coverage

And there are a few hundred of them of them. A drop in the bucket in a country of 100 million active voters.

I'm technically Catholic, and I'm pro contraception. Every Catholic I know is pro contraception. I'm also pro-choice, and about half the Catholics I know are also pro-choice.

Just because the bishops are upset with Obama doesn't mean catholic voters are. And the ones who are, were probably not going to vote for him anyway.

It is not about what they believe they should do personally, it is about the Federal Government forcing a religious group to do something that goes against their belief. What's next? Are they going to tell Jews to eat pork? Get the point?

So do you guys believe that Federal Government should have the power to tell religious organizations that they are required to do something which goes against their belief?

He came out with what he wanted, solidified his base and measured the reaction from the rest.
Now that the polling is telling him to, he will compromise and come off as showing what a leader should.
Listening skills. This is a clear win-win to me.

In certain situations yes. Should the federal government ban polygamy? Yes. Should the federal government ban certain extreme aspects of Sharia Law? Yes. Those are hyperboles but I just wanted to make a point that this is not a yes or no answer.

No. The Feds are forcing the group to fund insurance that allows people to choose to go against the group's belief. The Feds aren't forcing Catholics to use birth control. Each person makes that choice on their own.

It's kind of like the Feds forcing me to pay money that is used to go to war in Iraq. I don't approve of that, but I have to financially support it anyway. I'm sure you can find examples of things you are forced to pay for that go against your beliefs.

And this ISN'T about churches, or about religious people. This is about EMPLOYERS and EMPLOYEES. The law as it stand will actually PROTECT churches in eight states where, currently, EVEN CHURCHES aren't exempt from having to provide birth control. In those eight states, now they WON'T have to. But a religiously-affiliated private employer, catholic or otherwise, will now be held to the same standard of health insurance coverage as a non-religiously-affiliated private employer.
Should it be legal if a religiously-affiliated school, or hospital, or bookstore, wanted to refuse their services or employment opportunities to Muslims, or to black people, or to gays? I think the vast majority of constitutional scholars would say, no, those are situations where their religious beliefs are outweighed by the civil rights of the customers or employees. This decision, along with Obamacare in general, adds certain basic standards of health insurance to the civil rights afforded to all Americans - including the provision that birth control be offered to all employees.


However, it's just been announced that a senior white house official has stated that the revised policy will allow religious employers to refuse to offer birth control coverage - and that the INSURERS, importantly, WILL still have to offer birth control to those employees of religious employers free of charge. I'm totally okay with that.

Ibs - thanks for the specifics of the compromise to which I eluded.
I didn't see enough to confirm when I posted.

ETA:

I think the POLITICS on this are clearly in obama's favor, but the POLICY, the legal standing, I also think is on his side - and even more so now, assuming that the revised policy does both provide birth control and keep religious employers from having to pay for it.

Agreed - as I said, this will be a win-win-win for him.

He gets the benefit from including birth control, takes away a talking point from the opposition
and further isolates the extremists who continue to complain.

The entity is the religious organization. It is a violation of the First Amendment. This is not a discussion of what individuals choose to do on their own. The Entity pays for the insurance. The should not have to fund something that goes against their religious belief.

But no they don't really or we would not have whole towns that engage in polygamy but we do. That is unenforceable.
But they don't, the SCOTUS just shot down the state of Oklahoma from outlawing certain aspects of Sharia Law via state law.

So you examples are actually not holding water.

So people with religious objections to the social programs of the Obama Administration are now "extremists"? Wow.

Giving consumer's the OPTION to purchase birth control is bad how again?

I don't see where this is infringing on a PERSON's religion, in fact I look at it just the opposite way. This should have been done all along.

Somehow you have it that taking away the right of the individual is OK.
Could you explain that to me. Cuz seriously, I don't get it.