BridgeRunner, aside from your initial comment that I was insulting my SIL, which was not my intention and I don't believe was taken as such, I've been frustrated by you taking the discussion into a whole slew of areas that I don't think are pertinent to my complaint with Obama. I know that others are doing the same, but I guess you've done so at greater length, and have been more confrontational. You (and Deselby) have been insisting that health insurance is a separate issue from religion and, if I understand you correctly, that there was nothing unconstitutional in what Obama did. Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on that.
I think it's possible to discuss what Obama did as it relates to the First Amendment without going off into discussions on the need for certain medications or other issues. That's why I'm frustrated. It's the same reason I was frustrated when Obama got the GM and Chrysler bond holders to take dimes on the dollar in the bankruptcy proceedings. It was extortion, and the media yawned. I think the case with the church is a big deal, and should receive more attention, and I'm frustrated that it's been (successfully) turned into an argument about contraceptives.
Certain unions, corporations and even entire states are exempt from Obamacare, all for political reasons. I'm not certain if the law has even reached the point where employers are required to provide insurance for all employees. If not, then how can the president single out the Catholic church and say that it must provide something that is against the teachings of the church? If the law now requires all employers to provide insurance, why do the unions and others get a pass, but the church cannot? (I hope I got that point across without muddying the waters with other issues).
The idea that the white house sat down and crafted obamacare based on religious ideas about birth control is ludicrous. There are plenty of obviously secular considerations that would lead to this, and that's why there isn't a constitutional, first amendment problem.
The White House didn't "craft" anything. Congress wrote the bill, even though not a single member knows even a fraction of what is in it. That said, your argument is backwards. You don't start with an idea for legislation, craft it, then say that the secular considerations are necessary, so the First Amendment will have to take a pass on this one. Legislation
should be crafted by first asking whether it is constitutional in whole or in part and then, if so, continuing to write the legislation.
Makattack has already shown that draft legislation has been written to allow for religious considerations. I've shown that American indian tribes have been exempted from federal drug laws as they pertain to peyote due to religious (First Amendment) considerations. I'm quite certain I can find other exemptions in laws for religious considerations, although if you want me to do so, I'll have to bill you for my time.
Obama stepped on a mine when he got involved in this, people howled, and his advisors scrambled to fix his mistake. The fact that this thread has veered down so many diverse paths is a testament to the skill of his obfuscation specialists.