Great article. Freedom of conscience/ religion will be the issue of the 21st century in the West as the 'progressives' gain more and more power through the ever-increasing size and scope of government.The idea of a citizenry possessing different beliefs cannot co-exist with the progressive doctrine of equality, so religious freedom needs to be severely curtailed, as we are beginning to see now, sadly.

*It is a totalitarian enforcement of an extreme feminism that sees children as something to be prevented at a woman's will and at someone else's expense.*

Err hang on there, why should children not be prevented at a
woman's will?

Payment of healthcare in the US for employees is a bit like paying
superannuation in Australia. It is part of workers wages, ie they
worked for it. It should not be up the employer to decide how
the super fund invests its money, as the money belongs to the employee.
Similarly it should not be up to the dictates of the
employer, to dictate to employees, what kind of birth control they
should be practising. That equates to trying to force your dogma
onto others, which is quite unreasonable.

A few points, Yabby.

1. The super fund does have the right to decide how to invest your money. You choose a package, but ultimately the fund decides what's on offer in that package.

2. The HHS is supposed to be about preventive health care. Contraception and sterilisation prevent pregnancy or cause an abortion in the early stages. Neither pregnancy nor the children it entails are diseases to be prevented.

3. When the existence of a child is prevented by an abortifacient medication, the father's will ought to be a consideration, not just the mother's.

4. An employer offers a job with certain conditions and remuneration. It is not the role of the government to insist that every employer in the USA pays its employees in birth control. For starters, this discriminates against men (who are not being paid in condoms even though that could constitute preventive health care), not to mention women who don't use birth control, women who don't have sex, women who have passed menopause... (I think you get the picture.)

5. If women want the freedom to decide what birth control to use, then all they have to do is take a prescription to the chemist and pay for it themselves. Catholic employers are not trying to dictate what birth control women use. They don't want to be involved at all. It is the US government doing the dictating. The employers just want pay their employees in the usual manner and let their employees sort out how they go about having sex.

A few points Mishka.

The super fund certainly has the right to decide where it invests
its money. If the employee is not satisified, they can move their
money to another super fund. The point is, its not up to the
employer.

Who said that health care is only about preventative health care?
In fact most health care is about treating people with all sorts
of afflictions, be they lifestyle, genetics, environment etc. Family
planning is part of healthcare, like it or not.

Women having children that they don't want or cannot afford, would
cause serious stress and indeed be damaging to their health.

An employer should not have to offer or pay for anything that goes against his conscience.

The Obama administration has said it's about preventive health care. This what we're talking about, the HHS's Affordable Care Act. I didn't make it up, the Obama government did. http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2011pres/08/20110801b.html

No one's suggesting women should have children they don't want or can't afford. You're making gigantic leaps, Yabby. Women have access to contraception already - the only change is that employers now have to pay for it. That's the issue. No one has said there should be any reduction in availability of contraception. And if the Obama government is so concerned about women's health, why is that pregnancy isn't covered? I think it's rather stressful on women knowing that the government will mandate a free sterilisation for you but not even help you with the costs of having a child you want. And given that the Pill may increase the risk of breast cancer I think contraception has more potential damage to a woman's health than the cost of having to purchase contraception herself. Last time I checked, paying for a prescription wasn't a health risk!

"Women having children that they don't want or cannot afford, would
cause serious stress and indeed be damaging to their health"

Not as damaging as having an abortion (see postabortion syndrome). No one regrets going through with the pregnancy because you get to look down at a smiling face.

But, contraception isn't even the issue as it's cheap and available everywhere. The issue is that Obama and the left get their thrills out of telling the Church what to do. Even Rick Warren who gave the inugural invocation for Obama has promised civil disobedience if Churches are forced to commit mortal sin by supplying abortion pills.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/290654/rick-warren-vs-hhs-mandate-rather-go-jail-cave-kathryn-jean-lopez

That's shows the extent to which violations of religious liberty are viewed as 'out-of-the-mainstream'.