Update . . . worth reading

As the whole contraception/reproductive technology conflict continues, what is most troublesome is the way that the current administration defines the nature of the religious liberty enshrined in the Bill of Rights.  As I have long said, it is a protection of the right to worship and not necessarily a right of religion (as the administration defines it).

So in the case of Hosanna-Tabor before the SCOTUS, the administration came down against the church.  Its point was that there are reasons to abridge the rights of religious institutions when the interests of the state are above the right itself -- in this case requiring the church to observe rules of discrimination established by the government in the church's employment of those to whom it entrusts ministerial responsibility.

So in the case of the health care/abortion/contraception issues, only the explicit place of worship is defined as church and all other activities of the church fall under the domain of an ordinary employer, subject to the ordinary rules of law.  The extent of such redefinition of the right of religious freedom has great consequences for the future -- should this line of reasoning be continued.

Charles Krauthammer has reviewed the specific definition of church which is the working rule of HHS and Secretary Sebelius (herself a Roman Catholic, I believe) and how this new definition explicitly excludes all but the house of worship itself from the realm of church and its protection under the Bill of Rights.

Read it for yourself here...