Has the Federal Government gone too far this time

The Affordable Health Care Act of 2010 mandates that employers who offer health insurance must include coverage for contraceptives, including the morning after pill, and sterilization.  A narrow exemption will apply to houses of worship.  But schools, charities, and hospitals run by religious organizations are not exempt.  The Catholic Church and some Protestant religions are up in arms.  Those in favor of the narrow exception are citing polls showing the high percentage of women, including Catholic women, agree that women should have access to contraceptives as justification, but they overlook or ignore the broader question.  Does a requirement that religious hospitals, schools, and charities offer contraceptives and sterilization violate the Constitution?  Most people don't know that the first two prohibitions in the First Amendment are "making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, . . .[and]  impeding the free exercise of religion."  These prohiblitions come even before speech and the press.  Based on the history I was taught, religion was the driving motivator for the early settlors to come here.  

Since shortly after it's founding, Catholic doctrine has prohibited the use of contraception just as it decries abortion.  If the doctrines mean nothing than how do we define religion?  I am not a Catholic and I believe that if more people used contraceptives there would not be so many children born out of wedlock to mostly poor women.  However, what I and the majority of people think about this narrow exception is irrelevant if it does not satisfy the First Amendment.  What the fickle public thinks should never be the reason for most things.  Consider what the majority of the citizens of California thought when they voted Prop 8 to ban same sex marriages.  Yesterday, the 9th Circuit ruled that the ban was unconstitutional.  If we say that it is okay that the Constitution prohibits a ban on same sex marriage but we should disregard the possibility that this same Constitution might prohibit a requirement that religious hospitals, schools and charties provide coverage for contraceptives and sterilization, we are talking out of both sides of our mouth.  We are engaging in ideological double talk.  We can't have it both ways.  Either the Constitution stands for something or it stands for nothing.   Further, It does not help resolve this issue of religious freedom by some people ridiculing clergy members, questioning a religious belief as outworn, or bringing up Viagra.

Debating the issue of whether such a narrow exemption to providing contraception unconstitutionally tramples on religious doctrine is one of the unintended consequences of broad and sweeping federal legislation, in this case, the Affordable Health Care Act.  It should be becoming clear that this law is doing more than just mandating that everyone have health insurance.  I think it is time we stopped spending money of polls, and start spending it on education.   An uneducated citizenry is the pawn of ideology.