Obamacare vs. Regil

This President Obama guy just doesn't seem to understand the Bill of Rights thing.
Here I going to look at the First Amendment Right,

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; 

Of course nobody antagonistic to religion would confront that on it’s face. Attacks to the natural rights of, the people are side blinded.

The Hobby Lobby Hubub

ON March 25th the Affordable Care Act, better known as “Obamacare”, was back before the Supreme Court. Two years ago the justices upheld most of the law. This week they heard oral arguments in Sebelius v Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v Sebelius. These two consolidated cases concern Obamacare’s “contraceptive mandate”—the requirement that businesses offering their employees health insurance must provide plans that cover all federally-approved contraception methods at no extra cost to their employees.

Hobby Lobby Stores and Conestoga Wood Specialties are both owned by Christians who believe that some of those contraceptive methods are tantamount to abortion, because they can prevent a fertilised egg from implanting in the uterus. The owners seek an exemption to the contraceptive mandate under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), a statute that Congress passed almost unanimously in 1993. This says that “government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability”, unless the law is the least restrictive way to further a compelling state interest. (Many states have similar rules—see map.)

OK people. Abortion or what is considered  contraceptive methods are tantamount to abortion, because they can prevent a fertilised egg from implanting in the uterus. The owners seek an exemption to the contraceptive mandate under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA)

That was step one. Next step moves from Christians to the Jews.

The Economist