I don't think you went far enough...

Your point is sound... I agree with you, but could you have missed something as well?

The issue isn't simply a matter of conscience on the part of Catholics and any other denomination that stands against liberal disregard for the culture of life.  It is the misunderstanding that forms the core of the liberal agenda in this nation.

Using the Catholic Church as my example, I present the following:

Of all that the Church teaches its followers on topics such as social justice, welfare and life in this society, I am convinced that at least 90% of it matches exactly what the liberals of this country want most out of our society.

    A society without the need of war, armed violence or capital punishment.

    A society where no man, woman or child need ever go without food, shelter or medical assistance.

    A society where every individual has the right to make his or her own choices in regards to what is best for them and their dependents, without coercion or force.

    A society in which the strength of the individual is not based on his or her race, religion, gender, or physical ability, but on the actions and agendas he or she takes in life.

    Most importantly, a society in which the sanctity of life is paramount in our understanding of where we fit into the greater scheme of the world.  All life is a gift, and all people are unique and priceless beyond words... from the moment they are conceived to the last breath they take in life.  That life, in its most vulnerable and fragile forms, is the responsibility of ALL people to protect and nurture... be it in the uterus, in the hospital bed, or sleeping in a cardboard box in an alley.

The Church does not teach that this MUST be the case, however.  No one can be compelled to charity and love for their fellow Man, it must be freely given and freely accepted.  We all have free will, and we all have the inherent ability to choose our own paths.  We can choose to give a portion of our earnings and wealth to those that need it most... but to be compelled to do so by a government not only negates the charity of the act, but lessens the amount of support given in every way imaginable.

The Liberals in this country see religion as a sort of string attached to charity.  No one who eats a free dinner at a soup kitchen in a Catholic church's "social hall" is ever required to attend Mass or convert from their heathen ways.  The vast majority of the people that Mother Teresa of Calcutta ministered to were Hindus, not Christians, and she never asked even one of the hundreds of thousands that she tended to convert.  Her charity to the poorest of the poor was freely given, without requirements or conditions.

Because the Catholic Church teaches "responsibility", it is seen as repressive and backwards.  If people make choices, they must be ready to take on the responsibilities associated with those choices... good and bad.  But it doesn't teach that the choices should be denied outright... even contraception, which is the main topic behind the most recent headlines.  The Church teaches that contraception is contrary to God's Law in that it artificially prevents life to begin in an act that results in nothing else... conception.  Its application in an individual's life is up to the individual, however... the Church has neither the right nor the means to deny the individual that choice.

To me, the crux of this whole issue isn't in the details of the agenda... it is in the agenda itself.  This is a fine and telling example of why "Obamacare" is doomed to fail:  government cannot remove the responsibility attached to choice from the individual and move it to someone else.  It cannot dictate the means that any single person must take in making life's choices, nor can it force an individual to provide for someone else to do the same thing.

Ryan's examples were very good... but could they be too remote an example?  If free access to contraception is a guaranteed right in this country under Obamacare, then will cosmetic surgery be next?  Will I be forced to put up a portion of MY earnings to allow someone working for me to increase their breast size by a factor of ten?  Should I be forced to pay for a portion of the cost associated with one of my employees who feels that his hair is getting too thin and wants to get it fixed surgically?  Will liposuction become a covered procedure under the terms of the coverage I am forced by law to provide?  Facelifts?  Penis enlargements?  Tattoos?

Obama's argument for this coverage under his healthcare reform plan was that preventing unwanted pregnancies saves the system money.  My counter would be that no form of contraception is 100% effective, yet making all forms available will only promote the "act" that makes pregnancy possible in the first place, while adding the medically-proven fact that hormonal contraception is directly linked to breast cancer and that implant contraception causes scaring and loss of fertility to the mathematics of the process, too.

It is as simple as this:  this sort of policy promotes the idea that we can live a life of free choice without cost or repercussion, and that this is somehow an inherent "right" promised to us by our government.

That is simply false, from start to finish.