Georgetown required that students purchase medical insurance. Students paid for coverage WITH THEIR OWN MONEY. They have NO CHOICE.
Some clergyman who DID NOT PAY dictated that contraception would not be covered even though it is standard in the state. Georgetown DID NOT DISCLOSE the religious exclusions BEFORE taking the student’s money.
Anyone who has ever fought with an insurance company must sympathize with the students. Anyone who repeats Limbaugh's lie about Ms. Fluke wanting contraception for free is a fool. She demanded coverage that SHE HAD PAID FOR.
An insurance company or agent who misled a purchaser in that fashion could be liable for damages and might be criminally liable if perhaps he misled THOUSANDS of purchasers over DECADES.
The Affordable Care Act (ACA) does not pay for medical care, but standardizes how insurance policies are sold and managed to prevent misrepresentation. While it will subsidize some insurance purchase, the citizen still chooses the policy. Those who claim that vouchers for religious schools are proper because the money is first given to parents who choose the school fail to apply that rule to citizens who purchase insurance that covers contraception or abortion with a similar voucher.
The conscience of one man never outweighs that of another when the second man's body or life is in question. The conscience of one man who is not PERSONALLY paying must bow before the conscience of the dozens or thousands of subscribers who ARE paying.
Fervent belief that one must "correct" others grants no "right of conscience" to do so. Courts correctly struck laws that advance one religion over another or over no religion at all. The "Lemon Test" requires that every law have an entirely secular purpose. Since opposition to both contraception and abortion appear to be entirely based on the religious dogma of "ensoulment", they fail the Lemon Test.
When one is licensed by the state, the license’s power is borrowed, not given. The licensee becomes an agent of the state and may not exercise borrowed power to advance religion any more than the state could. His "right of conscience" is limited to relinquishing the license. If Joe Citizen may not dictate a woman's reproductive choices then Joe Physician, Joe Pharmacist or Joe Administrator who differ only in their state license may not do so. Imagine if individual police officers or individual soldiers had the same "right of conscience" that some are now demanding.
Courts favor individual conscience over outside coercion and also honor the common-law right to privacy. Fear that someone else might be "sinning" grants no “right of conscience” to invade someone else's home or someone else's medical treatment. That was the basis of Rowe v. Wade.
Finally, those who have assumed the power to coerce are always unhappy when they lose that power. They always claim mistreatment while ignoring the abuse they have heaped on others.
Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 
