The above title is the same as the article posted on National Review Online that covered an interview with Carl Anderson by Kathryn Jean Lopez.
The thrust of the interview is that 25% of Americans are Catholic and see a great danger in the Obamacare mandate forcing abortifacients upon people, and organizations, tied to faith. In other words, the First Amendment.
The objection of forced participation by those of faith is reaching critical mass (no pun intended) as more and more Catholic Church members are become active in their civil discourse. It brought an interesting question to mind when I was reading the interview -- How is this different than an individual seeking protection from forced enlistment in the military based on their faith, or beliefs? Other than the conscription into the military that is!
Conscientious Objector's have long been around historically.
In 1974, the Assistant Secretary-General of the United Nations, Sean MacBride said, in his Nobel Lecture, "To the rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights one more might, with relevance, be added. It is 'The Right to Refuse to Kill.'
Again, how is the opposition to killing an unborn child different than opposition of taking up arms in compulsory military service?
I think that a change in legal strategy is warranted or enhancement of the First Amendment legal argument to include the right to object to Obamacare under conscientious objector status. Liberals love that argument and provide safe haven for draft dodgers, maybe they will accept us as one of their own. Nah, forget I said that....Only when pigs fly.