He's announcing a "compromise"

Insurance must cover birth control and abortifacients

Church hospitals and schools must buy it

The insurer will say the church is not being charged extra.

...

August 16, 1937

"My dear Mr. Steward:

As I am unable to accept your kind invitation to be present on the occasion of the Twentieth Jubilee Convention of the National Federation of Federal Employees, I am taking this method of sending greetings and a message.

Reading your letter of July 14, 1937, I was especially interested in the timeliness of your remark that the manner in which the activities of your organization have been carried on during the past two decades 'has been in complete consonance with the best traditions of public employee relationships.' Organizations of Government employees have a logical place in Government affairs.

The desire of Government employees for fair and adequate pay, reasonable hours of work, safe and suitable working conditions, development of opportunities for advancement, facilities for fair and impartial consideration and review of grievances, and other objectives of a proper employee relations policy, is basically no different from that of employees in private industry. Organization on their part to present their views on such matters is both natural and logical, but meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government.

All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.

Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable. It is, therefore, with a feeling of gratification that I have noted in the constitution of the National Federation of Federal Employees the provision that 'under no circumstances shall this Federation engage in or support strikes against the United States Government.'

I congratulate the National Federation of Federal Employees the twentieth anniversary of its founding and trust that the convention will, in every way, be successful."

Franklin Delano Roosevelt to Luther C. Steward, President of the National Federation of Federal Employees

http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/library/primary-sources/president-roosevelt-against-collective-bargaining-public-sector

"perhaps a religious tax may help the US to fund religious charity. the tax would be collected by the government and handed over to the religious groups. the religious organizations could be paid by the state as well, at least the higher ranks like bishops, mullahs... people who not want to pay the tax must leave their religious groups."

Must says who? The Church or the Government?  Cause the Government is forbidden to by the First Amendment.

"He wasn't conceived in a way condoms or the morning after pill could have prevented."

Dunno, I do know that our Church has taught the unborn are human beings for 2000 years.

"41 And it came to pass that when Elizabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the infant leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost. 42 And she cried out with a loud voice and said: Blessed are you among women and blessed is the fruit of your womb. 43 And whence is this to me that the mother of my Lord should come to me? 44 For behold as soon as the voice of your salutation sounded in my ears, the infant in my womb leaped for joy. "

"The Roman Church can teach what it wants but that neither makes it true or gives it license to operate above the law."

The law forbids the Dept of HHS to repress the Church in the free exercise of its religion.

for 2000 years the Roman Church has taught that Christ was human and God from conception.

"As far as I'm aware forcing Christian and other religious institutions to pay the same contributions towards birth control and abortificants like everyone else won't actually prevent Christians or anyone else from practising their religion.  It won't stop them going to church, it won't stop them taking holy Communion/the Sacrament/any other appropriate term.

This law is not restricting freedom of religion; it is restricting the freedom of religious institutes to operate with exemption from certain laws.  There is nothing wrong with this, IMO.  One law for all, and so on."

for a few years the UN and one-worlders have been talking about FREEDOM OF WORSHIP which is distinct from US guarantee of Free Excerise of Religion

Going to a church service is worship
Preaching on a street corner is free exercise

And when a couple million people insist not paying for abortion, contraceptives or sterilization, directly or through insurance premiums, that's going to be tolerated as free exercise too.

It is religion that is guaranteed by the Constitution

the welfare state is not. 

This runs directly contrary to Obama's regularly touted vision of America justified by its govt programs

BRING. IT. ON.

No Justice, No Peace!

"It does not give them privilege to violate the law. This is why the catholic church is held at fault for not reporting when a priest goes on a jacking-off-10-year-old-boys spree, rather than being allowed to handle it internally without law enforcement/gov't intervention. When their religious beliefs say that jerking off 10 year old boys isn't that big of a deal, the law clearly trumps their religious beliefs."

Right, that's clearly on a level with not buying birth control for other people. The whole of the American experiment has been a black tragedy because of this failure of human rights, not buying other people birth control for them so they can not worry about paying for it.  Not.

And no, the law will bow to religious beliefs.  Or else.

OH NO YOU DONT

get back to getting elected

you had your chance to get in on the imprisonment

/me shoves Einstein out of the line

"No, unless you are saying that all sources of income are equal, which they are not. If it is one pile of money, then they would not charge extra for extra services, instead they have seperate charges for seperate services."

If that were so, they would cease the bankrupt service---once they don't, they are supporting it from successful ventures.

Also, in America shortly the government will define the basic plan everybody has to buy.  You will be shopping for customer service experience --which company gives you a better time selling you  the exact same product.

"A very simple answer, but what you are neglecting to realise that Abortion is seperate to the normal health packages."

Wrong.  Organization X cannot keep its debts separate from its income.  It IS all one pile of money.

"the separation of church and state is the basis for our modern western democracies. a state cannot rely on religious groups in matters that affect the interests of its citizens. states have to offer services for its citizens in cases e. g. of dangers for privacy (like abortions)."

OK, are you going to report me to the Western Democracy police?  What does that mean?
Christian values - especially the absolute divine worth of the individual "soul" is the basis for modern western democracy - imagine a Roman or Chinese emperor worried about the privacy

And if it involves the state it ain't private.

"The Yell, even if you were being forced to BUY full coverage, you still can't make that argument since you are part of a community. There will always be one person who will not need what you need, so if you were to deny coverage based on services that some do not need, then you would have to remove every service. "

Nope our govt is based solely on the Constitution.  The reality is without the Constitution we have no government, and beyond the Constitution, the govt has no authority.  I HOLD NOTHING IN COMMON OR IN TRUST FOR ANY "COMMUNITY".  My individual property and general liberty are guaranteed and those guarantees are superior to any laws made on behalf of the community; where they conflict, those laws are VOID.

actually no those are not rights they are optional laws created by people

we can make hunting cats for food, legal in every state

and I don't think gay marriage was favored by white men in 30 states and Congress in 1867, so, I have a hard time seeing how it was guaranteed by an Amendment passed by white men in 30 states and Congress in 1867
specially when it wasn't mentioned
and in fact they put people in prison for gay sex

but who knows maybe it was implied

as with freedom for whales