>>>>Right - if the Bishops are the ones telling these institutions they can't provide contraception then ultimately it's the women who get screwed (pardon the pun).
>>
>>Wrong, you invented that because it is more convenient. In the real world the religious employers still must include contraception in their health insurance cover.
>>
>>>>Correct - of course the Bishops are all against rubbers and sterilization (they want more members/money).
>>
>>The first is a widely understood religious principle. People who don't like it are not compelled to take jobs for religious institutions any more than a Jehovah's Witness must take a job at a blood bank or a Muslim take a job at Uncle Bob's Brewery if they caan't handle it. I know it has become popular to label coffee cups "contents may be hot" or label tin cans "do not consume" in case some idiot tries and next I suppose the bishop will have to wear a sign on his hat saying "this is not a condom" in case a female employee concludes he must have a very large member and decides she wants some of that. Society can go down that route or society can expect at least some common sense of itself and get on with it.
>
>
>This is the US we're talking about.
>
>Liberalization is quickly taking us down to the lowest common denominator. If Johnny can't read then we need to make sure all his classmates can't either so he doesn't feel disenfranchised.

Bill, we have been down this path before, and I am quite happy to find common ground with you, but liberalization is hardly the direction of this country. Quite the opposite.