"The Church, in this case the Catholic Church sought to restrict this access."
Total BS ... the Catholic Church absolutely did not attempt to restrict access to birth control in this case ... they simply exercised their First Amendment rights to state that they would not subsidize it through the insurance policies they pay for.
"98% of Catholic women report using birth control during their lives. The majority of them believe it should be a covered expense."
Are you intentionally obtuse, Dig? For the hundredth time, no one is disputing that birth control is a popular product and that most of us would like for it to be covered by our health insurance policies, BUT that does not give anyone the right to use the government to stomp all over other citizens' First Amendment rights and force to them to pay for our birth control, against their will and their religious beliefs, period. If we want birth control products, then we need to pull money out of our own pockets and pay for it. If we want our health insurance policies to cover birth control, then we need to request that coverage and: (1) pay the extra cost for it if it is available, or (2) if it is not available because our employer does not want to subsidize it, either get our own health insurance policy or get a new job where you can obtain such coverage.
"Obama's approval ratings went up as a consequence of the debacle."
Wrong - http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/cbsnyt-poll-57-36-margin-americans-oppose-birth-control-mandate_633501.html
"Yes. The People. The people told the Church what the rules are in the U.S. They have such a right. The people have the right to enforce rules and laws on Churchs and Corporations."
Total BS, yet again. There are no rules in the U.S. that force anyone ... ANYONE ... who has religious objections to the use of birth control to subsidize birth control for others. In fact, there's this "little" rule called THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION that explicitly states the exact opposite. American citizens have the right to let their opinions be known, yes, but they do not have a right to birth control - there is no such right, period.
"Public money gets strings. I want my public money to have strings. It does. Good. Don't like my rules because of your religious convictions (that of the Church, not its members) then don't take my money. My money, my rules."
I don't want my public money to have strings ... because I don't want the government to have any of my money to spend on unconstitutional, discretionary social spending in the first place. So, the government has stolen money from me for these purposes. The government doesn't even come remotely close to funding the majority of the educational activities at Georgetown University, so it doesn't get to run the place. If the government doesn't like what is going on at Georgetown University ... fine, let it pull whatever funding it does provide. And, oh by the way, I don't like thousands of items of discretionary, social spending done by the government, so, in the same vein, the government needs to send me a check for my share of those ill-conceived, spendthrift expenditures. Millions and millions and millions of Americans feel the same way.
"Birth Control pills run the gamut frmo cheap to expensive some patent protected, some not, side-effects vary, different ones are chosen for differnt people for sifferent reasons. There is no one "proven ... actual amount", ditto for cholesterol meds, blood-pressure meds, antibiotics, its pretty much the rule rather than the exception that costs vary widely, that effects and side effects vary widely, and the notion that some bloke in the vatican and a few folks on message boards are the right folks to make decisions on this is silly. Plesnty of insurance plans require the cheaper generic unless a specific need is demonstrated for the new fangled branded version."
Apparently, you have a reading comprehension problem, too. No one ... NO ONE ... has even remotely suggested that we have the right to tell anyone else what kind of birth control they can use. No, what we said was that Fluke clearly and ridiculously exaggerated her cost claim solely in order to falsely bolster her request for a nanny government to forcibly take money away from others and give it to her and her friends. This notion that Georgetown University or we here on this board are actively trying to prevent women from obtaining birth control is simply farcical on its face. No, we simply believe in respecting the First Amendment rights of our fellow citizens and do not want to see our government turned into a knuckle-dragging thug for the purpose of extorting and stealing money from some citizens for the enrichment of others.
| 
