Obama's "diffusing" of the contraception issue is no compromise at all.
First he arrogantly mandated that Catholic hospitals provide their employees birth control and abortion pills. The only acknowledgement to Catholics was that they had "one year to comply with the mandate." How generous of them.
Now, since only because it's an election year, Obama felt the heat from groups seeing his bald faced attack on the First Amendment which guarantees the "free exercise of religion" and used his unwavering guile to craft a cynical "compromise." The compromise is this: that Catholic institutions, instead of directly giving their employees contraceptives and abortion pills themselves, must now instead purchase the plan - that the Catholic institutions must buy - that deliver the contraceptives for free. How clever. However it's a backdoor trick to get the Church to pay for the contraceptives without a paper trail. It's pure legalese - from the lawyer Obama. The only reason Obama is doing this is to avoid a legal paper trail leading back to the Catholic Church which would in turn "free him" from being accused of violating the First Amendment.
However Obama is just adding insult to injury. It’s like telling a religious organization in 1850 that everybody, including them, must provide your employees with a slave because “everybody is entitled to free labor.” Then the religious organization says, “no, not us” only to have the government retort that “okay, then you must pay for the slave trading costs, but not directly provide the slaves yourselves.”
Is that just? No.
About 100 years ago the Mexican Government began writing into law provisions that suppressed the practice of Catholicism. It began with one Constitutional inclusion. We can now see it beginning to unfurl today in America with Obama's latest legal provision forcing Catholic institutions to embrace his secular ideas and reject Catholic Church Teachings. The chronology of events leading to the open cold blooded murder of Catholics by the Mexican Government is captured hereand summarized below:
Calling themselves the 'Constitutionalists', the secular party that won election claimed "that they were not persecuting the Catholic religion but wanted to reduce the Church’s political influence. The Constitutionalists did not at first take any formal action."
But as their power grew and so their arrogance, they began to take more bold measures to suppress Catholicism:
"Anti-clerical elements were included in 1917 Mexican Constitution. Five elements in the Constitution were aimed at reducing the Catholic Church’s influence in Mexican domestic affairs. Article 3 enforced secular education in Mexican schools. Monastic vows and institutes were outlawed in Article 5. Article 24 prevented public worship outside the confines of the Church buildings. According to article 27, "religious institutions were denied the right to acquire, hold, or administer real property." Furthermore, all real estate held by religious institutions through third parties like hospitals, schools, was declared national property. Finally, in article 130, it declared all basic civil responsibilities like voting or commenting on public affairs was taken away from Church officials. The Mexican government was extremely harsh in their attempt to eliminate the Catholic Church’s legal existence in Mexico. The stern premises of the 1917 Constitution contributed to the rise of resentment between the church and state."
"all real estate held by religious institutions through third parties like hospitals, schools, was declared national property."
Is this much different under Obama? No. It is exactly the Obama Doctrine. We all recall hearing the media ask about and discuss "the Bush doctrine". Even Charlie Gibson belittled Sarah Palin for not immediately knowing "the Bush doctrine". But while the media never asks anybody, anybody at all, the question, "what is the Obama doctrine?", then Obama feels he has free space to implement his radical doctrines and agendas that systematically strip America of its freedoms.