Now the subject is being debated again by Congress and by presidential candidates.

The Affordable Care Act became law in 2010. It requires employers to include coverage of birth control products in their medical insurance benefits.

This doesn’t apply to churches, seminaries, etc. with a strictly religious mission and staff. But it does apply to religious organizations with mostly non-religious activities – such as hospitals and universities that may hire thousands of non-religious employees and serve non-religious communities.

When the Catholic Church claimed the Affordable Care Act interferes with the free exercise of religion, the Obama Administration offered a shift in policy.

Birth control would be provided directly from the insurance company to the user without going through the religious organization. Even with this change, church leaders believe the policy still violates the church’s freedom.

Georgetown University, a Catholic institution, imposes a mandate of its own. If students like Sandra Fluke cannot find their own coverage, GU requires them to pay nearly $2000 a year for an insurance plan that does not pay for birth control prescriptions like most policies do.

Pregnancies are expensive and contraceptive benefits actually lower the cost to insurance companies. According to recent media coverage, 99% of American women of child bearing age have relied on contraceptives – which are prescribed for many health reasons other than birth control.

Recently a political commentator (with 4 wives and 0 kids) described women who request coverage of contraceptives as “prostitutes.”

Ninety two years
after the Nineteenth Amendment made women full citizens, a congressional committee held a hearing on the morality of contraceptives without inviting a single witness capable of becoming pregnant. It was all men and many of them had taken a vow not to have children.

So if you believe aspirins can be an effective contraceptive, you may want to stock up now.

While they’re still legal.

It was a simple vote, yes or no.

The members of the Energy and Environment Subcommittee could have made an exception to their rules. They could have allowed an HBO crew to videotape their session without getting permission first.

They voted not to do that.

The hearing was called to discuss an EPA finding that contaminated groundwater in Pavillion, WY, was probably caused by horizontal hydraulic fracturing. “Fracking.”

Josh Fox, who directed the “Gasland” documentary for HBO, refused to leave. “This is a public hearing!” he yelled as he was arrested, handcuffed and removed from the meeting room.

Mr. Fox claimed his crew tried to get clearance but the committee’s staff didn’t get back to them. He said the meeting was scheduled with a short notice.

“Gasland” shows household drinking water bursting into flames.

Why would committee members deny shooting rights to HBO?

There was plenty of room in the gallery – that wasn’t a problem. The crew used experienced pros. No way they’d disrupt the hearing.

The subcommittee wasn’t trying to hide anything – in fact it was webcasting the session. “Every word, every phrase, no editing…would be available…” promised Rep. Andy Harris, chairman.

Could it be some representatives wanted to make creating a follow-up to “Gasland” more difficult? Some thought the original was tree-hunging propaganda.

Denying the right to shoot its own footage could force the filmmaker to use the committee’s low-res, locked-down-camera footage – the kind of stuff that puts viewers to sleep.

Mr. Fox was held for a few hours and charged with a misdemeanor. No fine, no bail. Court date is February 15.

“We have rules that control who is recording” us, sternly declared Chairman Andy Harris.

The poor guy seems to have lost track of a more venerable rule that happens to be written into our Bill of Rights.

“Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or…”

CRANSTON, RI – In the public high school auditorium here, hangs a banner with words of inspiration on it.

In that same auditorium sits a junior. Jessica Ahlquist.

Jessica doesn’t believe in God and she doesn’t like the first words on the banner: “Our Heavenly Father.” She doesn’t care for the “amen” either. Speaking in front of a school board meeting, she asked to have the banner taken down.

There has been only one other complaint, from a parent, since the 4-foot by 8-foot banner was donated by the class of 1963.

The Cranston School Committee rejected Jessica’s request.

Last April she sued for violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion…”

Jessica teamed up with the American Civil Liberties Union. Her suit was heard by the Rhode Island Federal District Court.

Judge Ronald Lagueux ruled that the message is a prayer and that the government – school districts are a kind of government – can not sponsor prayer. He ordered the banner to be removed.

School committee member Michael Traficante thinks the order is wrong. He points out the banner isn’t very religious. Others agree that it’s more about school tradition and history than promoting religion.

People find it difficult to understand why the banner is a problem while the U.S. Congress is able to say a prayer before its sessions.

Mayor Allan Fung has recommended not fighting the order to remove the banner. Cranston’s school board may already have to pay as much as $50,000 for ACLU legal fees for the first trial.

Most of the debate has been polite. But there have been anger and resentment directed at the 16 year old.

Some Cranston florists refused to deliver the flowers ordered for Jessica when townsfolk threatened a boycott.

There are tweets like this one: “May that little, evil atheist teenage girl and that judge BURN IN HELL!.” Another reads, “… all us actually know the psycho @%?&.”

Ms. Ahlquist has attracted supporters as well as adversaries.

“In God We Trust” appears on our dollar bill. Moses is prominent on the Supreme Court building.

The Atheists in Foxholes Support Fund was created to provide $10,000 in assistance to persons who exhibit bravery in the cause of atheism. The Friendly Atheist blog has received $27,000 from more than a thousand donors.

“For a long time, I didn’t know these organizations existed.” the New York Times quotes Ahlquist as saying. She has more than 10,000 followers on Twitter and several Facebook pages are building support for her. Jessica even has her own Wikipedia page.

The banner still hangs in Cranston High’s auditorium. It will stay covered while the school decides if it will take its case to federal appeals court.

Quarrels over religion have flared up again and again. But, thanks to the First Amendment, they’ve been decided by lawsuits instead of mobs and pitchforks.

The decision was made by a guard at Big Muddy Correction Center. (The name alone sounds like cruel and unusual punishment.)

He ordered inmate Omar Grayson’s dreadlocks to be cut off. He didn’t have Mr. Grayson’s permission.

Even though Grayson is not African, Hebrew, Israeli or from Jerusalem, he is a member of a religious group named African Hebrew Israelites of Jerusalem. Not many people have heard of it.

Mr. Grayson filed a lawsuit that claimed his forced trip to the barber shop violated his First Amendment right to Freedom of Religion. He believes that, under his religion, it’s wrong to cut his hair.

Hairstyles and peyote have been blessed as religious rights. Marijuana, often used by Marley, has not.

Big Muddy usually allows dreadlocks for followers of the Rastafarian religion. Officer Harold Schuler didn’t explain why this hairdo was different.

Since not all African Hebrew Israelites believe haircuts are forbidden, a trial court rejected Grayson’s claim – ruling that his own personal religion beliefs didn’t matter. In other words, chill.

That’s when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit got involved. Its three judges said the actions of the correction center and the lower court didn’t make sense. Why an exception for Rastafarians? Are African Hebrew Israelites chopped liver or what?

The appeals courts said that even if the African Hebrew Israelites of Jerusalem faith doesn’t forbid cutting hair in every case, an individual member has a right to decide for himself. Each person can be a religion of one.

The appeals court ruled that Mr. Grayson has a right to sue the guard for violation of his rights, and returned the case to the lower court for trial.

Omar Grayson has been out of prison for awhile. We assume he still has a full head of hair and is re-growing those natty dreads. Whether his religion will allow the use of Rogaine is for the former inmate, and the former inmate alone, to decide.

What happens when deeply held religious principles slam up against the rights guaranteed by our Constitution?

There’s a national organization called Catholic Charities. CC serves more than 10 million people including Protestants, Baha’is, Muslims, Wicans, agnostics and followers of just about every other faith.

Catholic Charities does an awesome job helping couples give loving homes to adoptive and foster children. It’s important work and no one does it better.

But there’s a problem. CC got 62% of its funding, $2.9 billion, from taxpayers in 2010. They’re hooked on government money, mainlining on the public coffers.

Despite possible violations of the separation of church and state, everyone was down with the arrangement because it helped so many people.

Then, in 2010, the Illinois legislature voted to legalize civil unions and guarantee equal protection for same-sex couples. Illinois told the bishops it couldn’t fund programs that deny services to same-sex couples.

For the Catholic Church, gay and lesbian behavior is a sin, an absolute no-no. Church leaders faced a tough choice: to work with same-sex couples who wanted to be parents, or to lose all those taxpayer dollars.

Acting on principle, many Illinois dioceses closed their adoption agencies and moved social workers, administrators and children to new non-religious agencies.

Catholic groups in Washington, D.C. and Massachusetts have been made the same decision.

CC offered to refer same-sex couples to adoption services the same way they do unmarried couples. The state didn’t buy that idea.

“In the name of tolerance, we’re not being tolerated,” said Thomas Paprocki, bishop of the Diocese of Springfield.

“To add insult to injury, my tax dollars went to provide discrimination against me.” said Tim Kee (left).

Tim Kee and Rick Wade, his domestic partner of many years, disagree. “We’re both Catholic, we love our church, but Catholic Charities closed the door to us.”

Thomas Jefferson said the First Amendment builds a “wall of separation of between Church and State.” And it still stands.

Religion followed its conscience. Government protected the rights of its citizens. And as the Who would say, the kids are alright.

This is a civics lesson with a happy ending.

Are you ready for the War on Birth Control? Santorum says the Supreme Court doesn’t have the authority to declare state laws criminalizing birth control products as being unconstitutional. It did exactly that in 1965.

When the people of England rose up and forced King John I to cough up a few basic legal protections, the right to challenge being held in prison – called Habeas Corpus – was one of the biggies.

The U.S. Constitution says the writ of Habeas Corpus must be respected at all times except when the U.S. is under invasion or rebellion. It was suspended during the Civil War, for example, to protect the survival of the Union.

Our nation was attacked on 9/11. Question: Was that an invasion or just an attack? Are we still under invasion now, more than a decade later?

The Defense Authorization Act of 2012 calls for powers that could whittle away our Habeas Corpus protections.

Under the law, the military is given power to investigate terrorism inside U.S. borders; to detain, interrogate and imprison suspects without trial, until the end of the War On Terrorism – or forever, whichever comes first.

Traditionally the military has not had police powers inside our country. And definitely not the power to hold suspects without trial.

Some wiggle room was built into the new Defense Authorization Act. The president can decide to use the FBI and other traditional criminal justice agencies. Instead of the military? In addition to the military?

The military doesn’t particularly want these expanded powers. In fact it has a sorry track record of convicting terrorists. The CIA and the FBI worry that it will get in the way and botch their own investigations.

This broad new power scares the bejusus out a lot of people who a scholars of the Constitution and civil liberties. It should. Mistakes happen. Has your mail ever been sent to the wrong address?

During the Iraq War, large numbers of prisoners held for years at Gitmo weren’t enemy combatants.

Thousands of Americans were falsely hounded for being Commie agents during the Cold War.

Japanese-American citizens were imprisoned for the duration of WWII. In the 1980s, the federal government paid $20,000 to all surviving people who were interned.

Illinois discovered so many inmates on death row were innocent, the governor stopped capital punishments.

Lawmakers, the courts and the Executive Branch has made so many contradictory statements that the powers granted by this new law are hard to understand. Fuzzy laws are easy to twist. They beg to be abused.

The guys who wrote our Constitution feared invasion and rebellion as much as anyone alive today. But they feared confusion, hysteria, political ambition and the power to destroy innocent lives even more.

That’s why they wrote the Constitution the way they did

If you’re like most Americans, you didn’t know December 15 is Bill of Rights Day.

Nobody gets a day off from work. You have to feed parking meters. There are no blowout sales at the mall. It’s a civic holiday that “don’t get no respect.”

That’s a national disgrace.

The Bill Of Rights is the crowning achievement of our democracy. But somehow it’s not quite as sexy as the Declaration of Independence. To the guys who wrote the Constitution, it was an afterthought. They were burnt out from writing and fighting over the Articles.

But the Bill of Rights is actually more radical, more revolutionary than winning independence from England. It’s built on the idea that we, the American people, need to protect ourselves from – wait for it – our own government.

The Bill of Rights contains the real guts of our democracy. It defines how our government works for us as individuals.

The colonists were suspicious of government. They were a paranoid crew, these guys. They had won a long, bitter war to throw off a king’s tyranny. They were hell bent on creating a government that would not lapse into the same abuses of power.

The Bill of Rights is the first ten amendments of the Constitution. Basically it’s is a list of laws Congress isn’t allow to pass.

The rights it guarantees are awesome. Freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly and petition. The right to keep and bear arms. Protection from unreasonable searches and seizures. We have a right to a fair trial, to face our accusers, hear the charges and have a lawyer. Cruel and unusual punishment and unreasonable bail are forbidden. We even have rights not mentioned by name.

The creation of a Bill of Rights wasn’t a slam dunk. James Madison, who wrote most of the Constitution, didn’t think it was necessary. He thought the original articles he drafted provide all the protections we’d ever need.

But the Constitution wouldn’t have been approved by many of the states without the promise that a Bill of Rights would follow soon. They insisted on serious rights and protections. Three years later in 1791, they got them.

The Bill of Rights deserves a day of respect and commemoration just like the Fourth of July. Too bad it’s observed at a time of year when nobody shows up for pulled pork and softball.

There’s less chance of being falsely identified by a nearsighted eyewitness during the day. Of course there’s a better chance you could be identified correctly – a professional risk.

Eyewitness testimony carries a lot of weight with juries. But some reports have shown three out of four wrongful convictions involve eyewitness evidence.

The Supreme Court heard arguments in Perry v. New Hampshire last month. Barion Perry was convicted of theft after a woman testified she saw him from a distance, at night.

Mr. Perry’s attorney, Richard Guerriero, told the Supreme Court his client should be protected under the Due Process clause – and should have been allowed to ask the judge to withheld the testimony from the jury. Eyewitness evidence is “probably the leading cause of miscarriages of justice,” he said.

Justice Elena Kagan agreed but went on to say “Eyewitness testimony is not the only kind of testimony which people can do studies on and find that it’s more unreliable than you would think.”

Justice Ginsburg said defendants have many protections. “You can ask the judge to tell the jury, ‘Be careful; eyewitness testimony is often unreliable.’ You can point that out in cross-examination.”

Justice Kennedy said defense lawyers could remind jurors how often people forget who their waiter is. Justice Alito suggested that current rules would allow the testimony of a witness, raped in the dark by a man wearing a mask, to identify him from a newspaper photo weeks later.

The justices’ statements make it seems like the deck is stacked against an innocent defendant.

The idea is that it’s the job of the jury – not the court – to decide the reliability of evidence. Defendants’ lawyers should prove evidence is bogus instead of having the testimony thrown out.

Prosecutors have argued the purpose of excluding eyewitness identification is not to protect defendants but to keep the police honest, discouraging them from using unreliable witness.

“It’s both.” Justice Kagan replied. “From the criminal defendant’s point of view, it doesn’t really much matter whether the unreliability is caused by police conduct or by something else.”

Barion Perry would probably agree.

Two years ago, after a bruising battle, health care reform became law. There are still open, festering wounds and still the question remains:

Is the law constitutional?

The Supreme Court has decided to decide. *

Florida and twenty five other states are challenging the federal government which will defend the controversial 2010 law in court.

Medicine has come a long way. So has costs. They pose the single, greatest financial threat faced by the American family.

The justices could uphold the health care law as it is. Or they could kill it outright. They could strike down the mandate that requires Americans to have health insurance, but approve other provisions. Or they could decide to punt – by agreeing with a lower court that said it’s too early to make a decision.

The Supremes usually schedule one hour for arguments – they’ve cleared five and a half hours for this landmark case. The issues could affect the physical and financial health of every American family. Health care costs are about 15% of our economy.

Only one of three appeals courts struck down (killed) the mandate that all Americans must have health insurance or pay a fine.

The 11th Circuit Appeals court ruled Congress overreached its authority. They said the power to tax and shape interstate commerce doesn’t include ordering people to buy products from private businesses.

The Supreme Court justices agreed to look at two other issues as well.

One is the expansion of Medicaid. The states argue it forces them to cover more poor people and offer more kinds of coverage. If states refuse, they would loose “more than a billion dollar a year” in federal Medicaid funding argued Paul Clement, an attorney for the states.

There’s another issue the court may consider. The Fourth Circuit Appeals Court in Virginia ruled it wouldn’t decide on the health care law until the Anti-Injunction Act – which will change how taxes are handled – is totally in force in 2015.

None of the justices have recused (quit) themselves from this case. Justice Thomas’ wife was paid for her work by groups opposing the law. Justice Kagan was U.S. solicitor general when the healthcare law was developed. She insists she deliberately avoided working on the issue.

Justices cannot be forced to recuse themselves.

* Florida v. Department of Health
and Human Services