The Obama administration waited more than a year before cramming ObamaCare and its Individual Mandate down upon a reluctant Congress and an overwhelmingly-opposed American public.  It was another year-and-a-half before they determined to offend virtually all of religious America with the instantly notorious Birth-Control Mandate.  Now, having  staked-out the legal and political precedents for forcing American citizens to buy products they do not want to buy and forcing American businesses to provide products that they do not want to provide, the White House has become increasingly brazen in broadcasting, in the midst of an election year, its total disdain for those whose most deeply felt moral and social views it does not share.  Latest example:  the President’s immediate show of support for the nominal law student who believes it is the taxpayers’ duty not only to subsidize her path toward a lucrative legal career but also to reimburse the financial consequences of her voluntary sexual choices – apparently on the grounds that pregnancy is some kind of an illness or disease for which the only reasonable course of prevention or cure is the use of expensive devices or drugs –  and who further believes that the denial of insurance-reimbursement for such expenses amounts to an assault upon  women.  (Just upon women?  If the effect of the denial is either less sex or more-expensive sex with men, shouldn’t the male partners of these women also be considered victims of the assault?)  The student’s complaint is not that anyone has forbidden her to engage in sex or to practice birth-control, she is simply upset that other people do not want to pay for her contraceptives.  I mean, forget the constitutional issues, this woman is a spoiled brat.

The White House’s position has two ostensible elements:  (i) so many women have become so accustomed to using contraception so regularly, and have developed lifestyle choices around such practices, that it would be (unfair?  immoral?  harmful to our GDP?) to permit universities and employers to refuse contraceptive insurance to their students or employees as part of their insurance programs; and (ii) even if a university or employer is affiliated with a particular religion or religious organization, and the refusal to provide contraception insurance is based upon religious belief, the Administration’s wish to accommodate currently predominant sexual practices trumps the constitutional prohibition of governmental interference with freedom of religion. That is the “ostensible” rationale; as for the political motivation, one can hardly ignore the history of the Left’s antagonism, throughout the world, toward religion in general and the Catholic Church in particular.

For those of you who may be thinking this episode does not affect you because today, this administration is only coming after this group or that group, be forewarned:  today, they are coming after the Catholics; one day, they will come after you, too.