Faith and Law.
Since “A religious error is the main root of all social and political evils”, I define below the religious error that the Catholic Church has bought into hook, line and sinker for 49 years now merely because the U.S. Supreme Court hid it as a matter of law – although visible, unnoticed by anyone - its judicial lie, solely based on this religious error, follows:
By observation, a Prolife Catholic coerced to join a group health insurance [GHI] plan which includes coverage for abortion, contraception and sterilization is, by identity, coerced to, as above indicated: (1) violate religion in practice [by paying that portion of the Employee’s Share of GHI plan premiums which are used to pay for abortion, contraception and sterilization] and (2) consent to an always-available temptation to violate religion in practice [if not for him/herself, then also to tempt other GHI plan members, thereby cooperating with intrinsically evil practices formally by making this coverage in question available to them], as well. In 2004, the California Supreme Court coerced the Catholic Church to either sponsor contraception in all GHI plans, offered to all its employees who work at Catholic Hospitals and Catholic Charities, or else, be punished for not doing so by being denied the opportunity to offer any GHI plans at all. Yet in 2004 the Bishops caved in. Yet again in 2007 the U. S. Conference of Catholic Bishops caved in by adopting that policy as their own also. In 2010 the Government defined the term “contraception” to include abortifacients as well.Yet Sherbert v. Verner, pursuant to federal law, no less, upon which that 2004 California ruling was exclusively based was designed by the U. S. Supreme Court to judicially resolve only a set of facts and circumstances which in reality placed the religious adherent in question, Mrs. Sherbert, in the religiously offensive condition to consent to a proposed temptation to violate religion “in principle, only”, which again means never in practice, as opposed to the two religiously offensive coercions which I above designated as (1) and (2) which are both coercions “in practice”, not “in principle, only”.
In order to qualify for Unemployment Compensation Benefits, Mrs. Sherbert was asked whether she was ready, willing and able to accept the possibility of talking a job – in case a job was ever offered to her, that is which would require her to work also on Saturdays in violation of her faith as a Seventh Day Adventist [who regard Saturdays as their day of sabbath]. Yet when she answered, “No”, she became disqualified to receive the benefits in question. But according to the facts and circumstances, Mrs. Sherbert was coerced to consent to a proposed temptation to violate religion in principle, only. Why "in principle only"? Because had she only agreed to do so, Mrs. Sherbert would have received weekly checks for Unemployment Compensation Benefits until offered to take a job which might include a Saturday workday. Nevertheless, she would never be coerced to take any job which required her to violate her religion in practice since the State had ruled beforehand that she was “fired without good cause”. To the contrary, then, the truth is that this in reality otherwise qualified her for the benefits in question “because of her refusal to work on Saturday in violation of her faith” (as cited above). Consequently, this ambiguity conceals the Court’s true possibility to allow a Governmental imposition on religious liberty in some cases, while pretending to allow the Government to usurp religious liberty in cases (1) and (2), above, pursuant to the underlined passage above in Thomas. On the other hand, the religious error behind the HHS mandate - by identity the judicial lie in Sherbert - was prophetically refuted in Evangelium vitae by His Holiness Pope John Paul II at ¶73 and ¶74, as follows:
‘You shall love your neighbour as yourself’ (Luke 10:27): ‘promote life’.”
PRO-LIFERS' TAX STRIKE MAY BE LEGITIMIZED
 Note: Even assuming arguendo, here, the religious adherent is indeed strong enough to withstand the temptation in question, nevertheless he or she is still sinning from pride, known as the sin of presumption - i.e., by believing he or she will be saved by "his/her own efforts" without "God's help" or visa versa - which sin filters into their consciences in unsuspecting ways, especially in view that abortion and/or contraception are intrinsically evil practices.
 The California Supreme Court agreed with a lower court decision that the state's Women's Contraception Equity Act (WCEA) requires employers who provide prescription drug benefits in their health care insurance plans to include prescription contraception coverage. Catholic Charities of Sacramento challenged the constitutionality of the provision, specifically with regard to its right to the free exercise of religion. The court held that Catholic Charities was not entitled to an exemption as it did not meet the criteria of a "religious employer" as delineated in WCEA. Furthermore, WCEA "served a compelling state interest [emphasis, added] in the elimination of ... gender discrimination in the provision of health benefits"; had a "secular legislative purpose"; was valid and neutral; and neither advanced or inhibited religion. The California Supreme Court concluded as decisive its decision to do so as: “We therefore review Catholic Charities’ challenge to the WCEA under the free exercise clause of the California Constitution in the same way we might have reviewed a similar challenge under the federal (emphasis, added) Constitution after Sherbert, supra, 374 U.S. 398, and before Smith, supra, ….”, Catholic Charities of Sacramento, Inc. v. The Superior Court of Sacramento County, Dept. of Managed Health Care et al, Real Parties in interest, Catholic Charities, 85 P.3d 67, 91, 10 Cal.Rptr.3d 283, at 311-2; 32 Cal. 4th 527, at 562 (S.Ct.Ca. March 1, 2004).Thomas v. Review Board, supra, 716-717, by observation, thereby affirming, Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963).