The New York Times is a convenient source of this story Birth Control Rule Altered to Allay Religious Objections.

The Obama administration on Friday proposed yet another compromise to address strenuous objections from religious organizations about a policy requiring health insurance plans to provide free contraceptives, but the change did not end the political furor or legal fight over the issue.

Some of us have been wondering for a long time why Obama even tries to compromise.  He sets a very bad precedent.

At what point should you be allowed to shirk your responsibility that 90% of the society believes you should fulfill?  When the Constitution says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”, is it OK to write laws specifically relieving some members of religious institutions from their responsibilities?

If you have a religious objection to something, shouldn’t you reimburse the government to compensate them for exempting you from your responsibilities to society.

War conscientious objectors either served in non-combat roles or alternative service or were sent to jail or fled to Canada.

Yes, I know.  These are all weak arguments.  There is no settling this disagreement by logic.