Hmmm. Well, if that's true...then Mitt Romney declared was on Christianity too. And he did it first.

Right?

It's as if we are to have a nanny state with one glaring exception.

That is, we are supposed to expect the all-powerful state to keep us from doing anything remotely or debatably dangerous, while it expects and encourages Americans of all ages to have unrestrained consensual sex..

This all comes from the liberal mind, which has dreamed up a new morality that happens to be "do whatever a liberal would want to do".

They also want to create a new form of legal marriage while undermining the traditional form in every way possible.

And we Republicans are supposed to shut up about it because it could lose votes among the brainwashed.

Is it just me or is the Corner a damned depressing place to be today?

"What is the federal government doing designating pregnancy as a disease?"

That's it exactly and it has been a long slide down the slope. Back in the day, pregnancy was not covered by insurance because it was a condition not an illness. (Coverage kicked in, of course, for complications of pregnancy like preeclampsia, &c.) Then along came the governmental edict that pregnancy must be covered the same as any other illness. Meanwhile, women were demanding the right to work right up to the day of delivery if they so desired (once upon a time, pregnancy leave was mandated by most employers).

Now they're demanding that preventing pregnancy is an illness?

There's nothing under the radar about it. Obama knows the only way he can win the coming election is if he can distract people by making them think that the Republican candidate poses a bigger threat to their personal freedom than he does. He's picking this fight intentionally so he can make outrageous claims about Republicans wanting to ban birth control; he knows the media won't call him on it.

If we take this bait we will surely lose. We need to stay focused on the economy, and on Obama's abysmal failure to create jobs.

The tyranny is in the coercion of paying for the contraception, whether directly or indirectly.

It isn't the government telling individuals what they can and can't put in their bodies. It's the Catholic Church.

The ones on the side of individual freedom here--the freedom to direct your own medical care--is the government. Conservatives are on the sides of an organizational right to impose their beliefs on their employees, transformed in their world-view to a kind of serf.

We are in this position because conservatives won't allow a decent public option, which leaves us no option but to keep this stupid system where most insurance is tied to employers.

it's a stupid system, but without it, all people with chronic conditions or sick family members would be tossed on the dustbin of of economic system (such as Romney, who's wife's MS would prevent his family from getting health coverage; or Santorum, who's disabled child would prevent HIS family from getting coverage if he wasn't enjoying the federal benefits he wants to deny other families with similarly disabled children).

Why is that more tyrannical than preventing fundamentalist Mormons from entering into plural marriage?

Now that you are losing, you are playing the righteousness card?
If this discussion isn't worth having, why did you get involved in it in the first place?
Are you actually trying to make the argument that society has the right to ban anything that is disapproved of in the Bible? For most of biblical history, polygamy was quite acceptable.