1. Sideloading:.....Why would generalized sideloading be needed in schools exactly? Tablets in this environment are learning tools which have programs and information which will be pertinent to the classroom and its needs. They are for classroom use. Functionality for transfer of information would be setup within the school specific apps and network.
2. iPad Setup: For a school you create a deployment profile, as you would in any business or enterprise and manage all of the schools ipads using that. You can make profiles for specific grades or even specific classes if teachers want to manage their own profiles. You can allow or disallow certain functionality, put all the apps you want for each class or grade, add all the texts, work assignments, etc. New assignments can be uploaded to appropriate devices as needed. Lessons completed would get forwarded for grading.
I'm not sure that managing profiles for schools would be costly at all when you can do it quickly and centrally for all iPads in the system.
But don't lots of people do demo's and stuff using Garageband? When people are starting out and cutting corners because they don't have a lot of cash, then garage band may be just what they need. Plus.... cutting demo's could be considered making actual content and thus it makes garageband a productivity tool for some people I would guess. You may be higher up on the food chain however.
Yep..... the iPad bluetooth keyboards work fine for data entry. Not sure what the fuss is. I have a much harder time with my old Dell netbook. The keys are a pain being only 94% of normal. Plus they just don't work as well as these chiclet type keyboards for me anymore.
Yep.... I concur. Great things can be done with tablets that can't be done by clunky laptops or awkward netbooks in certain settings. Sounds like the biggest gripe with tablets is they stink at document input. If that is all it is then I'm sure that someone could come up with something specifically built around document entry which would be far better than a laptop. Laptops are general purpose tools. Tablets are general purpose tools also, at this point they may have some deficits in certain areas that laptops can do fine at. But Tablets are better than laptops in some areas as well. Education and medicine are 2 areas where tablets really shine.
I know of lots of people who leave their laptops at home on business trips. In fact I know businesses which have switched to iPads for their mobile devices and it hasn't seemed to hurt them at all. Everyone has to decide for themselves. Usually, there needs to be a some sort of shift in how things are done, but this doesn't necessarily mean a sacrifice. It has more to do with learning a different way of accomplishing ones goals. Key being.... you can do it with an iPad if it works better for you and your business.
Precisely said AC. There are lots of things that make an iPad very useful, but it needs to be setup to do it. Somehow I believe the infrastructure as far as appropriate software was lacking and perhaps even more imperative is proper training using a new paradigm.
We do this too. It is really amazing. Most of our friends teach their kids a bit during summer. It is a great time for families to become acquainted in so many ways. My kids really mature during their summer time. They learn to be more self sufficient and learn to be more creative with their time and their friends. Summer is a blessing. Glad it is over now and kids head back to school tomorrow. I love the cycle of school and no school. Reminds me of the wondrous seasons.
Yep.... creativity begins with long summer days filled with trying to figure things our including where should I go, what should I do, and who shall I do things with. Kids really develop their independence and creative side during summer. They actually spend their best quality time with their families then. Year round school is really anti-family. Kids are just drones to be put through a gauntlet to satisfy false assumptions about learning and its importance.
Yep.... and if you look at SAT scores, they have gone up in almost every demographic. The problem is that overall they appear to be going down since newer groups of people are finally taking them. The newest groups who take the SAT usually have low scores which lead to the perception that SAT's are getting worse. There are a lot of people who have political interest in proving our education system is horrible. Fact is.... by an large it is not. Is there room for improvement? Certainly, but our system is not in dire straits or even bad. People just figure a way to make it statistically bad for their own interests.
I learned far more outside of school than I ever did in school. Learning to live, learning about life, nature, our planet. To me the most heinous thing I can imagine for my kids would be sticking them in year round school. They are not drones.
We should cherish the gift we give our children during summer breaks. They grow so much as people. They have much more profound interactions with their family, friends and all of the new people they get to know. No amount of education can account for this.
So when people start talking about all the learning they lose, I will always point to the greater complexity they gain as people. All of my kids are much better off at the end of the summer than they were at the beginning. So much experience, so many memories, an intense experience with the flow of time in a way they can't get by the regimentation of school. They actually have to learn to become more adaptable and think more outside of the box. And in the end... after a couple of weeks back in school they already surpass where they were the last year.
Your article choices are interesting. Not exactly science, but more like opinion of the science. It would perhaps be better if you listed the scientific articles you find so convincing and that lead you to feel you have correct information and actual insight into how healthy it is for people to remove a part of infants genitalia .
Which science will you stick with? I thought science isn't supposed to stick but move on if it is not really worthy so as to find better hypothesis. From what I can tell, the AAP picked some goofy science to make their case.
The other question could be in light of the studies put forth by the AAP as credible, can anyone take such an organization seriously when there are a number of flaws with the studies they picked, there are studies that find the opposite results, and they cherry picked their studies while ignoring studies that dispute their assumptions? What exactly are they trying to do and why?
The giant mass of kids do not have any problem with foreskin. And yet the recommendation is to remove it? Health outcomes for those with or without are about the same, so basically they are recommending expanding a procedure that costs 300-500 bucks for every kid. Seems like money might be a bigger consideration than the cherry picked science they are burping out to try to justify what they are recommending.
Removing it removes lots of genital tissue with its neural and hormonal tissue. It isn't simply an extra flap of skin like a stubbed toe.
Interesting..... When I was in medical school, the articles I read showed no real difference in the health of circumcised and uncircumcised individuals. The AAP even felt differently about this subject some 13 years ago. All of the sudden, they change their tune and do it with a bunch of cherry picked info that ignores the studies which have different conclusions from what they have proposed.
Then there is the tidbit of how going uncircumcised costs 313 per person... oddly a circumcision charge is 300-500 bucks so that is a curious entry.
The truth is 117 infants die every year because of the procedure in the US. How many die because of their foreskin?
1. The AAP chose to overblow purported benefits by cherry-picking studies and advertising their results past their proportionality, misleading the public with doublespeak of "pro" while admitting circumcision still does not qualify as routine amputation.
2. The AAP omitted both contradicting studies and objections to those it used, such as to the three WHO HIV studies.
3. The AAP omitted any discussion of the foreskin's functionality and notice of possible complications after circumcision (incl. death, an estimated 117 boys in the US per year).
This is not so much about health. It is about getting money back from insurance. If it is medically imperative then doctors can make the case that they should be payed for this procedure by insurance companies. The previous wording they used wasn't definite enough. It was vague Now they have made a bold pronouncement and it should be clear enough to make sure the cash is flowing for this "procedure".
You want other people to determine your reproductive health? Really? In some of these states with the most extreme bills even people with completely non-viable pregnancies like spinal malformations or hydrocephalous where nothing resembling a baby is going to come of it would be forced to carry the pregnancy to term. This unfortunate thing happened to some friends of ours and they had to make the devastating decision to end the pregnancy in the last trimester. It was horrific enough without having the state or religious zealots stepping in with their plans for your body. Some things are better left within families.
Yep.... that would be somewhere around 25 weeks at the earliest. But babies born that early typically have a very tough time throughout life. There are a few miracles, but most have many many problems even if they survive.
And since something along the lines of 79% of pregnancies embryologically speaking end in miscarriage, 4/5 of the women could technically be investigated to determine if something they did led to the demise of the embryo.
Smoking, Eating badly, Alcohol, drugs, living in polluted areas, taking the wrong kinds of medications????? Who knows where the thought police could end up.
The key part of the above being the fact that the appointment not being made during a "constitutional recess" not really mattering much in terms of presidential interpretation.
It is important to fill vacancies in government functions so the government can continue to do its job and the senate can still vote on the appointment and nullify it if needed when they get back from vacation. So there is not much of a real difference as irritating as it seems to the other side of the aisle. If the appointment stinks, the senate can cancel the appointment a couple weeks later if they want.
This has all happened before: Evans v. Stephens, No. 02-16424, at 5 (11th Cir. October 14, 2004).
"The court next found that the Senate break during which the President appointed Judge Pryor constituted a “recess” within the Recess Appointments Clause. The court stated the arguments that Judge Pryor was not appointed during a constitutional recess “are not so strong as to persuade us that the President’s interpretation is incorrect. . . . given the words of the Constitution and the history, we are unpersuaded by the argument that the recess appointment power may only be used in an intersession recess, but not an intrasession recess.”
"Next, the court found that “vacancies” need not arise during the recess in order to be filled. The court concluded that, in context, the Appointments Clause empowers the President to fill “vacancies that ‘happen’ to exist during a recess . . . . [a] view [that is] consistent with the understanding of most judges that have considered the question, written executive interpretations from as early as 1823, and legislative acquiescence.”
"The president cannot pick and choose when he deems a Senate session to be “real.”"
Actually a president can. The senate needs to have a quorum to do any business and since all of the senators were gone despite the house saying they had to stay meant that the senate was in fact a non-funtioning body and could be considered in recess. BTW... the house also left for the holiday so I find it funny that the house says the senate isn't excused and in the meantime they take the holiday break themselves. Gimmickry.
Fact is there was no congress in session... hence a defacto recess.
This is all a foodfight by a bunch of 3 year olds and has been for the last 10 or so years. It is political silly season and america is divided one group hating on the other and vice versa. We have the lame duck government we deserve because we are all swallowing the ideologic poison pills being lobbed at us by our corporate overlords... they couldn't be happier. We are a house divided and as long as this continues they can do business as usual and raid the public trust. We have a revolving door of government corporate graft. As long as Americans call each other Libtards and Retardicans.... they have us right where they need us.
I don't mean what I say as an attack and I certainly did not intend it in such a manner. I just disagree with your assertions and your narrative about what is happening. Certainly people can hold divergent view without them being considered an attack on the other person I should hope.
In response to your questions: "What will you do when the executive in power does not agree with your agenda?" I will admit to having no agenda really. But I am an interested observer in all of these cases. When president Bush did a bunch of recess appointments over the shenanigans of Mr. Reid in the senate I thought that it was a bit out of bounds, and in this case with president Obama I think it also is maybe out of bounds. However, I cannot say it is unconstitutional and it may not be found to be so when all is said and done. It will be the SCOTUS who will ultimately decide this and then we will have our answer. But I do think that this is all a symptom of our poorly functioning government.
"If the limits in presidential authority - in fact limits on power of the entirety of government are not defined by the Constitution, then where I ask are the limits?" Limits of government authority are always tested and have been as long as the country has been in existence. There is nothing new here. Our constitutional republic is fully operational, completely functioning, and the constitution is intact. We still have peaceful transfers of power and the balance of powers is still functioning although it is as always contentious and spirited.
"How far will they go? How much power is enough?" Power will always try to acquire more power which is why we have divided government and participation in government by people through a functional elections process. For the most part our system is still intact. My reservations primarily reside with the apparent erosion of the power of citizens to have any impact on the actions of our government. It seems that lobbyists and global corporations have more say in our system than the actual voter does and this is concerning to me. The question of how to get more power back into the hands of our citizens, which is the entire reason our country was founded seems to be a better question than worrying about the power structure of the government. If the citizens can gain more actual control then the power of government will be as it should be... in the hands of this countries great citizens and not worldwide corporate powerbrokers who can buy and sell senators and congressmen and maybe even presidents at this point.
1. Ok thanks for "boldfacing" that was of little help.... so I will repeat, recess appointments are made all of the time despite the gimmicks and shennanigans of the house and the senate. The fact is the Senate was in recess and the house was using the same sort of Gimmick Mr Reid used in 2007 when George Bush did the same thing. There is no exceptional power grab here. There are cases working their way through the courts and eventually will make it to the Supreme Court who will decide. Until the supreme court says that what Obama and Bush did is unconstitutional these are merely cases.
2. Firstly, the government doesn't tell religious insurers how to do anything outside of governmental systems. Religious insurers can do as the do now and will continue to be able to do as the do now in perpetuity which is a fulfillment of the first Amendment.
However, the government exchanges under Obamacare are government run exchanges. They may be state run or federal run if states like Florida continue to not set their own up. Any insurer applying to participate in the exchanges and offer services through the government run exchanges must abide by the constitutions of those states or the federal government. Most states have some sort of clause prohibiting the favoring of one religious ideology over another. Hence, the insurance companies offering the services through the exchange have to abide by the constitutions of the states and the federal government.
Now an insurance company can choose to not do the exchanges or offer services outside of the exchanges which don't provide for birth control or other services churches deem sin. Nobody is forcing them to do anything there. But when they participate in the governments system..... sorry... the constitution comes into play. The government cannot favor one religion over another. All insurers must follow the constitution.
My own state has this to say about religion and government... yours may be slightly different. Opinions concerning religion.
"Sec. 41. The Legislature shall not diminish or enlarge the civil or political rights, privileges and capacities of any person on account of his opinion or belief concerning matters of religion."
So don't come saying the government is doing something to religion when it is the religious organization seeking to become part of a secular governmental service provider. They can't pick and choose which parts of the constitution apply.
Slashdot Mirror
In reference simply to the article about schools:
1. Sideloading: .....Why would generalized sideloading be needed in schools exactly? Tablets in this environment are learning tools which have programs and information which will be pertinent to the classroom and its needs. They are for classroom use. Functionality for transfer of information would be setup within the school specific apps and network.
2. iPad Setup: For a school you create a deployment profile, as you would in any business or enterprise and manage all of the schools ipads using that. You can make profiles for specific grades or even specific classes if teachers want to manage their own profiles. You can allow or disallow certain functionality, put all the apps you want for each class or grade, add all the texts, work assignments, etc. New assignments can be uploaded to appropriate devices as needed. Lessons completed would get forwarded for grading.
I'm not sure that managing profiles for schools would be costly at all when you can do it quickly and centrally for all iPads in the system.
But don't lots of people do demo's and stuff using Garageband?
When people are starting out and cutting corners because they don't have a lot of cash, then garage band may be just what they need.
Plus.... cutting demo's could be considered making actual content and thus it makes garageband a productivity tool for some people I would guess.
You may be higher up on the food chain however.
Yep..... the iPad bluetooth keyboards work fine for data entry. Not sure what the fuss is.
I have a much harder time with my old Dell netbook. The keys are a pain being only 94% of normal. Plus they just don't work as well as these chiclet type keyboards for me anymore.
Yep.... I concur.
Great things can be done with tablets that can't be done by clunky laptops or awkward netbooks in certain settings.
Sounds like the biggest gripe with tablets is they stink at document input. If that is all it is then I'm sure that someone could come up with something specifically built around document entry which would be far better than a laptop. Laptops are general purpose tools.
Tablets are general purpose tools also, at this point they may have some deficits in certain areas that laptops can do fine at. But Tablets are better than laptops in some areas as well.
Education and medicine are 2 areas where tablets really shine.
I know of lots of people who leave their laptops at home on business trips.
In fact I know businesses which have switched to iPads for their mobile devices and it hasn't seemed to hurt them at all.
Everyone has to decide for themselves. Usually, there needs to be a some sort of shift in how things are done, but this doesn't necessarily mean a sacrifice. It has more to do with learning a different way of accomplishing ones goals. Key being.... you can do it with an iPad if it works better for you and your business.
Precisely said AC. There are lots of things that make an iPad very useful, but it needs to be setup to do it. Somehow I believe the infrastructure as far as appropriate software was lacking and perhaps even more imperative is proper training using a new paradigm.
We do this too. It is really amazing. Most of our friends teach their kids a bit during summer. It is a great time for families to become acquainted in so many ways. My kids really mature during their summer time. They learn to be more self sufficient and learn to be more creative with their time and their friends.
Summer is a blessing.
Glad it is over now and kids head back to school tomorrow.
I love the cycle of school and no school. Reminds me of the wondrous seasons.
Yep.... creativity begins with long summer days filled with trying to figure things our including where should I go, what should I do, and who shall I do things with.
Kids really develop their independence and creative side during summer. They actually spend their best quality time with their families then.
Year round school is really anti-family. Kids are just drones to be put through a gauntlet to satisfy false assumptions about learning and its importance.
Makes me sick really.
Yep.... and if you look at SAT scores, they have gone up in almost every demographic. The problem is that overall they appear to be going down since newer groups of people are finally taking them.
The newest groups who take the SAT usually have low scores which lead to the perception that SAT's are getting worse.
There are a lot of people who have political interest in proving our education system is horrible.
Fact is.... by an large it is not. Is there room for improvement? Certainly, but our system is not in dire straits or even bad.
People just figure a way to make it statistically bad for their own interests.
I learned far more outside of school than I ever did in school. Learning to live, learning about life, nature, our planet.
To me the most heinous thing I can imagine for my kids would be sticking them in year round school. They are not drones.
We should cherish the gift we give our children during summer breaks. They grow so much as people.
They have much more profound interactions with their family, friends and all of the new people they get to know.
No amount of education can account for this.
So when people start talking about all the learning they lose, I will always point to the greater complexity they gain as people.
All of my kids are much better off at the end of the summer than they were at the beginning. So much experience, so many memories, an intense experience with the flow of time in a way they can't get by the regimentation of school. They actually have to learn to become more adaptable and think more outside of the box.
And in the end... after a couple of weeks back in school they already surpass where they were the last year.
Your article choices are interesting. Not exactly science, but more like opinion of the science. It would perhaps be better if you listed the scientific articles you find so convincing and that lead you to feel you have correct information and actual insight into how healthy it is for people to remove a part of infants genitalia .
Which science will you stick with?
I thought science isn't supposed to stick but move on if it is not really worthy so as to find better hypothesis.
From what I can tell, the AAP picked some goofy science to make their case.
The other question could be in light of the studies put forth by the AAP as credible, can anyone take such an organization seriously when there are a number of flaws with the studies they picked, there are studies that find the opposite results, and they cherry picked their studies while ignoring studies that dispute their assumptions? What exactly are they trying to do and why?
The giant mass of kids do not have any problem with foreskin. And yet the recommendation is to remove it?
Health outcomes for those with or without are about the same, so basically they are recommending expanding a procedure that costs 300-500 bucks for every kid.
Seems like money might be a bigger consideration than the cherry picked science they are burping out to try to justify what they are recommending.
Removing it removes lots of genital tissue with its neural and hormonal tissue.
It isn't simply an extra flap of skin like a stubbed toe.
Interesting.....
When I was in medical school, the articles I read showed no real difference in the health of circumcised and uncircumcised individuals.
The AAP even felt differently about this subject some 13 years ago. All of the sudden, they change their tune and do it with a bunch of cherry picked info that ignores the studies which have different conclusions from what they have proposed.
Then there is the tidbit of how going uncircumcised costs 313 per person... oddly a circumcision charge is 300-500 bucks so that is a curious entry.
The truth is 117 infants die every year because of the procedure in the US. How many die because of their foreskin?
From Nicework there above who did some nice work in bringing some other info to this discussion:
------------------
There already have been two longer replies to the AAP's statement:
http://www.circumcision.org/aap.htm [circumcision.org]
http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/pdf/2012-08-26A_Commentary.pdf [doctorsopp...cision.org]
Their most important points:
1. The AAP chose to overblow purported benefits by cherry-picking studies and advertising their results past their proportionality, misleading the public with doublespeak of "pro" while admitting circumcision still does not qualify as routine amputation.
2. The AAP omitted both contradicting studies and objections to those it used, such as to the three WHO HIV studies.
3. The AAP omitted any discussion of the foreskin's functionality and notice of possible complications after circumcision (incl. death, an estimated 117 boys in the US per year).
This is not so much about health. It is about getting money back from insurance. If it is medically imperative then doctors can make the case that they should be payed for this procedure by insurance companies. The previous wording they used wasn't definite enough. It was vague
Now they have made a bold pronouncement and it should be clear enough to make sure the cash is flowing for this "procedure".
You want other people to determine your reproductive health? Really?
In some of these states with the most extreme bills even people with completely non-viable pregnancies like spinal malformations or hydrocephalous where nothing resembling a baby is going to come of it would be forced to carry the pregnancy to term. This unfortunate thing happened to some friends of ours and they had to make the devastating decision to end the pregnancy in the last trimester. It was horrific enough without having the state or religious zealots stepping in with their plans for your body.
Some things are better left within families.
Yep.... that would be somewhere around 25 weeks at the earliest. But babies born that early typically have a very tough time throughout life. There are a few miracles, but most have many many problems even if they survive.
And since something along the lines of 79% of pregnancies embryologically speaking end in miscarriage, 4/5 of the women could technically be investigated to determine if something they did led to the demise of the embryo.
Smoking, Eating badly, Alcohol, drugs, living in polluted areas, taking the wrong kinds of medications????? Who knows where the thought police could end up.
The key part of the above being the fact that the appointment not being made during a "constitutional recess" not really mattering much in terms of presidential interpretation.
It is important to fill vacancies in government functions so the government can continue to do its job and the senate can still vote on the appointment and nullify it if needed when they get back from vacation. So there is not much of a real difference as irritating as it seems to the other side of the aisle.
If the appointment stinks, the senate can cancel the appointment a couple weeks later if they want.
This has all happened before:
Evans v. Stephens, No. 02-16424, at 5 (11th Cir. October 14, 2004).
"The court next found that the Senate break during which the President appointed Judge Pryor constituted a “recess” within the Recess Appointments Clause. The court stated the arguments that Judge Pryor was not appointed during a constitutional recess “are not so strong as to persuade us that the President’s interpretation is incorrect. . . . given the words of the Constitution and the history, we are unpersuaded by the argument that the recess appointment power may only be used in an intersession recess, but not an intrasession recess.”
"Next, the court found that “vacancies” need not arise during the recess in order to be filled.
The court concluded that, in context, the Appointments Clause empowers the President to fill “vacancies that ‘happen’ to exist during a recess . . . . [a] view [that is] consistent with the understanding of most judges that have considered the question, written executive interpretations from as early as 1823, and legislative acquiescence.”
"The president cannot pick and choose when he deems a Senate session to be “real.”"
Actually a president can. The senate needs to have a quorum to do any business and since all of the senators were gone despite the house saying they had to stay meant that the senate was in fact a non-funtioning body and could be considered in recess. BTW... the house also left for the holiday so I find it funny that the house says the senate isn't excused and in the meantime they take the holiday break themselves. Gimmickry.
Fact is there was no congress in session ... hence a defacto recess.
This is all a foodfight by a bunch of 3 year olds and has been for the last 10 or so years. It is political silly season and america is divided one group hating on the other and vice versa. We have the lame duck government we deserve because we are all swallowing the ideologic poison pills being lobbed at us by our corporate overlords... they couldn't be happier. We are a house divided and as long as this continues they can do business as usual and raid the public trust. We have a revolving door of government corporate graft. As long as Americans call each other Libtards and Retardicans.... they have us right where they need us.
I don't mean what I say as an attack and I certainly did not intend it in such a manner.
I just disagree with your assertions and your narrative about what is happening.
Certainly people can hold divergent view without them being considered an attack on the other person I should hope.
In response to your questions:
"What will you do when the executive in power does not agree with your agenda?"
I will admit to having no agenda really. But I am an interested observer in all of these cases.
When president Bush did a bunch of recess appointments over the shenanigans of Mr. Reid in the senate I thought that it was a bit out of bounds, and in this case with president Obama I think it also is maybe out of bounds. However, I cannot say it is unconstitutional and it may not be found to be so when all is said and done. It will be the SCOTUS who will ultimately decide this and then we will have our answer. But I do think that this is all a symptom of our poorly functioning government.
"If the limits in presidential authority - in fact limits on power of the entirety of government are not defined by the Constitution, then where I ask are the limits?"
Limits of government authority are always tested and have been as long as the country has been in existence. There is nothing new here. Our constitutional republic is fully operational, completely functioning, and the constitution is intact. We still have peaceful transfers of power and the balance of powers is still functioning although it is as always contentious and spirited.
"How far will they go? How much power is enough?" ... in the hands of this countries great citizens and not worldwide corporate powerbrokers who can buy and sell senators and congressmen and maybe even presidents at this point.
Power will always try to acquire more power which is why we have divided government and participation in government by people through a functional elections process. For the most part our system is still intact.
My reservations primarily reside with the apparent erosion of the power of citizens to have any impact on the actions of our government. It seems that lobbyists and global corporations have more say in our system than the actual voter does and this is concerning to me. The question of how to get more power back into the hands of our citizens, which is the entire reason our country was founded seems to be a better question than worrying about the power structure of the government. If the citizens can gain more actual control then the power of government will be as it should be
1. Ok thanks for "boldfacing" that was of little help .... so I will repeat, recess appointments are made all of the time despite the gimmicks and shennanigans of the house and the senate.
The fact is the Senate was in recess and the house was using the same sort of Gimmick Mr Reid used in 2007 when George Bush did the same thing.
There is no exceptional power grab here.
There are cases working their way through the courts and eventually will make it to the Supreme Court who will decide. Until the supreme court says that what Obama and Bush did is unconstitutional these are merely cases.
2. Firstly, the government doesn't tell religious insurers how to do anything outside of governmental systems. Religious insurers can do as the do now and will continue to be able to do as the do now in perpetuity which is a fulfillment of the first Amendment.
However, the government exchanges under Obamacare are government run exchanges. They may be state run or federal run if states like Florida continue to not set their own up. Any insurer applying to participate in the exchanges and offer services through the government run exchanges must abide by the constitutions of those states or the federal government. Most states have some sort of clause prohibiting the favoring of one religious ideology over another. Hence, the insurance companies offering the services through the exchange have to abide by the constitutions of the states and the federal government.
Now an insurance company can choose to not do the exchanges or offer services outside of the exchanges which don't provide for birth control or other services churches deem sin. Nobody is forcing them to do anything there. But when they participate in the governments system..... sorry ... the constitution comes into play. The government cannot favor one religion over another. All insurers must follow the constitution.
My own state has this to say about religion and government... yours may be slightly different.
Opinions concerning religion.
"Sec. 41. The Legislature shall not diminish or enlarge the civil or political rights, privileges and capacities of any person on account of his opinion or belief concerning matters of religion."
So don't come saying the government is doing something to religion when it is the religious organization seeking to become part of a secular governmental service provider. They can't pick and choose which parts of the constitution apply.