It is morally permissible for Catholics to vote for Obama

1. First, Con argues that the President could take actions to mitigate the use of abortions. However, he has not shown how so. He mentions the Mexico City Policy however this isn't enough to prove that it actually lessens the use of abortion. Statistics show that what the law says regarding abortion has little influence on the demand for such a procedure[1]. Therefore, restricting access to abortions doesn't actually mitigate their use, it simply makes it dangerous for the women who wish to procure the procedure. It would seem that a safe way to mitigate the use of abortions would be to influence popular opinion on the matter instead of through legal channels.On the Supreme Court, Con has failed to defeat my point, which was that no matter the President's opinion on abortion, at best the President could appoint maybe a third anti-abortion Judge to the Supreme Court. It would be a different story if three or four Judges were going to retire soon but as I showed in the last round, this is unlikely. Con strawmans my argument by claiming I'm only relying on the past failure of conservative Presidents. This is false. I've shown that the President is almost completely powerless in regards to Roe v. Wade.2. On the failure to defend DOMA, I don't see how this defends gay marriage. Many people who are personally against gay marriage don't see it as the Federal Government's job to decide so and Con has failed to show why one must go through Federal channels to stop it. Furthermore, DOMA has been ruled unconstitutional in several Federal Courts and is under review by the Supreme Court, making it an executive non-issue. At the most, the Obama Adminstration could endorse it's repeal on the legislative side but even after almost four years in office and half of that time spent under a Democratic majority in both houses, the Act has not been repealed. Con can argue that Obama wants to repeal the Act but hasn't shown why he either can or will. Lastly, on the use of Obama's influence to to allow for same-sex marriage, Con has against failed to show causality. Not only has the President failed to successfully use his influence to repeal DOMA, but he's explicitly supported the idea that his own personal opinion on marriage should not dictate the view of others (the states).3. On the meaning of religious, Con would say that these exemptions are not enough as they don't define "religious institution" in the way Con agrees with. But Con has failed to show why institutions not covered under the Act should be. In fact, the standards for exemption are by themselves sufficient. On religious purpose as necessary to be a religious organization, I don't see how one can not understand this. A retail business that just happens to be run by someone who's Catholic cannot be considered a religious organization and hence cannot be allowed the exemption. Furthermore, I fail to see how Con calls something a Catholic charity when Catholic beliefs apparently play no role in the makeup or beliefs of that charity. An institution may call itself Catholic but if it's primary purpose is wholly secular, Con has shown no reason to legally call it a religious institution still. On primary employment, this has to do with the fact that an employee shouldn't have to follow their employer's religious values if they themselves are not Catholic. Con hasn't shown why Catholic doctrine justifies Catholic employers to use their power to necessitate the following of their own religious tenets by non-Catholics.===Sources===[1] http://www.nytimes.com...