It is morally permissible for Catholics to vote for Obama

Allright, the elections are over and Obama recieved around 50% of the Catholic vote. I am left with the distasteful duty of saying that many of my fellow Catholics have done grave evil. Hopefuly they have done so unwittingly and therefore inculpably; although it is not very hard to truly form one's conscience, as information is readily available, and it is a moral obligation to do so.Back to the debate:1. Abortion: Statistic bythe pro-abortion Guttmacher institute are suspect, particularly after the rather scandalous use of the "98% of Catholic womenuse birth control" study, which excluded, among others, women who stated they were not attempting to avoid pregnancy (and therefore all women who are faithful to Catholic teaching against contraceptives). I strongly recommend reading the article "How to lie with statistics" which debunks the study, and generally casts doubt on the Guttmacher institute's credibility as an objective source on these matters. (1)(2) I present to you the statistics in Spain given by the ministry of health during three different governments (both by the socialist and center-right parties) which show an increase in abortion as time went on from the moment of legalization to today. (3) The data shows roughly a 10% increase per year. Legal abortion means more abortion. The Mexico City policy prevented federal money from going to programs which would fund abortionor call for its legalization in Latin American countries. This was repealled and now money is indeed going to such programs which would increase the number of abortions, as well as spread the ideology which justifies it.My opponent also misunderstands my argument as to the Supreme Court. It is difficult to argue that immediate success being impossible on this issue it is moraly permissible to allow for counterproductive measures to be taken. There are only 3 justices according to Pro who are likely to rule against Roe vs Wade, how exactly does this make it permissible for a Catholic to vote for a man who will put in even more justices who will rule for it?2. DOMA: Seeing the current results on marriage referendums (the first in which marriage is actually redefined by popular vote) in which analysts and campaigners alike attribute much of the success to the support given by the President, this is a moot point. In any case, as with marriage, even if it is not under the purview of the presidency, the fact that it is an "executive non-issue" does not mean it is a moral non-issue. Catholics may not vote for a candidate that SUPPORTS intrinsic evils, even if he is unable to enact them. (see round 2 sources)3. Religious Freedom: Religious freedom and freedom of conscience are not merely institutional rights, they are human rights. People have the right to attempt to live in accordance with their conscience and faith, regardless of whether or no they are wearing a clerical collar. If I were to open a book store and hired a 20 year old wikkan, it would be an infringement upon this freedom of conscience for the law to compell me to buy my employee contraception against my deep moral and religious conviction against contraception. In not buying it I am not infringing upon my wikkan friends own ability to buy it with the money I pay her, but I cannot be a direct collaborator in something my faith regards morally unacceptable. This is the excersize of religious freedom, emphatically not the imposition of one's own religious values.Even if we were to limit ourself to institutions, however. We can go into terminology and ask if anything is Catholic enough, or we could look at what is actually happening. The current definition means that all Catholic Schools, Hospitals and Charities do not count as religious institutions. Parroquial and otherwise religious Catholic educational institutions, who educate over 2 million americans and do not ask for baptismal certificates in order to enroll would be fined 100$ per employee per day if they were to refuse to violate their own conscience. The same fate faces Catholic hospitals, which serve one out of every six hospitalized americans, would follow the same fate. Despite being founded by Catholics and with a Catholic identity (including having bishops on the board of trustees) do not ask for their patients to prove they have done their first communion, nor a qualified doctor whether or not he has been Confirmed to hire him. They ask if they are compitent and if they are willing to adhere to the institution's rules. Even the wide arrange of Catholic Charities, which serve 7 million poor people in the United States face the same three choices: violate their conscience, be forced to close by massive fines, or stop providing services to the needy. This is unconscionable, and a Catholic cannot morally support this. (4)Conclusion: The doctrine of the Church is clear. If a Catholic is to live in accordance to their faith, they cannot vote for a candidate who supports intrinsic evils. Obama does this in his extention and defense of abortion at home and abroad, in his support of the redefinition of marriage and most directly in his assault on the free excersize of religious freedom by Catholics. Therefore it is not morally permissible for a faithful Catholic to vote (have voted) for Obama.Sources:(1) Guttmacher Institute on contraception: http://www.guttmacher.org...(2) How to lie with statistics: http://www.whatswrongwiththeworld.net... (3) Ministry of Health Abortion Statistics: http://www.msc.es...(4) USCCB legal memo on the HHS mandate: http://www.usccb.org...