Rick Santorum, despite clarifying his position of simply speaking out on social issues as opposed to enshrining them as public policy, is under assault for wanting to legislate morality and shred Constitutional rights. On the other hand, President Obama is in the process of pushing back the boundaries of religious freedom. After all, he did not admit being wrong with the initial HHS mandate rules on contraceptives and abortifacients. The so-called compromise was basically: "OK, these religious folks are overreacting, but to show how reasonable I am, I will give some ground." A fair question to ask the president would be "Did your original HHS mandate go just as far as the First Amendment permits? Or could religious institutions be required to go even further?"
We further know from the Hosanna-Tabor Supreme Court case decided in January that President Obama's Justice Department was seeking to extend the reach of labor laws deeper into religious institutions and was soundly rebuked by a unanimous decision from the court. This placed his administration to the left of even the most liberal members of the Supreme Court when it comes to religious freedom. So what we really have is Santorum, who is publicly stating that he would not use the power of the presidency to impose on the country all of his beliefs on social issues, versus President Obama, who has already done just that. Where is the more clear and present danger?