A BURDEN ON THE FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION under my definition thereof yet precisely and accurately pursuant to Sherbert v. Verner [374 U.S. 398 (1963)] by the U. S. Supreme Court is created when a religious adherent is coerced to consent to a proposed temptation to violate religion in principle only in order to receive and/or be eligible for benefits and/or employment, both of which are not offensive to religion or else be punished for not doing so by being denied the otherwise available benefits and/or employment in question. The intensity of this temptation is that much stronger when it is always available instead of proposed as above indicated and if always available consequently the religious adherent is entitled the more to the religious freedom in question accordingly. However in both cases the religious freedom is limited only by the government’s showing that the limitation or restriction on religious freedom is the least restrictive means of achieving some compelling state interest. Nevertheless to the contrary the government is prohibited from doing so whenever the proposed temptation to violate religion is in practice instead of in principle only, regardless whatever the intensity is, as above indicated. Yet currently the judicial branches of the Federal and State governments are hiding what the precise and accurate definition of the burden on the free exercise of religion is under the Federal First Amendment to the U. S. Constitution pursuant to Sherbert v. Verner as above indicated. Moreover this is a crime under 18 U.S.C. 242 committed by all judges and lawyers lying to the public who in turn are justified to overcome it in the public interest which amounts to a real emergency imminent to continue! As conduct by the otherwise taxpayer which has a reasonable certainty to overcome this particular crime in question, the non-payment of one's taxes could be legitimized only however if the taxpayer already has within his knowledge at the time his or her Prolife Tax Strike began that the governments are illegally either [1] paying for abortion and/or contraception per se [2] granting tax-exempt or tax-free status to entities who lobby for, sponsor, refer as a "health" practice, and/or support abortion and/or contraception, and/or [3] allowing employers both governmental and private - to sponsor employees’ group health insurance ["GHI"] which includes mandatory coverage for both abortion and/or contraception. As a practical matter even the smallest town or municipality offers GHI benefits to its employees which include coverage for abortion and/or contraception. As such doing so is a crime. I'll explain below a portion of what I fully explained in my book titled "HOW ABORTION WILL BECOME UNCONSTITUTIONAL - The Complete Guide For Prolife Activists". [Send a typed self-addressed U. S. Post Office Priority Mail label, a $79.00 donation per copy plus a $9.00 S & H fee per copy requested to me Lawrence R. Rosano, P. O. Box 537, Franklin Square, New York 11010]. Today the U. S. Supreme Court and all lower courts apply the same judicial rules erroneously to resolve a problem for a petitioner who is prohibited to freely exercise his or her religious beliefs in practice by applying those judicial rules adopted by the U. S. Supreme Court correctly designed to resolve a problem for a petitioner who is prohibited to freely exercise his or her religious practice in principle only which after all was the only issue in Sherbert v. Verner. Subjectively speaking, a real and stronger pressure is required to resist a temptation to violate religion in practice, always available no less, than a mere temptation to violate religion in principle only where the State and/or Federal government or a private employer would otherwise be prohibited to coerce a religious adherent to violate religion in practice in order to become eligible for the employment and/or benefits in question. By keeping hidden from the public two distinctions why doing so is criminal under 18 U.S.C. 242, the U. S. Supreme Court is laughing behind the backs of "Prolifers" opposed to governmental funding for abortion and/or contraception, "who" after reading the power inside my book will find it hard to keep a straight face talking to proabortion activists who are attorney-politicians no less since I prove under Sherbert v. Verner which is still upheld today by the U. S. Supreme Court that Prolifers are entitled to oppose the alleged "legality" of the funding thereof. Briefly the first distinction is between a violation of religion and a temptation to violate religion. Even though the government or a private employer allegedly can tempt a religious adherent to violate religion per se nevertheless that does not mean also a coercion to violate religion necessarily exists. Yet even so still, a prohibited burden on the free exercise of religion exists under the Federal First Amendment. On this point, the U. S. Supreme Court held this: "A similar argument was made and rejected in Sherbert, however. It is true that, as in Sherbert, the Indiana law does not compel a violation of conscience. But 'this is only the beginning, not the end, of our inquiry.' 374 U.S., at 403-404. In a variety of ways we have said that '[a] regulation neutral on its face may, in its application, nonetheless offend the constitutional requirement for governmental neutrality if it burdens the free exercise of religion'" [at Thomas v. Review Board', 450 U.S. 707, 717 (1981)]. The second distinction is between a temptation to violate religion in practice and a temptation to violate religion in principle only. The former leaves open the possibility of committing sin and possibly be damned into Hell for all eternity while the latter prohibits doing so, although Sherbert v. Verner still realized a religiously offensive conditioning to do so, thereby leaving the religious adherent more susceptible if and when confronted with the former temptation to violate religion in practice. In a Prolife perspective, Pope John Paul II described this attack on relgious freedom as this: "grave and disturbing is the fact that conscience itself, darkened as it were by such widespread conditioning is finding it increasingly difficult to distinguish between good and evil in what concerns the basic value of human life" at par. #4 in his Evangelium Vitae, dated March 25, 1995. Now the most common example is GHI which coerces the GHI plan member to consent to a temptation to violate religion in practice in order to become eligible to file for and receive GHI benefits which are not offensive to religion. This is unconstitutional per se as proven below but important to understand now is that this temptation is not in principle only upon which the Courts' rules-to-resolve were based. Yet in dicta the High Court in Sherbert v. Verner [at 404, 83 S.Ct., at 1794] held this: "For '[i]f the purpose or effect of a law is to impede the observance of one or all religions or is to discriminate invidiously between religions, that law is constitutionally invalid even though the burden may be characterized as being only indirect [emphasis, added].' Braunfeld v. Brown, supra, at 607." In Braunfeld v. Brown [366 U.S. at 606, 81 S.Ct. at 1147 (1961)], the High Court defined "indirect" as follows: "an indirect burden on the free exercise of religion, i.e., legislation which does not make unlawful the religious practice itself." By extension, "indirect" can also mean likewise legislation which does not make legally obligatory the violation of religion. Yet to the contrary asking the Roman Catholic Church to sponsor GHI with mandatory coverage for contraception not only asks the Church to sponsor a violation of the free exercise of religion indirectly but to do so "directly" as well, thereby sponsoring what Pope John Paul II declared is "a materialism.. which breads.. utilitarianism (emphasis added) .. [where] (t)he values of being are replaced by those of having" at par. #23 in Evangelium Vitae. As pointed out in my book [p. 86, n. #84], utilitarianism is judicially a religious practice per se which as Pope John Paul II declared, "calls ‘evil good and good evil’ (Is. 5: 20)" at par. #24, Id. Consequently any laws coercing the Church to sponsor contraception coverage in GHI "discriminate invidiously between religions", Sherbert [at 404, 83 S.Ct., at 1794], and are therefore per se "'constitutionally invalid ...' Braunfeld v. Brown, supra, at 607." Id. Yet in 2004 the California Supreme Court held that GHI which included contraception coverage sponsored by the Roman Catholic Church was constitutional. Even though relying on Sherbert v. Verner, to the contrary that court applied the judicial rules designed by the U. S. Supreme Court to resolve a controversy regarding a temptation to violate religion in principle only as raised and correctly decided in Sherbert, yet erroneously applied that judicial rule to GHI which as I have pointed out above involves an entirely different claim based on a temptation to violate religion in practice. See Catholic Charities v. The Superior Court [10 Cal.Rptr.3d 283, 311-312, 32 Cal.4th 527, 562, 85 P.3d 67]. Finally Congress in 1958 by enacting The Code of Ethics For Government Service empowered taxpayers to conduct a Prolife Tax Strike by leaving open a possibility under the circumstances to do this: "Every person in government service should put loyalty to his highest moral principles and to country above loyalty to persons, party, or governmental department (e.g. the IRS, added). Uphold the Constitution, … and never be a party to its evasion... Expose corruption wherever detected.. ever conscious that public office is a public trust." Furthermore The Federal Ninth and Tenth Amendments empower taxpayers to take over when their government as here verified above lost its authority to do so. IN CONCLUSION: Based on my book mentioned above consequently "Why would any Prolifer choose to pay any taxes at all?" On the other hand, however, in case you do not have the faith to challenge the IRS, as indicated, above, then, at least, formally with a written complaint, reflecting my legal arguments also in my book, above, oppose your employer-sponsored anti-life group health insurance plan to [1] your employer, [2] the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and to [3] the Civil Rights Commission, including any such similarly situated forum, in addition, thereby, following Acts 5:29, as wel as the U. S. Constitution, as I indicated in my book.