The White House Just Confirmed Why We Have a VIP Membership
Republicans Sound the Alarm Over Biden's Latest Partnerships With the World Health Organiz...
The Biden Admin's Failing Foreign Policy Embarrasses America Again
Biden Breaks Silence on Pro-Terrorist Student Unrest
Why the International Criminal Court's Case Against Israel Is a Farce
KJP Stutters When Questioned About Who Is Funding the Pro-Hamas College Protests
Hundreds of UCLA Students Convert to Islam, Pray to Allah
A ‘Trans’ Athlete Will Compete in a Women’s Water Polo Championship, Again.
Pro-Hamas Protests Create Headache for Vulnerable Dem Incumbent Sen. Jon Tester
How Excited Should We Really Get Over This Michigan Poll?
NYPD Patrol Chief Has Best Response to City Official Upset Over Crackdown on...
A Fifth Body From the Baltimore Bridge Collapse Was Recovered
Senate Republicans Make Their Thoughts About Biden's Plan to Accept Palestinian Refugees K...
Another Country Severs All Diplomatic Ties With Israel
House Passes Bill Codifying Definition of Antisemitism
Tipsheet

What "Compromise"?

Not surprisingly, the "compromise" is nothing but a raw political effort to arm his allies with talking points, and "divide and conquer" -- that is, confuse or buy off enough critics to stop the uproar over the President's effort to trample America's foundational principle of religious liberty.
Advertisement

Carter Snead, law professor at Notre Dame, explains cogently the problem with the Obama administration's so-called "accommodation" when it comes to the HHS regs covering abortifacients and contraception (HT: Kathryn Lopez):

The original uproar across the ideological spectrum was in reaction to the administration’s requirement that virtually all religious employers cover abortion-inducing drugs, contraceptives, and sterilization in violation of their strongly held beliefs. 
Today’s rule still requires religious institutions (on pain of ruinous treasury fines) to purchase insurance that covers these same objectionable services.  It is irrelevant that the rule requires the insurance company (rather than the religious institution) to explain to employees that the policy purchased for them by their employer includes the 5-day after pill. For institutions that self-insure, the situation is even worse; they will be forced to contact their employees and pay for such services themselves.
It is no answer to suggest that the religious liberty of such employers is being accommodated because they are not “paying” for the objectionable services.  First, it is nave to imagine that the services are truly cost-free and that these costs will not be passed along to the employers who purchase these plans.   More importantly, the simple fact is that under this policy the government is coercing religious institutions to purchase a product that includes services that they regard as gravely immoral. 

Advertisement

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement