What "Compromise"?

Carol Platt Liebau | February 10, 2012 1:31 PM

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.

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.