www.CatholicLiberty.com

Accommodation: Smoke and Mirrors


JOHN MCCORMACK

Source:
Weekly Standard
Type:
Media/Opinion
Date:
2/10/2012

Go to this article

Want to understand the Catholic faith?

ABSTRACTWhite House 'Accommodation' on Abortifacient and Contraception Coverage: Smoke and Mirrors | The Weekly Standard Tuesday, April 3, 2012 Login Register About FAQs Subscribers Only Contact RSS Loading Advanced Search home magazine April 9 - April 16, 2012 Vol. 017, No. 29 ( Download Digital Edition ) Editorial Forward, March! Undoing Obamacare A Lose-Lose Case Beware ‘Flexibility’ Ryan vs. Dempsey Features The Book That Drove Them Crazy Candidates in Orbit Articles Only in New York UNESCO Funny Business High Culture’s Paladin Obamacare for the Financial Industry Animal Desires Nuclear Utopianism Books & Arts Guilty Man Hee Hee=MC2 Leo the Great Night Vision The Alphabet Blues Slaughterhouse One Scrapbook Inside the Liberal Bubble Casual Laggard Parody But those jeans give me so much flexibility . . . blog video politics & government Foreign policy & national security books, arts & society cruise store newsletter subscribe You are here: Blog / White House 'Accommodation' on Abortifacient and Contraception Coverage: Smoke and Mirrors Hot Topics: 2012 Elections Congress Foreign policy Iran Mitt Romney Newt Gingrich Rick Santorum Syria The Blog White House 'Accommodation' on Abortifacient and Contraception Coverage: Smoke and Mirrors 12:16 PM, Feb 10, 2012 • By JOHN MCCORMACK Single Page Print Larger Text Smaller Text Alerts Alerts Hide Get alerts when there is a new article that might interest you. Send me alerts for: Bill Kristol Fred Barnes Jay Cost Your e-mail address: Confirm e-mail address:   Please sign me up for The Weekly Standard weekly newsletter.   The Weekly Standard reserves the right to use your email for internal use only. Occasionally, we may send you special offers or communications from carefully selected advertisers we believe may be of benefit to our subscribers. Click the box to be included in these third party offers. We respect your privacy and will never rent or sell your email. Please include me in third party offers.       Late this morning, a senior Obama administration official talked to reporters about the latest tweak to its mandate that private insurers must cover of contraception and abortifacients: "If a woman's employer a charity a hospital or another religious organization that has a religious objection to providing contraceptive services as part of its health plan, the policy going forward will be her insurance company, not the hospital, not the charity, will be required to reach out directly and offer her contraceptive care free of charge. So those institutions will not have to offer contraceptive coverage directly, and they will not have to pay for it."  Yuval Levin explains that the "newly proposed rule would not actually change the moral circumstances at issue in any way." The problem that opponents of the original rule have had is that it effectively requires religious employers to purchase a product (an insurance policy) that provides their employers with free access to contraceptive and abortifacient drugs that they would not have otherwise had, and thus requires those employers to purchase a product that violates their religious convictions. The new rule does exactly the same thing. More by John McCormack Wisconsin Gubernatorial Recall Election Set for June 5 Ryan Budget Passes House Confirmed: A Vote for the LaTourette-Cooper Plan Is a ... Will Moderate House Republicans Vote to Protect ... A Rocky—But Successful—Road for the Ryan Budget ... It puts religious employers in the position of having to choose between providing their workers with free (to the workers) access to contraceptives and abortifacient drugs or not providing those workers with health insurance at all (and also paying a large fine). The only difference is that the access to those contraceptive and abortifacient drugs would not technically be listed as one of the benefits the employer was paying for directly but would be listed as a benefit the insurer was paying for (with the money the employer paid for the bro.......