But if we are to conclude that not to force employers to cover their employee’s contraception is “anti-women,” then presumably we can also conclude that the absence of the uninsured, poor, and unemployed from the provision is indicative of this administration’s deep-seated hatred of those outside of the work force? It would, of course, be as ridiculous and unfair to suggest that the president doesn’t care about the poor as it would be to suggest that Republicans oppose the HHS mandate because they “hate women.” The truth is that, aside from refuting the lie that contraception is difficult to come by or inordinately expensive, conservatives are flatly rejecting a mandate that imposes higher health-care and payroll costs on employers in order to cover something that is well within the grasp of most employed people — and does so at a time when unemployment is a pressing problem. (And this is before any discussion of the broader, and equally important, questions of conscience rights, constitutionality, and the proper role of government.)
Conservatives have to accept much of the blame for the state of things, as we have repeatedly fallen into the traps that have been set for us. Admittedly, certain high-profile figures and their inappropriate or ill-advised language have not helped us along the way, but the more temperate among us have failed repeatedly to remind America that what we are discussing here is essentially welfare for those receiving a paycheck and carrying a health-insurance card, and that t
here is no need to be your sister’s keeper when she can keep herself.
— Charles C. W. Cooke is an editorial associate at National Review.