The Corner

The ‘Compromise’

If I understand the White House announcement correctly, their 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 employees 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.

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 broader insurance policy, of course). But employers who offer insurance don’t pay for individual benefits and products when they are provided anyway, they pay for the policy that gives their workers access to those benefits and products when they want them. Under this rule, then, it would still be the case that as a result of being employed by a religious institution that provides insurance coverage (which Obamacare would require employers to do, or else pay a large fine), workers at that institution would have free access to contraceptives and abortifacients that they would not have had if that employer did not offer insurance coverage. So it’s still the case that the rule would require religious employers to purchase a product that violates their convictions, in the same way as the original rule (a fact also highlighted by the administration’s decision to retain the exemption for actual houses of worship in this new rule, just as in the old one). The choice for religious employers is still between paying an insurer to provide their workers with access to a product that violates their convictions or paying a fine to the government.

What ground is the administration giving in this compromise? And how is it any less a violation of religious liberty?

Yuval Levin is the director of social, cultural, and constitutional studies at the American Enterprise Institute and the editor of National Affairs.

Most Popular

U.S.

The Worrisome Decline of Patriotism in America

Independence Day is a time to celebrate our country, but with patriotic sentiment at perhaps an all-time low, this year’s holiday is also an opportunity for us to remember how excruciatingly lucky we are to be American citizens. With nothing but bad news filling our screens in recent months, love of country has ... Read More
U.S.

The Worrisome Decline of Patriotism in America

Independence Day is a time to celebrate our country, but with patriotic sentiment at perhaps an all-time low, this year’s holiday is also an opportunity for us to remember how excruciatingly lucky we are to be American citizens. With nothing but bad news filling our screens in recent months, love of country has ... Read More

Patriotism Is Becoming ‘White Supremacy’

Never before has a speech extolling America’s virtues and the marvels or the nation’s heroes played to such poor — and completely dishonest — reviews. At Mount Rushmore on Friday night, President Trump gave a speech that was very tough on the woke Left, while largely celebrating America — its ... Read More

Patriotism Is Becoming ‘White Supremacy’

Never before has a speech extolling America’s virtues and the marvels or the nation’s heroes played to such poor — and completely dishonest — reviews. At Mount Rushmore on Friday night, President Trump gave a speech that was very tough on the woke Left, while largely celebrating America — its ... Read More