Obama's birth control compromise: 'Still unacceptable'?
The president offers an olive branch on his new contraception law — but Catholic bishops aren't exactly thrilled by his overture
A free daily email with the biggest news stories of the day – and the best features from TheWeek.com
You are now subscribed
Your newsletter sign-up was successful
Retreat! After weeks of criticism, the Obama administration is offering an "accommodation" to U.S. Catholic bishops and other critics of a new federal rule that requires religiously affiliated hospitals, charities, and universities to provide their employees insurance with copay-free contraception. Obama's compromise, which he announced Friday, would essentially allow employers who object to contraception on religious grounds to usher employees into side deals with insurance companies, freeing religiously affiliated organizations from having to directly provide birth control coverage themselves. Will this satisfy the president's critics?
This supposed accomodation is "unacceptable": "There's a simple principle in Catholic moral theology," says Tom Crowe at Catholic Vote: "If you materially support another's grave sin and facilitate it knowingly, you are also guilty of the grave sin." What's the difference between requiring religious institutions to tell employees where to find contraception and having employers dish out the contraceptives themselves? Either way, the government is forcing Catholics to "support gravely immoral activity." This remains "a violation of the freedom of religion."
"Compromise or accomodation, it's still unacceptable"
The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.
Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
C'mon. This is a legitimate compromise: Look, says Scott Lemieux at The American Prospect. Obama's supporters should be happy: "Employees will still be able to receive contraceptive coverage at no extra cost." And the Catholic Hospital Association, for one, is "very pleased" with the religious exemption, saying that it "protects the religious liberty and conscience rights of Catholic institutions." It's only the "intransigent bishops" who aren't on board. The rest of us can see that this is a fair deal.
But who's going to pay for this? There's a big catch here, says Sarah Kliff at The Washington Post. The White House claims this is "a good deal for insurance companies," since over the long haul, covering contraceptives lowers the rate of expensive pregnancies, and thus becomes revenue neutral for insurers. But "there's a difference between 'revenue neutral' and 'free.'" It costs about $20 per person per year to cover contraceptives. "Unless drug manufacturers decide to start handing out free contraceptives, the money to buy them will have to come from somewhere." Obama's new rule puts the cost on insurers — who make their money from subscribers' premiums. It's hard to see how insurers won't pass on this new cost to the rest of us.
"The catch in Obama's contraceptives compromise"
A free daily email with the biggest news stories of the day – and the best features from TheWeek.com
-
Trump wants a weaker dollar but economists aren’t so sureTalking Points A weaker dollar can make imports more expensive but also boost gold
-
Political cartoons for February 3Cartoons Tuesday’s political cartoons include empty seats, the worst of the worst of bunnies, and more
-
Trump’s Kennedy Center closure plan draws ireSpeed Read Trump said he will close the center for two years for ‘renovations’
-
The billionaires’ wealth tax: a catastrophe for California?Talking Point Peter Thiel and Larry Page preparing to change state residency
-
Bari Weiss’ ‘60 Minutes’ scandal is about more than one reportIN THE SPOTLIGHT By blocking an approved segment on a controversial prison holding US deportees in El Salvador, the editor-in-chief of CBS News has become the main story
-
Has Zohran Mamdani shown the Democrats how to win again?Today’s Big Question New York City mayoral election touted as victory for left-wing populists but moderate centrist wins elsewhere present more complex path for Democratic Party
-
Millions turn out for anti-Trump ‘No Kings’ ralliesSpeed Read An estimated 7 million people participated, 2 million more than at the first ‘No Kings’ protest in June
-
Ghislaine Maxwell: angling for a Trump pardonTalking Point Convicted sex trafficker's testimony could shed new light on president's links to Jeffrey Epstein
-
The last words and final moments of 40 presidentsThe Explainer Some are eloquent quotes worthy of the holders of the highest office in the nation, and others... aren't
-
The JFK files: the truth at last?In The Spotlight More than 64,000 previously classified documents relating the 1963 assassination of John F. Kennedy have been released by the Trump administration
-
'Seriously, not literally': how should the world take Donald Trump?Today's big question White House rhetoric and reality look likely to become increasingly blurred