This Week Inside the Capitol
February 13, 2012
Conscience “Compromise” Changes Nothing
by Rebecca Burgoyne
Research Analyst
On January 20 the Obama administration issued a policy announcement that - although churches and other houses of worship would be excused - church-based institutions such as hospitals and other charities would be required to cover birth control drugs in their health insurance plans. President Obama granted a one-year grace period for these religious organizations, such as Catholic hospitals, to work out the details if the policy conflicted with their beliefs.
A massive backlash from religious leaders ensued. The outcry - seemingly unexpected by the White House - was immediate and loud. The Catholic Church, evangelical and other faith-based organizations reacted to the implications of an administration unilaterally burying the First Amendment protection of freedom of religion to support a policy goal.
President Obama adjusted his decree last Friday with what he termed a “compromise.” Instead of requiring faith-based institutions to pay for the contraceptive coverage, which includes chemical abortion drugs and sterilization, the president mandated that insurance companies would supply the coverage free of charge. However, Mr. Obama’s adjustment in policy was nothing more than a poorly veiled accounting maneuver; in fact, many religious leaders have responded that this “compromise” was an offense to their intelligence.
The misguided policy shows either that the President does not understand the moral objections that pro-life citizens have to certain issues or he has chosen to ignore the sincerely held beliefs of millions of Americans to promote a political issue. If the administration can usurp such a basic constitutional right, what other freedoms can be obliterated by the state?
Moral and constitutional issues aside, nothing is really free, and for-profit insurance companies will pass along the added costs somewhere. While the administration claims the coverage will actually save money – that contraception is cheaper than delivering a full-term child – an unofficial estimate by Blue Cross said the policy would cost insurance companies $2.8 billion.
After extolling the accomplishments of President Barack Obama, U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-San Francisco) expressed dismay about the president’s contraceptive-mandate “compromise.” Following her remarks to the California Democratic Party in San Diego, Feinstein said, “I regret the fact that the president felt he had to do it, but he had to do it.” In reality, the President did nothing to protect religious liberty or lift his edict on contraceptives.
President Obama claims the purported compromise balances women’s preventive health issues with religious freedoms. Webster’s defines compromise as “ a settlement of differences by arbitration or by consent reached by mutual concessions; something intermediate between or blending qualities of two different things.” In this case, however, Planned Parenthood, NARAL Pro-Choice America and other supporters of abortion are cheering, while pro-life adherents are left with an untenable way to rationalize their consciences with an administrative gimmick. Freedom-loving citizens must continue the outcry; our consciences on fundamentals cannot be soothed by accounting tricks.
“All compromise is based on give and take, but there can be no give and take on fundamentals. Any compromise on mere fundamentals is a surrender. For it is all give and no take.” – Mahatma Gandhi
For more information:
Conscience “Compromise” Changes Nothing
by Rebecca Burgoyne
Research Analyst
On January 20 the Obama administration issued a policy announcement that - although churches and other houses of worship would be excused - church-based institutions such as hospitals and other charities would be required to cover birth control drugs in their health insurance plans. President Obama granted a one-year grace period for these religious organizations, such as Catholic hospitals, to work out the details if the policy conflicted with their beliefs.
A massive backlash from religious leaders ensued. The outcry - seemingly unexpected by the White House - was immediate and loud. The Catholic Church, evangelical and other faith-based organizations reacted to the implications of an administration unilaterally burying the First Amendment protection of freedom of religion to support a policy goal.
President Obama adjusted his decree last Friday with what he termed a “compromise.” Instead of requiring faith-based institutions to pay for the contraceptive coverage, which includes chemical abortion drugs and sterilization, the president mandated that insurance companies would supply the coverage free of charge. However, Mr. Obama’s adjustment in policy was nothing more than a poorly veiled accounting maneuver; in fact, many religious leaders have responded that this “compromise” was an offense to their intelligence.
The misguided policy shows either that the President does not understand the moral objections that pro-life citizens have to certain issues or he has chosen to ignore the sincerely held beliefs of millions of Americans to promote a political issue. If the administration can usurp such a basic constitutional right, what other freedoms can be obliterated by the state?
Moral and constitutional issues aside, nothing is really free, and for-profit insurance companies will pass along the added costs somewhere. While the administration claims the coverage will actually save money – that contraception is cheaper than delivering a full-term child – an unofficial estimate by Blue Cross said the policy would cost insurance companies $2.8 billion.
After extolling the accomplishments of President Barack Obama, U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-San Francisco) expressed dismay about the president’s contraceptive-mandate “compromise.” Following her remarks to the California Democratic Party in San Diego, Feinstein said, “I regret the fact that the president felt he had to do it, but he had to do it.” In reality, the President did nothing to protect religious liberty or lift his edict on contraceptives.
President Obama claims the purported compromise balances women’s preventive health issues with religious freedoms. Webster’s defines compromise as “ a settlement of differences by arbitration or by consent reached by mutual concessions; something intermediate between or blending qualities of two different things.” In this case, however, Planned Parenthood, NARAL Pro-Choice America and other supporters of abortion are cheering, while pro-life adherents are left with an untenable way to rationalize their consciences with an administrative gimmick. Freedom-loving citizens must continue the outcry; our consciences on fundamentals cannot be soothed by accounting tricks.
“All compromise is based on give and take, but there can be no give and take on fundamentals. Any compromise on mere fundamentals is a surrender. For it is all give and no take.” – Mahatma Gandhi
For more information:
- “Q&A: Obama and the birth control controversy,” the Sacramento Bee, February 10, 2012
- “Obama Revises Mandate: Free Abortion-Causing Drugs for Women,” LifeNews.com, February 10, 2012
- “What Compromise? This Policy Leaves Religious Liberty in Peril and Planned Parenthood Smiling,” AlbertMohler.com, February 10, 2012
- “White House didn’t foresee birth control backlash,” February 11, 2012
- “Obama Administration Offers False ‘Compromise’ on Abortion-Drug Mandate,” the Becket Fund, February 10, 2012
Fox Politics
- High Honors: Living Soldier Awarded Medal of Honor for Afghanistan Service
- JP Morgan CEO Dimon to testify before Congress
- Author shares audio of interview with Wright claiming he was offered money to stay quiet
- Rubio upset over US issuing visa to Castro's daughter
- Edwards' defense closes by arguing he sinned with his affair, but broke no laws
