ShareThis Page

The contraception mandate: An oaf's half loaf

| Saturday, Feb. 11, 2012

President Barack Obama, a self-professed "constitutional scholar," proved yet again Friday that he's a constitutional dunce.

Under fire for a baldfaced frontal assault on First Amendment religious freedoms that would have, with few exceptions, required religiously affiliated institutions to provide free birth control for their employees, the president announced a special "accommodation."

Such institutions -- hospitals, universities and charities, etc. -- now will be allowed to opt-out of the mandate. But their employees' health insurance companies will be required to provide free birth control.

It's pretty much a distinction without a difference, considering it's the religiously affiliated institutions that pay the insurance premiums and, now, with the revised rule, probably higher premiums.

As Horace Cooper, a real constitutional law scholar, put it, "(E)ven this exemption fails to accept that the government may not force citizens to choose between their faith or obeying the law regardless of where they work or who they employ."

Circumscribing the free exercise of religion -- directly or by proxy, as the "accommodation" makes it -- is patently unconstitutional. Or as Bill Donohue of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights reminds, "When it comes to the First Amendment, there is no such thing as half a loaf."

But there is such a thing as a constitutional oaf . And that's Barack Obama.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.