Maybe it's a mistake; maybe not. But I believe EJ Dionne (an Obama supporter, in general) makes a point here that should be considered. For a start, he understands what being a liberal is, and how liberalism is a key element in the foundation of American morality and law.
Speaking as a Catholic, I wish the Church would be more open on the contraception question. But speaking as an American liberal who believes that religious pluralism imposes certain obligations on government, I think the Church’s leaders had a right to ask for broader relief from a contraception mandate that would require it to act against its own teachings. The administration should have done more to balance the competing liberty interests here.
And it was offered a compromise idea to do just that by Melissa Rogers, the former chair of Obama’s Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. (Rogers and I have worked together on religion and public life issues over the years, though I played no role in formulating her proposal.) In The Washington Post’s “On Faith” forum in October, she pointed to a Hawaii law under which “religious employers that decline to cover contraceptives must provide written notification to enrollees disclosing that fact and describing alternate ways for enrollees to access coverage for contraceptive services.” The Hawaii law effectively required insurers to allow uncovered individuals to secure this coverage on their own at modest cost.
Unfortunately, the administration decided it lacked authority to implement a Hawaii-style solution. The Obama team should not have given up so easily, especially after it floated a version of this compromise with some Catholic service providers who thought it workable. Obama would do well to revisit his decision on the Hawaii compromise. ...EJ Dionne, WaPo
Some time ago, I lived in a mid-size American city with a hospital system that was becoming over-burdened by an increasing homeless population. Though it's impossible to remember now the details of the situation, but it was something like this: a pregnant homeless woman was taken to a Catholic hospital in a situation where assisting in an early-stage miscarriage would have saved her life. You can imagine the rest. If only she could have been taken to ....
It's that kind of situation that makes flexibility* on both sides of the issue essential.
“The tensions and the suspicions on each side of the religious divide will have to be squarely addressed,” Obama said back in 2006. “And each side will need to accept some ground rules for collaboration.” I wish the president had tried harder to find such rules here. ...EJ Dionne,WaPo
___
*Using the word "flexible" in connection with "liberal" reminds me of what I most dislike about contemporary (Birch) conservatism, and that's intransigence and arrogance. "Immobilism," says Merriam. Reminds me of "lie back and think of Britain." Liberals have more fun.
