In the 2012 election results I learned that just about everything I “know” is wrong. One thing I thought I knew was that the average American’s natural sense of religious tolerance would be grossly offended by the Obamacare contraception mandate. False!
And that the average American would find the administration’s hypothetical solution — the magical provision of the contraceptive benefit at no expense to objecting religious institutions (narrowly defined) — to be laughable. False again!
Indeed, Obama turned the whole controversy to his advantage with the help of George Stephanopoulos, Sandra Fluke, and a supporting cast of thousands.
I tried to follow the bizarre path of the forthcoming revision of the applicable Obamacare regulation in a series of posts including “Adventures in administrative law” and “Adventures in administrative law, cont’d.”
The saga continues. The Obama administration put off the decisive chapters in this story until after the election. Last week the powers-that-be released the proposed final rule and invited comments. The notice-and-comment process is par for the course of administrative rulemaking. My comment: still sickening, still farcical.
NRO has posted a more formidable set of comments than mine. Kathryn Lopez comments here. Grace-Marie Turner comments here. Professor Gerard Bradley comments here. At the American Spectator, Doug Bandow comments here.
It’s an amazing saga and it’s not over yet. Not close. And although I don’t understand our “toleration” of the imposition involved on religious objectors, it is a saga that has much to tell us about where we are and whither we are tending. Of that much I am sure.