![\"The](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.dougsbriefcase.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/07\/credit-aclu.jpg\")
<\/a>The Sen\u00adate was the scene last week of the lat\u00adest skir\u00admish in the war on women, one of sev\u00ader\u00adal con\u00adtrived con\u00adtro\u00adver\u00adsies man\u00adu\u00adfac\u00adtured by the polit\u00adi\u00adcal class. [Cred\u00adit: ACLU<\/span>]<\/p><\/div>Resolv\u00ading con\u00adflicts is a core func\u00adtion of gov\u00adern\u00adment. Incit\u00ading them is a core com\u00adpe\u00adten\u00adcy of our polit\u00adi\u00adcal class.\n The habit of inflam\u00ading pas\u00adsions for polit\u00adi\u00adcal pur\u00adpos\u00ades was on dis\u00adplay again this week in the US<\/span> Sen\u00adate. Wednes\u00adday\u2019s show vote osten\u00adsi\u00adbly con\u00adcerned the right of women to receive \u201cfree\u201d birth con\u00adtrol from their employ\u00aders. But the leg\u00adis\u00adla\u00adtion, as its authors sure\u00adly knew, would not become law. If it did, it would result, not in employ\u00aders buy\u00ading more con\u00adtra\u00adcep\u00adtives for their employ\u00adees, but in more work\u00aders los\u00ading employ\u00adment-based health insurance.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n At issue was a bill to over\u00adturn last month\u2019s Supreme Court rul\u00ading<\/a> in Bur\u00adwell v. Hob\u00adby Lob\u00adby<\/em>. The case con\u00adcerned a gov\u00adern\u00adment edict that applies only to employ\u00aders that choose to pro\u00advide health cov\u00ader\u00adage to their work\u00aders. Such cov\u00ader\u00adage must include every method of birth con\u00adtrol with\u00adout cost-shar\u00ading. The major\u00adi\u00adty of the Court deter\u00admined that close\u00adly held cor\u00adpo\u00adra\u00adtions need not cov\u00ader those few con\u00adtra\u00adcep\u00adtives (4 of the 20 FDA<\/span>-approved prod\u00aducts) to which they object on reli\u00adgious grounds. Their rea\u00adson\u00ading rest\u00aded on the Reli\u00adgious Free\u00addom Restora\u00adtion Act<\/a>,<\/span> which pro\u00advides that gov\u00adern\u00adment \u201cmay sub\u00adstan\u00adtial\u00adly bur\u00adden a person\u2019s exer\u00adcise of reli\u00adgion\u201d only if it employs \u201cthe least restric\u00adtive means\u201d of fur\u00adther\u00ading its \u201ccom\u00adpelling interest.\u201d<\/p>\n The Sen\u00adate bill to over\u00adturn this deci\u00adsion (S. 2578<\/a>) failed on a pro\u00adce\u00addur\u00adal vote last Wednes\u00adday. The mea\u00adsure com\u00admands employ\u00aders to pay for every \u201citem or ser\u00advice \u2026 required under any pro\u00advi\u00adsion of Fed\u00ader\u00adal law or the reg\u00adu\u00adla\u00adtions pro\u00admul\u00adgat\u00aded there\u00adun\u00adder\u201d (sec\u00adtion 4(a)). It doesn\u2019t tri\u00adfle with ques\u00adtions about whether the gov\u00adern\u00adment has a com\u00adpelling inter\u00adest or even a ratio\u00adnal basis for its dic\u00adtates. Instead it con\u00adfers on the fed\u00ader\u00adal bureau\u00adcra\u00adcy ple\u00adnary pow\u00ader to tell employ\u00aders and insur\u00aders what they may and may not cov\u00ader. Under its terms a future Admin\u00adis\u00adtra\u00adtion could arguably ban cov\u00ader\u00adage of con\u00adtra\u00adcep\u00adtives if it were so inclined.<\/p>\n The mea\u00adsure explic\u00adit\u00adly dis\u00admiss\u00ades the pro\u00adtec\u00adtions of moral con\u00adscience con\u00adtained in the Reli\u00adgious Free\u00addom Restora\u00adtion Act as irrel\u00ade\u00advant (sec\u00adtion 4(b)). There is, the Sen\u00adate bill declares, no con\u00adstraint on the gov\u00adern\u00admen\u00adt\u2019s pow\u00ader \u2013 you are to do what it tells you to do notwith\u00adstand\u00ading your moral and reli\u00adgious convictions.<\/p>\n The bil\u00adl\u2019s stark for\u00admu\u00adla\u00adtion betrays its polit\u00adi\u00adcal pur\u00adpose. Its spon\u00adsors weren\u2019t mak\u00ading a seri\u00adous effort to change the law. They were try\u00ading to con\u00advince those women who tend to vote for Democ\u00adrats that Repub\u00adli\u00adcans want to take their birth con\u00adtrol away. Democ\u00adrats fear that many of these women won\u2019t vote in Novem\u00adber and are seek\u00ading to pro\u00advide some moti\u00adva\u00adtion, how\u00adev\u00ader flim\u00adsy, for them to do so. There\u2019s a war on women, the bill\u2019s pro\u00adpo\u00adnents say. Whose side are you on?<\/p>\n There is, of course, no war on women and no effort to cur\u00adtail access to con\u00adtra\u00adcep\u00adtives. Birth con\u00adtrol is abun\u00addant\u00adly avail\u00adable. And the require\u00adment that insur\u00aders and employ\u00aders cov\u00ader all 20 FDA<\/span>-approved drugs and devices remains intact, despite the nar\u00adrow excep\u00adtion that the Court carved out for a very small uni\u00adverse of companies.<\/p>\n Noth\u00ading in the Hob\u00adby Lob\u00adby <\/em>rul\u00ading dimin\u00adish\u00ades the ele\u00advat\u00aded sta\u00adtus that Oba\u00admacare extends to con\u00adtra\u00adcep\u00adtion. Cov\u00ader\u00adage of con\u00adtra\u00adcep\u00adtion remains more expan\u00adsive than for oth\u00ader pre\u00adven\u00adtive ser\u00advices for women\u2019s health like uter\u00adine can\u00adcer screen\u00adings, cov\u00ader\u00adage of which Oba\u00admacare has great\u00adly cur\u00adtailed<\/a>. It is also more expan\u00adsive than for drugs that are used to treat can\u00adcer (includ\u00ading uter\u00adine and breast can\u00adcer) and depres\u00adsion (includ\u00ading post-partem depres\u00adsion). The cov\u00ader\u00adage require\u00adments under Oba\u00admacare for med\u00adi\u00adcines to treat these and oth\u00ader life-threat\u00aden\u00ading con\u00addi\u00adtions are much less exten\u00adsive than the man\u00addates<\/a> that apply in the Medicare pre\u00adscrip\u00adtion drug program.<\/p>\n Enact\u00adment of the Sen\u00adate bill would like\u00adly have reduced the num\u00adber of peo\u00adple who get health insur\u00adance through the work\u00adplace. The bil\u00adl\u2019s broad man\u00addate applies to every firm that \u201cestab\u00adlish\u00ades or main\u00adtains a group health plan for its employ\u00adees.\u201d It does not apply to cor\u00adpo\u00adra\u00adtions that refuse to do so. This year, in defi\u00adance of the law [sec\u00adtion 1513<\/a>], the Admin\u00adis\u00adtra\u00adtion has cho\u00adsen not to impose a penal\u00adty on cor\u00adpo\u00adra\u00adtions that don\u2019t insure their work\u00aders. There is spec\u00adu\u00adla\u00adtion<\/a> that the IRS<\/span> may not levy penal\u00adties next year either. But even if it does, the penal\u00adty for not cov\u00ader\u00ading cer\u00adtain forms of con\u00adtra\u00adcep\u00adtion is 18 times larg\u00ader ($36,500 per work\u00ader per year) than the penal\u00adty for not pro\u00advid\u00ading any health cov\u00ader\u00adage at all ($2,000 per work\u00ader per year). If Con\u00adgress were to over\u00adturn the Hob\u00adby Lob\u00adby <\/em>deci\u00adsion, the only prac\u00adti\u00adcal option left for an employ\u00ader who con\u00adsci\u00aden\u00adtious\u00adly objects to cer\u00adtain forms of birth con\u00adtrol would be to drop its group health plan entirely.<\/p>\n Why force that choice? If the over\u00adrid\u00ading pol\u00adi\u00adcy goal is to pro\u00advide insured women of child\u00adbear\u00ading age with con\u00adtra\u00adcep\u00adtion that is free at the phar\u00adma\u00adcy counter, then why pick a fight with employ\u00aders who object to cer\u00adtain forms of birth con\u00adtrol? Why not make some oth\u00ader arrange\u00adment that would allow employ\u00adees of such com\u00adpa\u00adnies to get their \u201cfree\u201d con\u00adtra\u00adcep\u00adtives with\u00adout requir\u00ading their employ\u00ader to pay for drugs and devices they find objec\u00adtion\u00adable on reli\u00adgious grounds?<\/p>\n This is a solv\u00adable prob\u00adlem. But solv\u00ading it would elim\u00adi\u00adnate a use\u00adful polit\u00adi\u00adcal con\u00adtro\u00adver\u00adsy. This sort of syn\u00adthet\u00adic con\u00adtro\u00adver\u00adsy has become a sta\u00adple of both polit\u00adi\u00adcal par\u00adties. It is far eas\u00adi\u00ader to incite than unite, to con\u00adjure and per\u00adpet\u00adu\u00adate crises than to resolve them. The rewards of stir\u00adring ani\u00admos\u00adi\u00adty are imme\u00addi\u00adate and mea\u00adsur\u00adable, the dam\u00adage less obvi\u00adous if more lasting.<\/p>\n But what if the Pres\u00adi\u00addent were to approach this issue dif\u00adfer\u00adent\u00adly? What if he sought a solu\u00adtion that both pro\u00advid\u00aded \u201cfree\u201d con\u00adtra\u00adcep\u00adtives and accom\u00admo\u00addat\u00aded the deeply held reli\u00adgious beliefs of a small group of employers?<\/p>\n That approach to lead\u00ader\u00adship, so rare in both par\u00adties, might make pol\u00adi\u00adtics less caus\u00adtic and more productive.<\/p>\n Which, per\u00adhaps, explains why it won\u2019t happen.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Resolv\u00ading con\u00adflicts is a core func\u00adtion of gov\u00adern\u00adment. Incit\u00ading them is a core com\u00adpe\u00adten\u00adcy of our polit\u00adi\u00adcal class. The habit of inflam\u00ading pas\u00adsions for polit\u00adi\u00adcal pur\u00adpos\u00ades was on dis\u00adplay again this week in the US<\/span> Sen\u00adate. Wednes\u00adday\u2019s show vote osten\u00adsi\u00adbly con\u00adcerned \u2026 Con\u00adtin\u00adue read\u00ading