Finding a Balance

Yesterday President Obama announced an accommodation on the Health and Human Services rule re: contraception.  If a church institutions does not, as a matter of conscience, offer contraceptive services as part of its health care program, then the institution's insurance company will have to make this service available at no cost to either the institution or the insured.

The Administration's goal was to snuff out criticism which the new HHS rule generated.  Whether this effort will be successful remains to be seen.  However, President Obama's accommodation seems reasonably Solomonic — giving women the health care services they need while, at the same time, honoring the right of Catholic Church institutions to conform their operations to church teaching.

What also remains to be seen is whether insurance companies will provide this coverage "at no cost."  Some argue that doing so is "revenue neutral," because when women use birth control, insurance companies have lower costs for childbirth, etc.  In short, it's a wash.  But I'm not convinced.  I suspect that insurance companies will spread the cost of this "free" coverage over their entire clientele.  And if there is actually a savings, they will be happy to pocket it.  OK, call me jaded.

How the politics fall out is not clear.  One of the Talking Heads on MSNBC this morning ventured the opinion that by first issuing and then modifying the HHS ruling, the Obama Administration has maneuvered conservatives into taking a hard stand against contraception and family planning, which in turn should drive women voters toward the Democratic camp.  Maybe.  Triple-cushion-shot politics is beyond me.

True, one can see this as a zero-sum game, where what is gained by one player is lost by the other.  However, it would be more helpful for Americans to see that our common life is not a zero-sum game, but an environment in which competing values must be balanced and, if possible, reconciled.  For example, Jefferson's wall of separation between church and state is essential, as it protects both believers and non-believers from government meddling in matters of faith and order.  (It's worth noting that it also protects government from meddling by churches. That, indeed, was the Founders' primary intent in giving us this First Amendment protection.)  But this guarantee of religious liberty is limited, in that it extends only to faith and order.  Even a house of worship is prohibited from engaging in racial discrimination in its employment practices, regardless of what church doctrine on race may be.

In short, in our democratic society competing values must exist side-by-side, and no one value is so important that it automatically excludes all the others.  That's what makes ethics so interesting!  And important! •••