Opinion

Bam’s pill-plan re-do

President Obama, under fire even from his own party, yesterday moved to stifle a political controversy over the contraception-coverage mandate in his health-care plan.

But for all the fancy window dressing, the “accommodation” announced essentially changes nothing.

At issue is the administration’s mandate that employers, including Catholic schools, hospitals and social-service charities, must offer free birth-control services to their employees or face millions in fines.

Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum summed it up best yesterday: “It’s not about contraception. It’s about economic liberty. It’s about freedom of speech. It’s about freedom of religion. It’s about government control of your lives. And it’s got to stop!”

Given that this order flies in the face of Catholic teaching, it’s no surprise that it drew the ire of church leaders — like New York’s archbishop, Cardinal-designate Timothy Dolan, who also heads the US Conference of Bishops.

But it also drew increasing criticism from leading Democrats, like former National Committee chairman Tim Kaine and Sen. John Kerry, the 2004 presidential nominee.

So Team Obama came up with a “compromise” that still violates religious liberty, while pretending not to.

“Women will still have access to free preventive care that includes contraception, no matter where they work,” said Obama.

But “the insurance company — not the hospital, not the charity — will be required to reach out and offer . . . contraceptive care free, without co-pays and without hassles.”

Obama claims this means that “religious organizations won’t have to pay for these services” or “provide them directly.”

But it still requires the religious organizations to offer the insurance and then to pay the premiums — which means that, contrary to Obama’s announcement, they are paying the actual cost of these services.

In essence, the “accommodation” isn’t meant to mollify Catholics but to give wavering Democrats cover.

That is, it was a politically inspired decision — like pretty much everything else that comes out of the Obama White House.

Late yesterday, Dolan released a conciliatory statement calling the announcement “a first step in the right direction,” but warning: “We reserve judgment on the details until we have them.”

Back in the 1980s, another New York archbishop, the late John Cardinal O’Connor, faced a similar situation: a court edict that foster children could not be deprived of contraception and abortion services.

O’Connor’s response was straightforward: “If the day comes that . . . to receive a contract, we must violate our Catholic principles,” he said, “then we will not accept any city contracts.”

Eventually, an agreement was reached that did not force the archdiocese to compromise on its First Amendment rights.

Americans need to see Dolan’s objections in the same light — not as posturing, but as a principled defense of religious freedom.

We wish the bishop and his colleagues well.