By Kevin D. Williamson
Thursday, October 12, 2017
There are many horrifying things about President Donald
Trump that I am prepared to believe, but the claim put forward by Linda
Greenhouse in the New York Times —
that he has loosened up the Affordable Care Act’s contraception mandate out of
sexual traditionalism — is not one of them.
The Trump administration has, to its credit, issued a
more liberal version of the employer-provided birth-control mandate, one that
offers conscience protections to institutions beyond churches and closely held
business concerns, and that expands the exemption beyond narrowly religious
objections to include moral objections that are not necessarily religious in
nature. A free society makes a lot of room for moral and religious
disagreement, which is why the original mandate was thrown out by the Supreme
Court as a violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which requires
that government use the least onerous means when burdening religious exercise
and that it do so only in the pursuit of a legitimate public interest.
For context, consider the fact that during World War II —
an existential crisis not only for the United States but for the entire free
world — the United States routinely offered exemptions from military service to
members of pacifistic religious sects such as Quakers and Brethren. The federal
government went so far as to establish alternatives to war bonds for those who
objected to supporting the war through financial instruments. Perhaps you
believe that a federal law mandating employer-provided no-copay birth-control
pills is very important — it isn’t as important as whipping Hitler.
Greenhouse argues that the move represents a step toward
transforming the United States into something more like Saudi Arabia, a bit of
hyperbole that is risible even by the basement-dwelling standards of the New York Times op-ed pages. That the Times’ generally excellent reporting
remains institutionally shackled to its insipid and second-rate opinion pages
must be a source of frustration for its reporters, even — especially? — the
ones who share that plain-Democrat-vanilla viewpoint.
In reality, the reform moves us in precisely the opposite
direction: toward pluralism. Saudi
Arabia has a state religion ruthlessly enforced by moral police. Greenhouse et
al. would very much like to see something like that in the United States, a
kind of state-sponsored Wahhabi progressivism enforced at the point of a
bayonet: Bake that gay-wedding cake, buy those birth-control pills, subsidize
that abortion — or else.
There are two issues that need clarifying here, one
having to do with Trump individually and the other having to do with
Republicans generally.
Greenhouse argues that conservatives dread “empowering
women — in school, on the job, in the home — to determine their life course.”
Trump is not a conservative, but Greenhouse means to include him here, and the
claim is absurd. If anything, Trump often has erred too far in the other
direction, advancing and promoting women beyond their individual capabilities
and competence. When Trump acquired the Plaza in Manhattan, he put his wife
(his first lady, not the third one) in charge of the expensive and complex task
of renovating it, and burned through so much cash that the whole thing went
bust. As the Times put it, “Just a few years later, the Plaza wound up in
bankruptcy protection, part of a vast and humiliating restructuring of some
$900 million of personal debt that Mr. Trump owed to a consortium of banks.”
The banks eventually forced the sale of the property, which was acquired by —
hey! — Saudi Arabia’s Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, who would later mockingly
describe the transaction as a “bailout.” Similarly, Trump has given his
daughter, Ivanka, a knockoff-handbag peddler, a White House portfolio for which
she has no obvious qualification. Yes, those were members of his family, but he
often has advanced non-Trump women to senior positions in his organization, often
taking risks on unproven executives.
He’s also kind of a pig, a fact attested to by women who
consider him a mentor. The Washington
Post describes this as a “paradox,” but it is nothing of the sort. Trump,
who gleefully celebrates adultery, isn’t a sexual reactionary pining for an Ozzie and Harriet culture — he’s a
cynical liberationist in the mold of Hugh Hefner and Harvey Weinstein.
Not a lot of burqas in the Miss Universe Pageant.
Greenhouse’s claim about Republicans in general is also
difficult to harmonize with the facts, especially given the recent Republican
effort to make birth control available on an over-the-counter basis. That
points to the actual contest of visions here: Republicans have, on the matter
of contraception at least, adopted a live-and-let-live attitude, one that would
make birth control available to women on the same basis as any other consumer
good and that would — let’s not forget — still oblige most employers to include
it, free of copay, in their health-insurance plans, unless they have strong
religious or moral objections to doing so. Democrats have opposed efforts to make birth control available over-the-counter.
Why? The more cynical among us might suspect that they prefer contraception to
remain as a government-mandated benefit for which women can be grateful to the
party of Harvey Weinstein and Bill Clinton, rather than something they simply
buy for themselves, like a cup of coffee.
A libertarian, consumer-oriented model that accommodates
different religious and moral viewpoints, or a state-enforced one-size-fits-all
moral order determined by powerful rulers: Which of those actually sounds like
the American way of doing things, and which sounds more like the Saudi
approach?
No comments:
Post a Comment