Their explanation of why Obama's so-called accommodation is nothing of the sort is good.
First of all, the First Amendment is not to be "accommodated," it is to be respected. But a few hours after the president announced his "accommodation," he codified his original discriminatory rule "without change" anyway. So nothing has changed.They go on to explain:
The administration claims it will pass an additional rule shifting the mandate's financial burdens to our insurers. But even if a new rule were enacted and our insurers agreed not to pass along the costs—a dubious proposition at best—it would only show that the president has missed the moral point. Our colleges will still be forced to provide plans that directly enable coverage of drugs and services to which we object on religious grounds. It would be like forcing us to provide cable television to our students, but alleging that the cable company, "not us," will provide the Playboy Channel for "free." We do not accept this shell-game theology, and the government cannot force us to adopt its conscience instead of ours.