Obama’s recent “compromise” on abortion coverage was hailed by supporters as evidence of Obama’s willingness to work with others. Many critics however, are unsatisfied.

The College Fix points to this essay by Bob Burkett.

Opinion: Religious Objectors Must Respond To Obama’s Latest Abortion Coverage Proposal

Notre Dame senior Bob Burkett writes for the Irish Rover:

In response to the accommodations put forth by the Obama administration, groups including the New York Times, American Civil Liberties Union and NARAL Prochoice America have provided their support and praise. A Washington Post columnist even went so far as to write that the compromise “ought to be taken by the nation’s Catholic bishops as the victory it is.”

Some legal scholars are inclined to disagree. Gerard V. Bradley, Professor of Law at the University of Notre Dame, remarked on the complexities of the rules.

“One can say with confidence the following: 1) religious hospitals are, as before, not exempt ‘religious employers’; 2) religious charities are very likely not exempt either, unless they are run out of a church or are very tightly integrated with a church. So, a parish or even a diocese’s Saint Vincent De Paul operations would probably be an exempt ‘religious employer,’ whereas Catholic Charities would not be; 3) the new proposal may (or may not) make it more likely that parish grade schools are exempt ‘religious employers.’”

With regard to Catholic higher education, Bradley argued that “it is certain that Catholic colleges and universities do not qualify as exempt ‘religious employers’…the proposal adds some additional layering to the earlier attempts to insulate the schools, but nothing of decisive moral significance is included.”

Other critics of the plan include religious liberty law firms such as the Becket Fund and the Alliance Defending Freedom and political analysts such as Yuval Levin.