Public backs Obama in birth control fight, poll suggests

christiefan915

Catalyst
Hope repubs aren't hanging their hats on this issue. Even I was surprised by the numbers.

It's not even close: By a lopsided margin of 66 percent to 26 percent, Americans support President Barack Obama's proposal to require private health insurance plans to cover the full cost of birth control for women, according to a new CBS/New York Times public opinion poll.

Rephrasing the question to ask specifically about "religiously affiliated employers, such as a hospital or university," barely moved the needle, to 61 percent to 31 percent.
Those numbers, which come with a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points, are better for Obama than his numbers on foreign policy (50 percent approve, 36 percent disapprove), Afghanistan in particular (51 percent approve, 36 percent disapprove) and are nearly the mirror image of public opinion on his handling of the federal budget deficit, where he loses 32 percent to 59 percent.
National polls can understate the political danger of a given issue. Congressional Democrats fretted last week that the firestorm could cost them dearly among blue-collar voters, especially Catholics., in states like Pennsylvania. Some Democrats complained privately that the
"culture war" clash drowned out the positive news about the economy.

The poll was conducted from Feb. 8 to Feb. 13. It's not clear what impact Obama's proposed "accommodation" to religious institutions will have politically.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/...th-control-fight-poll-suggests-205113637.html
 
Another santorum gaffe:

In Boise, Idaho, on Tuesday, Santorum compared contraception to deodorant and soap when making a point about why he believes birth control should not be covered by health insurers.

"Let's mandate that every insurance policy covers toothpaste. Deodorant. That might be a good idea, right? Have everyone cover deodorant, right? Soap. I mean, where do you stop?"

Really, rick?
 
Another santorum gaffe:

In Boise, Idaho, on Tuesday, Santorum compared contraception to deodorant and soap when making a point about why he believes birth control should not be covered by health insurers.

"Let's mandate that every insurance policy covers toothpaste. Deodorant. That might be a good idea, right? Have everyone cover deodorant, right? Soap. I mean, where do you stop?"

Really, rick?

No Rick, many hippies don't have deodorant or soap. In fact it is often anathema to them.
 
It's amazing to listen to some of the religious objections here, they compare this from everything to the Holocaust to the Soviet anihilation of Russian Orthodoxy. It's actually pretty simple, if you're a catholic don't use them, it's like the difference between owning a wood axe, and chopping somebody into tiny pieces. Even better because condoms almost never kill anybody.
 
Hope repubs aren't hanging their hats on this issue. Even I was surprised by the numbers.

It's not even close: By a lopsided margin of 66 percent to 26 percent, Americans support President Barack Obama's proposal to require private health insurance plans to cover the full cost of birth control for women, according to a new CBS/New York Times public opinion poll.

Rephrasing the question to ask specifically about "religiously affiliated employers, such as a hospital or university," barely moved the needle, to 61 percent to 31 percent.
Those numbers, which come with a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points, are better for Obama than his numbers on foreign policy (50 percent approve, 36 percent disapprove), Afghanistan in particular (51 percent approve, 36 percent disapprove) and are nearly the mirror image of public opinion on his handling of the federal budget deficit, where he loses 32 percent to 59 percent.
National polls can understate the political danger of a given issue. Congressional Democrats fretted last week that the firestorm could cost them dearly among blue-collar voters, especially Catholics., in states like Pennsylvania. Some Democrats complained privately that the
"culture war" clash drowned out the positive news about the economy.

The poll was conducted from Feb. 8 to Feb. 13. It's not clear what impact Obama's proposed "accommodation" to religious institutions will have politically.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/...th-control-fight-poll-suggests-205113637.html

i thought that this battle had been already fought...and lost

several states already have more stringent requirements where even churches are required to provide contraception to their employees

a majority of states already require religious organizations, including nonprofit, to provide contraception to their employees

also, no one is required to use the contraceptives provided
 
How is this an issue outside of the Church? Wouldn't a letter to your bishop suffice, Christie?

Did you miss the thread? Obama is crushing religious freedom, and trampling on the constitution!

As an aside, according to one study, 9 out of ten catholics disagree with the churches' stand on birth controll.
 
Did you miss the thread? Obama is crushing religious freedom, and trampling on the constitution!

As an aside, according to one study, 9 out of ten catholics disagree with the churches' stand on birth controll.

actually, the first amendment prohibits the establishment of a state religion

if obama were to give in to the catholic church's demands, then he would be violating the first amendment
 
Did you miss the thread? Obama is crushing religious freedom, and trampling on the constitution!

As an aside, according to one study, 9 out of ten catholics disagree with the churches' stand on birth controll.


You think you're clever but that is exactly why we should all be concerned.......his decree is unconstitutional.....as is much of his healthcare crap.......

The Constitution should be and is supposed to be the law of land, not what any joker in the white house demands.....the ends DO NOT justify the means.....good or bad,

the end goal is irrelevant.....dictatating what services a business MUST provide and demanding those services be free of charge is fuckin' ridiculous....

Rationalization 101.....
 
You think you're clever but that is exactly why we should all be concerned.......his decree is unconstitutional.....as is much of his healthcare crap.......

The Constitution should be and is supposed to be the law of land, not what any joker in the white house demands.....the ends DO NOT justify the means.....good or bad,

the end goal is irrelevant.....dictatating what services a business MUST provide and demanding those services be free of charge is fuckin' ridiculous....

Rationalization 101.....

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

exactly how is requiring religious institutions to pay for contraception unconstiutional

i think it is just the opposite, if obama exempted a religion because of its beliefs, then he would be on the way to establishing a religion
 
How is this an issue outside of the Church? Wouldn't a letter to your bishop suffice, Christie?

Bishops are being challenged by liberal Catholics.

Liberal Catholics challenge bishops on Obama's contraception rule

By Dan Gilgoff, CNN.com Religion Editor

Washington (CNN)
– America’s Catholic bishops have criticized the White House’s mandate for insurers to provide free contraception coverage to employees, but plenty of other Catholic groups have endorsed the plan some taking swipes at the bishops in the process.


“The Catholic bishops and their allies in the Republican Party are increasingly isolated,” James Salt, executive director of a liberal group called Catholics United, said in a statement over the weekend supporting the White House’s contraception rule.


“The bishops’ blanket opposition appears to the serve the interests of a political agenda, not the needs of the American people," Salt continued, e-mailing his group’s support for the White House to tens of thousands of Catholics nationwide.

(Continued)
 
Obama's latest mandate is nothing more than a shell game. Religious organizations and Christian-owned businesses will still be paying for insurance plans which will, in turn, give "free" contraceptives and abortifacients to their employees. Where in the constitution does any president get the authority to mandate that private companies provide services or products for "free" to consumers?

The American people are not stupid, and realize insurance companies will simply pass the costs on to the insured. That's you, me, churches, and every other religious institution, including EVERY Christian-owned business, that provides insurance to its employees.

ObamaCare continues to violate religious and moral convictions by forcing Americans to pay for drug-induced abortions.

http://www.afa.net/Detail.aspx?id=2147517341
 
Communism By Insurance Mandate

Feb 15, 2012


One theory for why Barack Obama pushed the contraception mandate right now is that it helps Rick Santorum. Others theorize it's because Obama is an anti-religious bigot with a left-wing agenda. Reasonable minds can disagree on this.

But it may end up helping Mitt Romney by reminding people that the "individual mandate" is the least of the problems with ObamaCare. (The "individual mandate" is simply the legal argument for why ObamaCare is unconstitutional in a country that has accepted Social Security and Medicare as constitutional.)

This isn't a Catholic issue or even a religious issue. Conservatives are falling into the Democrats' trap by denouncing it as such. It's a freedom issue. (Or, as Democrats call it, "the F-word.")

If liberals like it, it's subsidized; if they don't, it's prohibited. And now they can impose their left-wing authoritarianism on the entire country by calling their mandates and prohibitions "insurance."

Liberal fundamentalists say: I don't see why anyone needs to hunt; I don't know why anyone needs to eat meat; I don't see why anyone needs to bathe every day; I don't know why anyone minds looking at urine in a low-flow toilet; I don't know why anyone needs an incandescent light bulb ...

Screw you, liberals. I don't know why anyone needs an abortion, free contraception, crap-ass "art" with photos of vaginas on the Virgin Mary, non-farming farmers or a $1 million pension for Anthony Weiner.

But I'm forced to subsidize all of that.

And now we're all going to be forced to subsidize the entire wish list of the Berkeley City Council, recast as "health insurance."

Insurance is not supposed to be for normal expenses in the ordinary course of events, such as multivitamins, house painting or oil changes. Insurance is for unexpected catastrophes: fires, accidents, cancer.

The basic idea is to spread the risk of unforeseen disasters. Filling up your gas tank, for example, is not an unforeseen disaster (though it's getting to be under Obama).

So why is birth control covered by insurance? Birth control pills aren't that expensive -- generics are about $20 a month -- nor is the need for them a bolt out of the blue. Why not have health insurance cover manicures, back massages, carrot cake and nannies?

Liberals huffily ask why it's so important to the Catholic Church not to pay for insurance plans that cover birth control, but the better question is: Why is it so important to liberals to force them to? (Wait until they have to buy coverage for vibrating butt-plugs!)

http://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2012/02/15/communism_by_insurance_mandate
 
Obama supporters frequently cite DailyKos-affiliated Democratic pollster PPP.

As is so often the case, question wording plays a decisive role.

PPP - Some people say that institutions such as Catholic hospitals and universities should be exempted from the requirement that health plans cover prescription birth control with no additional out of pocket costs, because contraception runs counter to Catholic teachings. Other people say that women of all faiths who are employed by Catholic hospitals and universities should have the same rights to contraceptive coverage as other women. Which view do you agree with -- Catholic hospitals and universities should be exempted from covering prescription birth control, or that women who are employed by Catholic hospitals and universities should have the same rights to contraceptive coverage as other women?

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guyben...cting_polling_on_obamas_birth_control_mandate


Pew research finds that a slim plurality (48-44 percebt) opposes Obama's mandate and say religious organizations should be extended exemptions. Within the Pew survey, Catholics oppose Obama's decision by a 16-point margin.
 
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

exactly how is requiring religious institutions to pay for contraception unconstiutional

i think it is just the opposite, if obama exempted a religion because of its beliefs, then he would be on the way to establishing a religion




Don Quixote ?.....Maybe this character is more apt.....

Alonso Quijano, the protagonist of the novel, is a retired country gentleman nearing fifty years of age, living in an unnamed section of La Mancha with his niece and housekeeper. While mostly a rational man of sound reason, reading propaganda by Democrats and liberals, in excess has had a profound effect on Quijano, leading to the distortion of his perception and the wavering of his mental faculties. In essence, he believes every word of these books of bullshit to be true, though for the most part, the content of these books is clearly unConstitutional. Otherwise, his wits, in regards to everything other than constituional rights, are intact.

========
Consider any action your religion considers sinful and having the government force you to support that action.....
That obviously infringes on your right to freely live your religious views as you see fit....and imposes nothing on others not of that religion....
Cocontraception is accessible just as it was before to anyone that wants it....if the government thinks everyone needs it...let them supply it.
 
Don Quixote ?.....Maybe this character is more apt.....

Alonso Quijano, the protagonist of the novel, is a retired country gentleman nearing fifty years of age, living in an unnamed section of La Mancha with his niece and housekeeper. While mostly a rational man of sound reason, reading propaganda by Democrats and liberals, in excess has had a profound effect on Quijano, leading to the distortion of his perception and the wavering of his mental faculties. In essence, he believes every word of these books of bullshit to be true, though for the most part, the content of these books is clearly unConstitutional. Otherwise, his wits, in regards to everything other than constituional rights, are intact.

========
Consider any action your religion considers sinful and having the government force you to support that action.....
That obviously infringes on your right to freely live your religious views as you see fit....and imposes nothing on others not of that religion....
Cocontraception is accessible just as it was before to anyone that wants it....if the government thinks everyone needs it...let them supply it.

that ship has already sailed, a majority of states have enacted the same requirement and their laws have been challenged in the courts and sustained as constitutional

several states has an even more strict requirement that requires churches to provide contraceptives to their employees, also run through the courts and sustained

oh well
 
that ship has already sailed, a majority of states have enacted the same requirement and their laws have been challenged in the courts and sustained as constitutional

several states has an even more strict requirement that requires churches to provide contraceptives to their employees, also run through the courts and sustained

oh well

So what....they can enact any foolish laws they want.....that doesn't make the laws constitutional.......even if it gets the ok from a kangaroo supreme court....they've been horribly wrong before.....

What a deeply religious person sees as a horrific sin is not changed and demanding he help others to commit this "sin", whatever it is, is whats at issue and infringing on his rights........
The bullshit with the insurance co. demands is another matter......
 
Back
Top