"Obama just may have lost the election": Losing the Catholic vote

Consider if you can, how the insurance companies will actually benefit from this. Contraception as preventive care? Duh? Contraceptives prevent pregnancy. The cost of contraceptives is far less than the cost of prenatal care and child delivery. Yes, a Republican president can try to reverse it but I hardly think he will - not in light of the support from both the public and the insurance industry. It's a good move and the right move, if for no other reason, than to lower healthcare costs.

I'll also point out that easier access to contraceptives decreases the need for abortions. Why social conservatives aren't fully on board with this is beyond me.

 

The title of this topic is as wrong as it could possibly be.

The Catholics' view on contraception is out-dated, immoral, and in no way tied to the bible.

98% of Catholic women use contraception. Do Republicans really want to take the side of being against easy access to cheap/free contraception? Do they want to be anti-abortion AND anti-easy pregnancy prevention?

Obama has set the GOP up perfectly here.

 

I think this has exactly 0.0% chance of harming Obama's re-election chances.
We have short memories.
This will be over and forgotten everywhere except the Sean Hannity show in another week. And that venue doesn't matter because the listeners weren't voting for Obama anyway.

 

Anyone who thinks Obama's stance on this issue will be a problem with Catholic voters doesn't know too many Catholic voters. As noted, very few Catholics actually bother to pay attention to what church leadership says regarding contraception.

 

No widespread support.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/health_care_law

Again, my point is focused on the art of negotiation or "compromise". I recall many posts where you wrote about "compromise", and I often responded with questions that I have never felt were answered (response is different from an answer).

Was Obamacare arrived at through compromise or a top-down take it or leave it response? Why hasn't Obama been able to make his case to the American people? If Sanatorium is elected President do you fear he could just as easily force his social agenda on those that disagree with him on social issues? Is there a mechanism in place to minimize the risk? Has Obama over-stepped his authority?

For the record on social issues, I am strongly libertarian. I don't want liberals telling me I have to do something and I don't want social conservatives telling me what I can't do!

 

Every poll I have seen on the issue shows widespread support for requiring religious affiliated employers (schools hopsitals, non-profits, just not churches) to provide employees with access to contraception with no co-pay.

The Republican candidates are pandering to their base with chants of "We are all Catholics Now" when the Obama policy has widespread Catholic support.

In fact those extremists have dusted off a bill from last year, the Respect of Rights of Conscience Act that will allow employers to deny any health service they want based on a "moral" objection - Dont want to treat AIDS patients because you believe it is a "gay diseases" then you should not have to treat them. Dont want to treat domestic partners or allow visitation rights in a hospital, screw those engaged in such an immoral union.

It is nothing more than ignorance and intolerance and shame on you if you support it.

Further, given your obvious disdain for compromise and your attempt to divert most discussions, like you have here, I dont see the value of engaging you in a discussion of compromise.
--- merged: Feb 13, 2012 7:56 PM ---

 

Like I wrote I don't want liberals telling me what I have to do, just like I don't want conservatives telling me what I can not do.

If I provide insurance coverage for my employees, I have no reason not to offer the most comprehensive coverage I can afford based on what my employees want - including contraception services. Government need not be involved. If I don't provide comprehensive coverage, my employees should be free to buy their own coverage or work elsewhere, based on their free choice. Government need not be involved.

You seem to be o.k. with government telling people what to do, and you seem to justify it by saying there is widespread support. That is a pretty weak argument, and ignores what your view would be on an issue when you are in the minority. There is no "shame" in my point of view. In fact my point of view is more liberal and tolerant of differences on this point than yours is.

 

Employees want low cost (no co-pay) contraception and that includes both Catholic and non-Catholic employees of Catholic institutions outside of the church and in numerous cases in the 28 states where it is already required, the courts have determined that it is not an infringement on the religious freedom.

The Catholic church is not acting out of economic interests; it is attempting to impose a religious beliefs on workers, not workers in the church, but in affiliated institutions.

But lets take your "not wanting liberals telling you what you have to do" to the next step.

You want to be able to fire a new mother wanting a few months of unpaid leave as required under the Family/Medical Leave Act? Hell, she can find a job somewhere else based on her free choice

You want to be able to hang a sign on the door of your establishment saying "White Christians Only"? Those others can shop or eat somewhere else, based on their free choice.

That sounds so tolerant and liberal.

 

I would say "people" want...

That is why we should have individual based coverage that goes with the person - across state lines...or...single payer.

People have a choice to work for or not work for the Catholic church.

As a small business employer I accommodate my employees, often in ways large employers can not. As a small employer my relationships with employees is very close - my wife and I we get invited to baby showers, weddings, funerals, house-warming parties, life changing events, etc. I don't need the Family/Medical Leave Act to do the right thing. And doing the right thing is good for business. Doing the right thing has never been a conflict for me. Your fantasy of business owners is twisted. Perhaps, Fortune 500 type companies need prodding to do the right thing, but most business owners I know and deal with don't.

Dude, do you realize people can exercise bias and illegal discrimination without being open about????

My problem is that I have lived life, and I get a few things. Some lessons I have learned the hard way, and in my effort to share I get psudo-intellectual and theoretical b.s. responses. I am not your enemy.

 

I get it now, ace.

It is pseudo-intellectual bullshit to be on the side of a government role to protect rights and interests of the people rather than believe that the private sector will act in the broader interests than their own bottom line.

BTW, two more polls show overwhelming support for a federal requirement that employer health plans provide access to contraception -- 66% support in a NY Times poll and 61% support in a Fox News poll.
--- merged: Feb 15, 2012 11:03 PM ---
On the other side, you have Santorum who believes that contraceptive use is wrong and a danger to the country and that as president, he'd confront the "dangers of contraception" and religious groups who think it's OK. "It's not OK, because it's a license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be," he says. "They're supposed to be within marriage, for purposes that are, yes, conjugal... but also procreative. "

Along with pseudo-intellectual morons like Huckabee and Palin and their chants of "We are all Catholics now."

 

I can give and have given examples when this is not true.

Milton Friedman can say it much better than I, here is a link to how he responds to your point:

http://dauckster.posterous.com/a-31-year-old-video-clip-absolutely-worth-you

 

I didnt know that Milton Friedman addressed the issue of affordable access to contraception but from an economic standpoint, it is cheaper to provide that access and help minimize unwanted pregnancies than to restrict it and face much higher health costs down the road.

 

Personally, I find the hypocrisy of the evangelical right (and ace) to be appalling and yes, ace, shameful.

The incessant shouting about the evils of big government while choosing to ignore that the “party of less government” is the party that is all for government intervention, legislating morality and taking away or limiting rights on the basis of some divine word or God's will – from limiting access to free contraception to increasingly extreme limits on a woman's right to choose (the latest widespread effort is providing personhood to fertilized eggs) to prohibiting gay marriage because it will destroy the country (not to mention it might lead to bestiality)...

Oh and spending on unnecessary war is also ok (conveniently ignoring the opposition of many religions in this case) but God forbid that government spend money on providing affordable access to preventive health care to women or feeding hungry children or providing a temporary safety net to keep families from becoming homeless if it means marginally increasing taxes on the top one percent.

 

It is a religious problem that they need to deal with first. Maybe by reading the Bible instead of Fox News for some guidance on how to be 'good' followers.

 

It's an ongoing attempt to punish women who have sex for any other reason than to spit out babies. It's the age-long double standard where men are applauded for bedding as many partners as possible, where the women are whores. Take that to it's logical conclusion and you see erectile disfunction drugs covered by insurance but ongoing attempts to take away female contraception.

 

Government interference in market operation is not helpful. His wisdom is applicable to the issues we face today, including the question of affordable access to contraception.
--- merged: Feb 16, 2012 4:41 PM ---

Milton Friedman was an economist not a historian. He never represented himself as a historian.

This is a non sequitur. No one is not arguing against affordable contraception. Why are you folks being misleading?
--- merged: Feb 16, 2012 4:44 PM ---

Would you work for an organization who you thought was out to punish women? Why would anyone? Would you employ the services of an organization who you thought was out to punish women? Why would anyone?

 

What did he say that was false?

Are there women in the US who don't have access to affordable contraception?
Will there ever be a time in the US when women will not have access to affordable contraception?

Affordable contraception and access is not a problem in this country based on my point of view.