Rasmussen: Majority opposes Obama contraception mandate on religious organizations

posted at 1:55 pm on February 8, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Some in the media have expressed puzzlement over the controversy generated by new HHS mandate imposed by the Obama administration that would force religious organizations to pay for contraception even if it goes against their religious doctrine.  The New York Times and the Washington Post took pains to point out that Catholics are in favor of such mandates in earlier polling.  However, Rasmussen’s latest national survey of 1,000 likely voters show a majority opposing the mandate on religious organizations — and that Catholics take an even dimmer view of such an intrusion on their beliefs:

Half of voters do not agree with the Obama administration’s action forcing Catholic institutions to pay for birth control measures that they morally oppose.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 39% of Likely U.S. Voters believe the government should require a church or religious organization to provide contraceptives for women even if it violates their deeply held beliefs. Fifty percent (50%) disagree and oppose such a requirement that runs contrary to strong beliefs, while 10% more are undecided.

Fifty-six percent (56%) of male voters are against the government requiring contraceptive coverage in a case like this. Female voters are almost evenly divided on the question. Sixty-five percent (65%) of Catholic voters oppose this requirement, as do 62% of Evangelical Christians, and 50% of other Protestants. Most non-Christians (56%) support the Obama Administration ruling.

Even apart from the question of exempting religious organizations, voters aren’t exactly applauding the new HHS insurance mandate.  A plurality opposes a government requirement to provide such coverage, 46% to 43% supporting.  A majority of voters (54%) understand that requiring no-cost coverage of contraception means that the cost of insurance will rise for everyone; only 16% thought it would not.  On the religious exemption, Obama doesn’t even win women, who narrowly oppose the revocation of the exemption by 45%, with 43% supporting the decision.

In the political demos, Obama gets more bad news.  Democrats support his mandate 60/27, which is not exactly a ringing endorsement.  Republicans oppose it 16/75, and a plurality of independents do as well, 43/49.  Every income demographic except the lowest of under-$20K and $75-100K opposes it by majorities.  Only those who never attend religious services or attend less than once a month support the mandate; all other categories oppose it by large majorities.  Even the “political class,” usually reliably liberal, opposes the mandate on religious organizations by 25/63.

John Boehner gave a rare speech on the House floor today pledging to fight this new mandate:

“This rule would require faith-based employers – including Catholic charities, schools, universities, and hospitals – to provide services they believe are immoral. Those services include sterilization, abortion-inducing drugs and devices, and contraception,” Boehner added. “If the president does not reverse the Department’s attack on religious freedom, then the Congress, acting on behalf of the American people and the Constitution we are sworn to uphold and defend, must. The House will approach this matter fairly and deliberately, through regular order and the appropriate legislative channels.”

“This attack by the federal government on religious freedom in our country must not stand and will not stand,” he said.

The Anchoress wonders if this is why Bill Daley was in such a hurry to exit the White House. Daley apparently tried to warn Obama against taking this course of action.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

And since abstinence doesn’t work

libfreeordie on February 8, 2012 at 2:27 PM

We always knew you lacked self-control. Thanks for the honest admission.

chemman on February 8, 2012 at 6:15 PM

Bad news for Barry. He’ll start his Wednesday night drinking very early.

BHO Jonestown on February 8, 2012 at 6:20 PM

My new religious belief is that all Republicans in my courses should get an F, religious liberty!

libfreeordie on February 8, 2012 at 2:19 PM

That must be a Women as Victims study course. You haven’t got the logic skills to teach anything of real importance.

chemman on February 8, 2012 at 6:22 PM

Catholic evangelicals are a growing segment. One does not have to be non-Catholic to embrace this point of view within their personal beliefs. Perhaps it’s with a lower case e, but equally sincere. One does not preclude the other.

jeanie on February 8, 2012 at 6:27 PM

Rather interesting use of the word “Majority” in the this post’s headline, considering the actual breakdown of the survey:

3* The requirement to provide contraceptives for women violates deeply held beliefs of some churches and religious organizations. If providing such coverage violates the beliefs of a church or religious organization, should the government still require them to provide coverage for contraceptives?
39% Yes
50% No
10% Not sure

One more percentage point and the headline would be accurate, but “half” is not the same as “most.” The body of the post does a better job of representing the actual results.

Drew Lowell on February 8, 2012 at 6:36 PM

The fact that men are significantly more opposed to requiring all health insurers comply with free birth control regulations tells me everything i need to know about what’s really motivating this (and what has always motivated Catholic hypocrisy on birth control). This is about exerting control over female sexuality and being enraged that women can enjoy sex without having to worry about having a kid. For some people it just makes them really angry.

libfreeordie on February 8, 2012 at 2:17 PM

Let me help you out here, spanky, because you seem to be having so many problems.

Most people generally don’t care if people want to rut like wild animals, take birth control, breed, etc…

But here’s the fine point:

You ready for it?

You really ready for it?

You sitting down?

WE DON’T WANT TO PAY FOR IT. YOU WANT TO DO WHATEVER, ***YOU*** PAY FOR IT. NOT THE CHURCH, NOT THE STATE, ***YOU***.

That wasn’t that hard to conceptualize, was it?

kim roy on February 8, 2012 at 6:46 PM

The whole premise is a kind of jousting at wind mills since any employee of a Catholic institution can pretty much get all these services elsewhere anyway. That’s what makes this so puzzling. Why would O choose this as his power battle. Is he taking the Church on or is he challenging the Constitution or both. Does he think he’s that powerful or is he standing on what he sees as principle. He’s done a lot of dumb,poorly thought out stuff, but this stands alone.

jeanie on February 8, 2012 at 6:49 PM

Why are men even being polled?

libfreeordie on February 8, 2012 at 2:09 PM

Why do people that don’t pay taxes get to vote?

CDeb on February 8, 2012 at 3:07 PM

That’s a show stopper.

kim roy on February 8, 2012 at 6:55 PM

Aren’t condoms supposed to prevent diseases? And many women take birth control for PMS symptoms. Is the catholic church going to ban molestation of children and mastabation?

residentblue on February 8, 2012 at 6:58 PM

There is some speculation that Barry announced this policy ahead of primary and caucuses in conservative states to fan votes for religious cons like Santorum and damage Romney. Something of an Operation Chao. He will compromise later so that he will not truly alienate religious voters in the General. By giving wind to the sail of Santorum, he will either prolong the bitter fight among the GOPs in the primary or get a truly weak nominee like Santorum who he can easily beat.

galtani on February 8, 2012 at 7:01 PM

Why are men even being polled?

libfreeordie on February 8, 2012 at 2:09 PM

Pompous asshole.

CW on February 8, 2012 at 7:02 PM

I’m wondering why the people that don’t use prescription contraceptives have to subsidize those who do.

The same reason that people who use contraception have to pay for delivery of a baby and continuing care for that child.

BBegley on February 8, 2012 at 5:50 PM

I can make an argument that helping to pay for the delivery of other people’s children benefits me in some manner. I can’t say the same for paying for their contraception.
Still, I’m not so thrilled about that part either — and I’m saying this as a new father who isn’t directly footing the $10k bill the insurance company picked up for my daughter’s delivery. Granted, if they didn’t have to pay for that kind of thing, my insurance premiums probably would have been a lot less.

Count to 10 on February 8, 2012 at 7:22 PM

John Boehner gave a rare speech on the House floor today pledging to fight this new mandate

An old saying in Washington is that “Nothing is true in DC until it’s been officially denied.”

Using that same logic here, we could have fought and won against Obama shutting down freedom of religion, but now, with Boehner on our side and his record of zero wins against Obama and the Democrats, we don’t stand a chance!

RJL on February 8, 2012 at 7:31 PM

Most non-Christians (56%) support the Obama Administration ruling.

In other words, they’re fascists at heart.

dukecitygirl on February 8, 2012 at 7:37 PM

Rather interesting use of the word “Majority” in the this post’s headline, considering the actual breakdown of the survey:
Drew Lowell on February 8, 2012 at 6:36 PM

You must be new to Hot Air, otherwise you would have realized by now that it’s the internet home of the twisted headline. They have no problem claiming something like “Democrats Oppose Obama” on an issue as long as there are at least two to justify the plural, even if there are 200 in agreement.

Constantine on February 8, 2012 at 7:51 PM

There are no scriptures which prohibit the use of contraception.

libfreeordie on February 8, 2012 at 2:19 PM

Yes there are when the “contraception” you refer to is abortion.

My new religious belief is that all Republicans in my courses should get an F, religious liberty!

libfreeordie on February 8, 2012 at 2:19 PM

It scares me and most of us here to think that you teach anyone anything, but I have no doubt that handing out failing or near failing grades to Republicans and Conservatives is nothing new for you.

RJL on February 8, 2012 at 8:17 PM

She said she was a black woman in another thread, for what that’s worth.

Night Owl on February 8, 2012 at 5:52 PM

And black man in another, so that leaves either a liar or multiple people. Not that this keeps me up at night, but there’s just no reason to lie about that sort of thing.

Esthier on February 8, 2012 at 6:11 PM

Trolls often lie about themselves to give their positions more credence. Pay no mind to them.

slickwillie2001 on February 8, 2012 at 8:35 PM

Just part of re-righting the history of the last three years. By the time November comes around the Dems and the media will have 53% of the population convinced that thanks to Obama’s unprecedented leadership, and his successful beating off of the evil republicans, these years have been a hundred times better than they would have been without the One.

neuquenguy on February 8, 2012 at 5:22 PM

My hubby and I were talking about this last night. If he doesn’t get on this forum to comment, I’ll say it for him. Let’s see how well I remember. :) His theory about all of this is pretty much what you’re saying — it’s all just a ploy to blame and portray the GOP as the party of crazy lunatics who are so uptight that they want to deny contraception to women, so that when November comes around, he can point and say “See, they’re the ones holding this issue back.”

It’s not all that far of a stretch when you think about it, because there have been plenty of other examples in the past three years: the GOP wants to push grandma off a cliff, the GOP hates poor people and wants to take their welfare checks away and so on.

What we need to do is to continue to hammer home the real issue every chance we get, and that is that Obama is willfully trampling on all Americans’ First Amendment rights.

PatriotGal2257 on February 8, 2012 at 8:45 PM

Why does President Barack Hussein Obama hate the United States of America?
Why does President Barack Hussein Obama hate Democracy?
Why does President Barack Hussein Obama hate Christians?
Why does President Barack Hussein Obama hate Unborn Babies?
Why does President Barack Hussein Obama hate hard working rich people?
Why does President Barack Hussein Obama hate Capitalism?
Why does President Barack Hussein Obama hate everything America stands for?

FlatFoot on February 8, 2012 at 2:07 PM

At one time in my life, I would have wondered what kind of mindset a person had to have to explain his or her hatred for this country and for all the other questions you list, but now I just don’t care why he thinks as he does. I just want Obama and his little Marxist cabal the hell out of the White House and government.

PatriotGal2257 on February 8, 2012 at 8:59 PM

Howdy, I have a question to the anti-contraceptive\pro-abstinence males here. How long when you were in your teens, did you manage to go without sex or onanism?

nathor on February 8, 2012 at 9:15 PM

Howdy, I have a question to the anti-contraceptive\pro-abstinence males here. How long when you were in your teens, did you manage to go without sex or onanism?

nathor on February 8, 2012 at 9:15 PM

You are a disgusting, filthy pervert who always threadsits in pedophilia, gay sex, and other thread regarding perversions.

You are one s i c k puppy.

tom daschle concerned on February 8, 2012 at 9:16 PM

You are a disgusting, filthy pervert who always threadsits in pedophilia, gay sex, and other thread regarding perversions.

You are one s i c k puppy.

tom daschle concerned on February 8, 2012 at 9:16 PM

WTF? what the hell you talk about? just answer the question because it goes to prove or disprove the argument that abstinence is a pragmatic method of contraception.

nathor on February 8, 2012 at 9:20 PM

WTF? what the hell you talk about? just answer the question because it goes to prove or disprove the argument that abstinence is a pragmatic method of contraception.

nathor on February 8, 2012 at 9:20 PM

It wouldn’t prove a damn thing. It would be anecdotal evidence from anonymous people on the Internet. Not that anyone is taking your weirdo bait.

iwasbornwithit on February 8, 2012 at 9:56 PM

nathor on February 8, 2012 at 9:15 PM

How old are you?

Abstinence did work just fine, till the culture shifted, pushed by do it, because it feels good have a great weekend party loving moral defectives with zero self control..

In 1978, my graduating class, had one girl get pregnant, and she was pretty well shamed by it,.. harsh, but she was the only one..

now, that same high school provides daycare to handle the tots being produced by the same kind of teens without any thought that waiting might be a good idea. I didn’t even cross that line, because I wouldn’t want my dad to find out I got a girl pregnant..

Why is the idea that you can teach self control so ridiculed now?

My generation was the last to even hear that message, people sometimes didn’t wait, but they didn’t get food stamps and an apartment like they get now.. Their parents handled it, either a rushed marriage, or adoption, or the family simply took them in, and raised that child..

The rush towards a no fault, no shame society did us no favors at all.

How many of these kids instead of demanding an abortion right, would have been infintely better off if they’d just learned self control?

Too many, don’t even try..

Abortion wouldn’t even come up, if parents taught their kids to wait till marriage as they did for the centuries before. Abortion is the immoral life killing bandaid the out of control demand to fix their bad choices.

How about learning restraint, or using preventive birth control that is cheap and widely available, if they can’t wait?

but they don’t even do that…

mark81150 on February 8, 2012 at 10:14 PM

tom daschle concerned on February 8, 2012 at 9:16 PM

He likes killing babies too.

dukecitygirl on February 8, 2012 at 10:16 PM

WTF? what the hell you talk about? just answer the question because it goes to prove or disprove the argument that abstinence is a pragmatic method of contraception.

nathor on February 8, 2012 at 9:20 PM

Like a moth to flame you seek out all moral repugnance.

You aren’t unique in your perversity, and no matter how many of your type there are, you will always be as pleasant as an open sepulcher.

tom daschle concerned on February 8, 2012 at 10:31 PM

The Obama administration has made a serious, tactical error on this issue.

They thought they could play this as though the Republicans were against contraception. The majority of the American people are a lot more religious than Democrats give them credit for, and they’re not that stupid. They are going to recognize the tyranny here. It’s going to destroy the Democrats in November.

I’m very, very pleased.

philwynk on February 8, 2012 at 10:56 PM

Regardless of Catholic culpability in this area it does not relieve us of a duty to stand with them over this issue. What is the famous they came for saying? In the end they came for everyone. Non Catholic’s may be the last eaten by the croc but eaten they will be.

chemman on February 8, 2012 at 6:03 PM

If you thought I was indicating that I wasn’t standing by the RCs who didn’t do their homework about 0bamessiah, you may want to go an reread my post – in it, I was actually commenting upon naive voters, not RCs per se.

The reason I mentioned those particular RCs is because they are part of the topic at hand; if the topic had been about Wall Streeters having voter’s remorse because they felt betrayed by 0bamessiah’s demonization of them, I would have said about them what I did about the lazy/incurious RCs who were caught off guard by 0bamessiah’s latest power grab – who and what He is isn’t a mystery to those of us who were paying attention to Him.

Presidents “aircrafts”, who once again made a major political blunder by trying to force the RCC to bow to Him rather than God, isn’t nearly as smart as He and His most dedicated supporters believe He is.

Bizarro No. 1 on February 8, 2012 at 10:58 PM

Howdy, I have a question to the anti-contraceptive\pro-abstinence males here. How long when you were in your teens, did you manage to go without sex or onanism?

nathor on February 8, 2012 at 9:15 PM

Wow. What a ridiculous question. Do you really think the answer to this will settle something with regard to abstinence education?

First, the actual evidence. Then, once you’ve heard what a complete idiot you are, then I’ll answer your question.

In a survey of more than 100 studies covering the past 20 years of research in the social sciences, the Institute for Research and Evaluation concluded that “…when measured by the same standards of effectiveness, comprehensive sex education programs in America’s classrooms do not show more evidence of success than abstinence education programs.” Quite the contrary, in fact: when the criteria applied to the programs include measurements of changed behavior lasting more than a year following teens’ program participation, practically none of the comprehensive sex education (CSE) programs produced any measurable change, whereas at least three of the abstinence programs sustained significant reduction in teen sexual activity more than a year after the teens finished the program.

See http://www.plumbbobblog.com/?p=4506 for the rest of the details. Abstinence ed works a lot better than comprehensive sex ed. Compiled results of more than 100 separate studies. Deal with it.

Now to your question:

I was not a religious kid when I was a teen. I also was not good with people. I tried my damnedest to get laid, all the time. It embarrassed the hell out of me. I hated myself for being like I was. I finally succeeded at the age of 17. It was a disappointment and a mistake. If ANYBODY — and I do mean ANYBODY — had gone to the trouble to tell me that getting laid was NOT the right thing for a kid my age to be pursuing, I could have stopped, and my life would have been orders of magnitude better. And that’s from a guy’s perspective. Girls, if they’re being honest, should be saying the same times 10. If we want to empower teenagers, the right way to do it is to tell them they have both the right and the moral obligation to control themselves.

I’m not including masturbation here. That’s a whole other issue.

philwynk on February 8, 2012 at 11:07 PM

Yet Rasmussen is showing an increase in those supporting 0bama today.

Is it me, or does it seem that someone is fudging the numbers there?

DannoJyd on February 9, 2012 at 3:56 AM

It wouldn’t prove a damn thing. It would be anecdotal evidence from anonymous people on the Internet. Not that anyone is taking your weirdo bait.

iwasbornwithit on February 8, 2012 at 9:56 PM

i not asking everybody, i am asking the anti contraception people. i am wondering how well themselfs perform in abstinence.

nathor on February 9, 2012 at 8:49 AM

Like a moth to flame you seek out all moral repugnance.

You aren’t unique in your perversity, and no matter how many of your type there are, you will always be as pleasant as an open sepulcher.

tom daschle concerned on February 8, 2012 at 10:31 PM

i though prude people are a dying breed in the internet. i am not trying to be perverse and honestly think this question is relevant for the topic at hand.

nathor on February 9, 2012 at 8:52 AM

How old are you?

35 and i have 2 childreen.

Abstinence did work just fine, till the culture shifted, pushed by do it, because it feels good have a great weekend party loving moral defectives with zero self control..other humans with the same human needs as ourselfs

In 1978, my graduating class, had one girl get pregnant, and she was pretty well shamed by it,.. harsh, but she was the only one..

was she the only only one having sex? i dont believe it!

now, that same high school provides daycare to handle the tots being produced by the same kind of teens without any thought that waiting might be a good idea. I didn’t even cross that line, because I wouldn’t want my dad to find out I got a girl pregnant..

I hope my son will never be afraid of saying those things to me.

Why is the idea that you can teach self control so ridiculed now?

visualize: “ok son, you can go to that camping trip, but remember, no sex! self control is important son! – yes dad*roll eyes and leaves*…”

My generation was the last to even hear that message, people sometimes didn’t wait, but they didn’t get food stamps and an apartment like they get now.. Their parents handled it, either a rushed marriage, or adoption, or the family simply took them in, and raised that child..

whiteout noticing, you just agreed that abstinence fails.
those situations where not exactly beneficial to the teens and as a father, I will be pragmatic and allowed them to use contraception. not only because of pregnancies, but also because of STD’s.

The rush towards a no fault, no shame society did us no favors at all.

why sex and assuming our human wants and needs should be shameful and faulty?

How many of these kids instead of demanding an abortion right, would have been infintely better off if they’d just learned self control?

this is not about abortion, its about contraception.

Too many, don’t even try..

Abortion wouldn’t even come up, if parents taught their kids to wait till marriage as they did for the centuries before. Abortion is the immoral life killing bandaid the out of control demand to fix their bad choices.

of course i will try to teach her self control, but i am realist to the chances of that actually work. apart from that, if she ends up doing sex, i want her to use condoms, not so much because of babies, but primarily because of STD’s. if she ends up being pregnant, i would have failed as a father, but i will respect her decision on what to do with the baby without saying that whatever she decides is immoral, because i dont think it is.

How about learning restraint, or using preventive birth control that is cheap and widely available, if they can’t wait?

but they don’t even do that…

mark81150 on February 8, 2012 at 10:14 PM

agree. I am not sure why you answered me them. I made this question in this thread specifically targeting the catholics that think abstinence is an effective birth control method.

nathor on February 9, 2012 at 9:21 AM

i not asking everybody, i am asking the anti contraception people. i am wondering how well themselfs perform in abstinence.

nathor on February 9, 2012 at 8:49 AM

I think you’re confusing the raging advocacy of impractical dictates by self-proclaimed moralists with their own hypocritical behavior.
Not to mention their potty-mouthed name calling.
But forgive them, you confuse and upset them with such logical questions.

verbaluce on February 9, 2012 at 9:28 AM

Aren’t condoms supposed to prevent diseases? And many women take birth control for PMS symptoms. Is the catholic church going to ban molestation of children and mastabation?

residentblue on February 8, 2012 at 6:58 PM

So wear a condom, who cares?

You pay for it. Not like they’re expensive.

runawayyyy on February 9, 2012 at 9:36 AM

i not asking everybody, i am asking the anti contraception people. i am wondering how well themselfs perform in abstinence.

nathor on February 9, 2012 at 8:49 AM

They have every right to be “anti contraception”, just as you have the right to be an anti-catholic bigot.

But you also assume you have the right to force them to do things they don’t want to do, like support your sick lifestyle. How about I demand you pay for my ammo at the range next weekend? Why is that any different than what you’re demanding ya weirdo?

runawayyyy on February 9, 2012 at 9:40 AM

Wow. What a ridiculous question. Do you really think the answer to this will settle something with regard to abstinence education?

First, the actual evidence. Then, once you’ve heard what a complete idiot you are, then I’ll answer your question.

i read you site, and surprisingly, i liked it. this PDF convinced me:
http://www.aegis-character.com/pdf/7Conceptsand8Skills.pdf
i really agree that such values should be better taught to our children.

but this abstinence method is not exactly against contraception.one note in the study was:

Several studies have also found that abstinence education did not decrease condom use for teens who later became sexually active.

my conclusion is that i would be very ok with my sons being taught this values, but this by no means removes the necessity of contraception if they end up doing sex. indeed, i would think they would be irresponsible and in violation of the same values if they did unprotected sex.
and this is the crux of the matter, the church wants to prohibit contraception as a moral ruling.

Now to your question:

I was not a religious kid when I was a teen. I also was not good with people. I tried my damnedest to get laid, all the time. It embarrassed the hell out of me. I hated myself for being like I was. I finally succeeded at the age of 17. It was a disappointment and a mistake.

ok, similar story here. but in the end, the first time was enough for me to stop desiring getting laid so much, and concentrate in more constructive objectives.

If ANYBODY — and I do mean ANYBODY — had gone to the trouble to tell me that getting laid was NOT the right thing for a kid my age to be pursuing, I could have stopped, and my life would have been orders of magnitude better.

teens suffer from loads of peer pressure. if an adult was to say that, you would probably ignore it.but if reapeated enough and agreed by peers as a good approach, maybe it would make a difference.

And that’s from a guy’s perspective. Girls, if they’re being honest, should be saying the same times 10. If we want to empower teenagers, the right way to do it is to tell them they have both the right and the moral obligation to control themselves.

moral obligation? here i lost you. i agree with everything but that.

I’m not including masturbation here. That’s a whole other issue.

philwynk on February 8, 2012 at 11:07 PM

which the catholic church also sees as sin. but that is indeed a topic for another thread. thanks for your answer, i learned something from your answer. however, delaying teens sexual life does not solve the issue and contraception is still necessary because teens will eventually have sex.

nathor on February 9, 2012 at 10:00 AM

I think you’re confusing the raging advocacy of impractical dictates by self-proclaimed moralists with their own hypocritical behavior.
Not to mention their potty-mouthed name calling.
But forgive them, you confuse and upset them with such logical questions.

verbaluce on February 9, 2012 at 9:28 AM

:)

nathor on February 9, 2012 at 10:04 AM

They have every right to be “anti contraception”, just as you have the right to be an anti-catholic bigot.

But you also assume you have the right to force them to do things they don’t want to do, like support your sick lifestyle. How about I demand you pay for my ammo at the range next weekend? Why is that any different than what you’re demanding ya weirdo?

runawayyyy on February 9, 2012 at 9:40 AM

you you seem to be saying is that you think they are crazy but they have all the right to be crazy on their contraception views?
is this your position?

nathor on February 9, 2012 at 10:09 AM

While I am neither Catholic nor an Evangelical Christian, nor have I ever been, the thought that the federal government is adopting a mandate to force religious groups to act against their moral beliefs is so utterly repugnant, that it is hard for me to believe that those are the only two major groups to oppose this with somewhat significant majorities. Somehow, the questions asked in conducting the survey must have been confusing to respondents. I’ll bet that as the debate fully engages and as other surveys are conducted, the percentages of those opposed to the policy will go up.

Trochilus on February 9, 2012 at 12:38 PM

These frauds keep talking about how we are against “choice” by opposing this mandate.

“It’s a war on women!” they say.

The irony is staggering. The Democrats declared war on me, a woman, when the passed Obamacare and denied me (beginning in 2014) of the ability to CHOOSE the type of health insurance policy that I want to purchase.

You say: “Choice.”

I say: “Talk to the hand, MF!”

Resist We Much on February 9, 2012 at 1:49 PM

…..LOSER!

easyt65 on February 10, 2012 at 9:58 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3