Abandon ship: At least five Senate Democrats now oppose Obama’s new contraception rule

posted at 4:20 pm on February 9, 2012 by Allahpundit

ABC says Lieberman, Manchin, Casey, and both Nelsons (Bill and Ben) have headed for the lifeboats, but I think that count’s already outdated. According to Fox News’s Chad Pergram, John Kerry also thinks the new rule “needs to be compromised, adjusted.” If all six vote with the GOP caucus to either repeal the rule or expand the conscience exemption, then McConnell starts with 53 votes, but since Scott Brown’s been desperate lately to show he’s as good a Democrat as Elizabeth Warren, in reality it’s probably only 52. Even with pressure mounting on swing-staters like Tester and McCaskill, it’s hard to believe they’ll get to 60. Which means unless The One reverses himself on this, nothing’s likely to happen.

Any reason to believe he might? Yup: According to ABC, some of the most influential members of his cabinet think the rule is a very bad idea.

“What are we doing here?” asked Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, stepping outside his wheelhouse to ask about a rising storm involving the Obama administration and the Catholic Church. “What’s the point?”…

The debate within the White House on this issue was, sources say, heated, and President Obama was legitimately torn. Panetta wasn’t alone in his concerns. For months, Vice President Joe Biden and then-White House chief of staff Bill Daley argued internally against the rule, sources tell ABC News. Biden and Daley didn’t think the rule was right on either the policy or the politics, sources said. Joshua Dubois, head of the Office of Faith Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, also expressed concern…

In the fall, [Planned Parenthood's Cecile] Richards brought in polling indicating that the American people overwhelmingly supported the birth control benefit in health insurance. She also highlighted statistics showing the overwhelming use of birth control.

The Vice President and others argued that this wouldn’t be seen as an issue of contraception – it would be seen as an issue of religious liberty. They questioned the polling of the rule advocates, arguing that it didn’t explain the issue in full, it ignored the question of what religious groups should have to pay for. And they argued that women voters for whom this was an important issue weren’t likely to vote for Mitt Romney, who has drawn a strong anti-abortion line as a presidential candidate, saying he would end federal funding to Planned Parenthood and supporting a “personhood” amendment that defines life as beginning at the moment of fertilization.

We’re in deep, deep trouble when Joe Biden is the voice of reason within the inner circle. Follow the link and see who he was up against on the other side: Planned Parenthood, Sebelius, Barbara Boxer — and David Plouffe, who no doubt was eyeing turnout among young O-bots and women in swing states. Why either of those groups would stay home over a slightly expanded religious-conscience exemption to contraception coverage under ObamaCare, I have no idea. Leftist groups will be too busy this summer painting Romney or Santorum as the new Hitler to agitate against Obama for expanding the exemption; besides, as we know from their changing opinions on Gitmo and drone strikes, they’re willing to cut O a lot of slack when it comes to betraying the cause. In fact, it’s the GOP’s base that desperately needs rallying, not the Democrats’. A PPP poll taken two weeks ago found that there are more Dems who are “very excited” to vote this fall than Republicans, no doubt a byproduct of despair over Romney on the right. If O had quietly granted a robust exemption on contraception to religiously-affiliated groups, he’d probably have had to weather a few weeks of grumbling from the left before the issue faded. Instead he handed the GOP a juicy culture-war issue to energize conservatives and left a flaming bag of shinola on the porch of all the religious liberals who went to bat for O-Care on the assumption that he wouldn’t force contraception coverage down their throats. Oops.

Here’s Marco Rubio on Fox this morning alongside Joe Manchin, whom I forgot in yesterday’s roll call of swing-state Democrats who are nervous about the new rule. He and Rubio are co-sponsoring legislation to repeal it. Like I say, I doubt they’ll have the votes, but the politics of a centrist Democrat joining up with a tea-party senator to challenge them is pure poison for the White House among undecideds.


Related Posts:

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

Hey, Pelosi is Catholic, I bet she is hunkered down and unavailable. By her own words she is “devote”. But her actions/inactions betray her.

jake49 on February 9, 2012 at 5:36 PM

and the SECDEF is involved in this …..why????

ted c on February 9, 2012 at 4:27 PM

Catholics are in the military, too. The Army is making their Catholic chaplains be quiet on the issue. Panetta’s life would be a lot easier if Obama just granted the religious exemption.

Bitter Clinger on February 9, 2012 at 5:36 PM

In the fall, [Planned Parenthood's Cecile] Richards brought in polling indicating that the American people overwhelmingly supported the birth control benefit in health insurance. She also highlighted statistics showing the overwhelming use of birth control.

Planned Parenthood wouldn’t lie about their polling now, would they?? Surely not.

Bitter Clinger on February 9, 2012 at 5:38 PM

Which gives rise to a question: Would this “mandate” force the female moslem population through mosques, islamic schools and islamic charities into birth control and abortion? Would it force moslem institutions to foot the bill?

Key West Reader on February 9, 2012 at 5:34 PM

Muslims are exempted from Obama Care altogether, so it isn’t even an issue for them.

Night Owl on February 9, 2012 at 5:39 PM

Fleuries on February 9, 2012 at 5:28 PM

Guess that puts the vote count back to 53.

Bitter Clinger on February 9, 2012 at 5:40 PM

Hey, Pelosi is Catholic, I bet she is hunkered down and unavailable. By her own words she is “devote”. But her actions/inactions betray her.

jake49 on February 9, 2012 at 5:36 PM

She actually came out and said she was sticking with her “fellow Catholics” and supporting Obama. I assume she meant Catholics that don’t go to Mass or follow any of the teachings.

Night Owl on February 9, 2012 at 5:42 PM

No compromising when it comes to the 1st amendment.

tommer74 on February 9, 2012 at 5:48 PM

I highly doubt Obama will reverse himself on this. What little ‘non-present’ voting record we have on him illustrates where he falls on this issue.

Scott H on February 9, 2012 at 4:30 PM

He’ll vote present by rescinding the order pending “further study” until after the election.

And brain-dead liberal Catholics like Doug Kmiec will sing hosannas to Obama’s thoughtfullness flexibility and tell everyone they just gotta vote for his Wonderfulness.

Then, safely elected to a 2nd term, Bambi will screw them and they’ll act surprised and shocked all over again.

Of course when Bambi does screw them, they won’t be protected.

PackerBronco on February 9, 2012 at 5:51 PM

This is all good news. This isn’t relevant to the Obamacare mandate before SCOTUS now, but they read the news and are human. I think it only increases the chances they will not sever the mandate from the rest of the behemoth if it is overturned.

If they do not, I’m hoping Obama does not budge on this because it will destroy him this Fall. And when we install President Romney/Santorum/Gingrich, between the health mandate and the Catholic contraceptive mandate, I think we’ll have the political capital to remove it – with or without reconciliation.

The Count on February 9, 2012 at 5:52 PM

Mother Angelica’s EWTN tv network files suit against Obama on contraception mandate

Wethal on February 9, 2012 at 5:44 PM

What ? Don’t they know that no court will ever rule against Obama on any matter ?
I sure hope they don’t end up in the SCOTUS because Obama’s personal liar lawyer sits there

http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/09-8857.htm
Note the respondent and his Attorney
:)

burrata on February 9, 2012 at 5:54 PM

Why Catholics against the moslims?

Key West Reader on February 9, 2012 at 5:34 PM

This is a cryptic reference to Obama. In spite of what Obama claims, Obama is a Muslim. Once a Muslim, always a Muslim.

timberline on February 9, 2012 at 5:54 PM

Mother Angelica’s EWTN tv network files suit against Obama on contraception mandate

Wethal on February 9, 2012 at 5:44 PM

The government will argue that EWTN is a TV station, not a church.

Let’s see how far they get. I’m surprised no big Kahunas in the Catholic Church aren’t filing a suit. I wonder what they’re waiting for.

timberline on February 9, 2012 at 5:58 PM

how about that hypocrite Stupak?

burserker on February 9, 2012 at 6:02 PM

NOW there needs to be compromise, sen. kerry? doesn’t it follow that there was a lack of compromise in obamacare to begin with?

@obamuh on February 9, 2012 at 6:02 PM

So, any of those guys trashing Brown for the assumption that he would back Obama on this, wanna take it back?

Its worth noting that, when Brown was in the MA State Legislature, he tried to fight the state version of this, if memory recalls. I’ll have to go look it up.

DominusNovus on February 9, 2012 at 6:09 PM

Don’t back down.Tell them about how you won!

Tom McDonald on February 9, 2012 at 6:11 PM

No mention of big lib Debbie Spend It NOW. There are a lot of Catholics in MI. I just saw Pete Hoekstra’s ad on The Five tonite. I giggled.

karenhasfreedom on February 9, 2012 at 6:12 PM

But Little Mitch Daniels said culture wars ain’t cool no more. What happened?

angryed on February 9, 2012 at 6:16 PM

and the SECDEF is involved in this …..why????

ted c on February 9, 2012 at 4:27 PM

Catholics are in the military, too. The Army is making their Catholic chaplains be quiet on the issue. Panetta’s life would be a lot easier if Obama just granted the religious exemption.

Bitter Clinger on February 9, 2012 at 5:36 PM

Next question is, why was Babs Boxer involved in this?

Del Dolemonte on February 9, 2012 at 6:24 PM

Since when does Obama listen to his Cabinet? That is the reason he has all those Czars, right?

Doubtful, Obama will listen to anyone outside of Axelrod who is working towards getting him re-elected. That is the only thing that will change his mind.

uhangtight on February 9, 2012 at 6:26 PM

Next question is, why was Babs Boxer involved in this?

Del Dolemonte on February 9, 2012 at 6:24 PM

Maybe :
1. She / her family owns a contraceptive company
2. She gets laundered money from Planned Parenthood
3. Her voters love free stuff
4. Sluts luv Babs

burrata on February 9, 2012 at 6:29 PM

“….don’t have the votes….”?

Let’s wait and see what happens when the Catholic bishops advise Barry that health care costs are about to go UP for the individual states, as the bishops will be closing their clinics and hospitals.

Which also means Barry’s UNEMPLOYMENT stats will also be going UP!

Barry listened to his leftist pals. They had the stats they wanted based on skewed questions.

As they say on the streets Barry, “EAT IT!”

GarandFan on February 9, 2012 at 6:33 PM

Scott Brown’s been desperate lately to show he’s as good a Democrat as Elizabeth Warren, in reality it’s probably only 52.

I hope this is a fight we can win, but don’t forget about the Maine spinsters, we may be down to 50 votes right there. And, as always, when the vote is important and the vote is very close, that is precisely when our rinos feel their Democrat side rise up and they vote against Republicans and Conservatives. We may lose additional rino votes on this as well.

RJL on February 9, 2012 at 6:47 PM

I’m surprised by Nebraska’s Nelson opposing this. He’s not running for re-election and has nothing to gain…..finally a principled stand by him? Better late than never I guess.

LukeinNE on February 9, 2012 at 6:57 PM

Serious question, and for the record I am completely opposed to this ridiculous mandate as well as Obamacare as a whole, I’m just trying to understand the possibilities.

If the Catholic hospitals, etc. decide to not shut down and instead drop the insurance for their employees, do they even have to pay the fine? The administration has argued (and is arguing) to the appellate courts that it’s not a penalty, it’s a tax and therefore within the federal government’s taxing authority … but aren’t Catholic hospitals and charities tax-exempt? Or is there something in Obamacare I’m not aware of that says the fine applies even to tax-exempt institutions?

I’m not saying the Catholic Church should do this, just wondering what would happen if they did.

toby11 on February 9, 2012 at 7:18 PM

I absolutely love watching the right go b*tsh*t about this. Anti-Birth control crusade!? In 2012?? THAT’s the horse you’re going to ride!? Does no one here see what a political loser this issue will be for you?

I’m not going to go as far as Charlie Cook and suggest that the Administration anticipated this level of reaction and went ahead anyway because they saw an upside for them. But I have no doubt that the public at large –especially non-political women of child-bearing age, and their husbands as well– will recoil when they see the right’s attack on their access to birth control.

And please, don’t tell me the “religious liberty” aspect is going to play stronger with the general public than the attempted restriction on birth control restrictions. It hasn’t been an issue in the 28 states that already require coverage equity, but now you decide to make a big deal out of it?

I’ll bet many of these women didn’t even know that the aging celibate males of the Church hierarchy condemns them as sinners for wearing IUDs. And I’m even more certain they were unaware that Catholic-owned businesses consider themselves above a law that applies to all other business. Thanks for waking them up, wingnuts!

This will redound to the the President’s political benefit, especially if the USCCB carries through on today’s hint that they will oppose the contraceptive carriage requirement in ALL businesses, not just the ones run by the church. And as a bonus, the archaic patriarchal strictures of a deservedly-dying Church take another hit.

Sounds like a win-win.

Drew Lowell on February 9, 2012 at 7:32 PM

Drew Lowell on February 9, 2012 at 7:32 PM

You really need to find out what the issue is about before you mouth off and show everyone what a fool you are.

Vince on February 9, 2012 at 7:38 PM

Bruins goalie Tim Thomas took serious heat today from the media for not answering questions in regards to his Facebook statement supporting the Catholic Church. They asked question after question after question at a press conference that was supposed to be about hockey. Tim kept rebuffing them saying he was there to talk about hockey. Meanwhile our President, whose job revolves around these political issues refused to answer questions about the controversy and was given a pass. All he had to say was “C’mon guys”. It doesn’t get much crazier than that.

-
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/02/09/obama-tells-reporter-asking-about-contraception-church-controversy-co

Wigglesworth on February 9, 2012 at 7:46 PM

Constitutional scholar?

Hardly.

Constitution-hater?

Um, yep.

I guess he took that goddamn America sh!t to heart.

That’s what us bitter clingers get for electing such a megalomaniac.

hillbillyjim on February 9, 2012 at 8:02 PM

But I have no doubt that the public at large –especially non-political women of child-bearing age, and their husbands as well– will recoil when they see the right’s attack on their access to birth control.

Utter nonsense. No one is attacking anyone’s access to birth control. Your strawman is beyond silly.

And as a bonus, the archaic patriarchal strictures of a deservedly-dying Church take another hit.

Sounds like a win-win.

Drew Lowell on February 9, 2012 at 7:32 PM

And you flaming liberals like to call US bigots? Look in the mirror.

hillbillyjim on February 9, 2012 at 8:07 PM

Here’s a crazy idea:

If you want birth control, pay for it.

What was I thinking? We’re dealing with the entitlement mentality writ large. It’s sad to watch our country disintegrate before our very eyes.

hillbillyjim on February 9, 2012 at 8:11 PM

Who cares, until people start feeling the totalitarian effects of Obamacare they won’t completely oppose it. The good thing is that now Catholic priests have something to divert their attention from the cherubic boys in the choir who may or may not be giving them the eye.

Smedley on February 9, 2012 at 8:39 PM

“And you flaming liberals like to call US bigots? Look in the mirror.”

If your definition of bigotry encompasses a contempt for an institution –in this case, the Catholic Church and every other church, for that matter– then I have to plead guilty. It has done too much damage to human progress for too long for me to cut it a break, no matter how many African clean-water projects it operates.

But bigotry against people simply because they self-identify as Catholic? Nope, not me. There are several fine people in my life whom I love and respect who call themselves Catholic. They’re not, really –all of them support the death penalty, in direct contravention of Church teaching– but that doesn’t make them bad people. They’re just wrong. There’s a difference.

Drew Lowell on February 9, 2012 at 8:46 PM

you know what, i don’t want Obama to cave on this..if this stays in place he
will lose the catholic vote(or i hope)..it’s losing situation for him right
now..heck, if they are smart they would remember this and still not vote for him, if he reverses course.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/07/us-usa-catholic-birthcontrol-idUSTRE8161ZT20120207

sadsushi on February 9, 2012 at 8:50 PM

Drew Lowell on February 9, 2012 at 7:32 PM

Bob Casey, Tim Kaine, and apparently even Dick Durbin do not agree with you. This is going to cost you guys two and maybe three Senate seats that you should be winning.

Yup, great strategery there.

rockmom on February 9, 2012 at 8:56 PM

And the first Executive Order next president should do is require Halal meat markets and restaurants serve pork.

riddick on February 9, 2012 at 9:19 PM

Bob Casey, Tim Kaine, and apparently even Dick Durbin do not agree with you.

For neither the first nor the last time!

This is going to cost you guys two and maybe three Senate seats that you should be winning.

Nope. The more ridiculous the idea, the less shelf-life it has. This issue will dwindle away, because your nominee also mandated contraceptive coverage equity when he was governor. He’s been apologizing for years for trying to help sick people, but a record is a record.

Drew Lowell on February 9, 2012 at 9:22 PM

But I have no doubt that the public at large –especially non-political women of child-bearing age, and their husbands as well– will recoil when they see the right’s attack on their access to birth control.

Perhaps unlike you, they will be sensible enough to recognize that there is no attack on their access to birth control. Contraception is widely available (some places for free and, yes, even in Catholic hospitals) and not prohibited anywhere in this country. No one is suggesting it should be. The issue is whether the church can be forced to pay for it. The Catholics aren’t telling their non-Catholic employees or anyone else for that matter that they can’t have contraception or sterilization or an abortion or anything else. They’re saying that it’s contrary to the tenets of their faith and they’re not going to pay for it and the First Amendment backs them up.

And please, don’t tell me the “religious liberty” aspect is going to play stronger with the general public than the attempted restriction on birth control restrictions. It hasn’t been an issue in the 28 states that already require coverage equity, but now you decide to make a big deal out of it?

Once again, there is no “attempted restriction on birth control restrictions” nor even on birth control. And, yes, it was an issue in those 28 states. Most of them have a religious exemption that allows the Catholics to opt out. NY, CA and OR (go figure) have the most narrow religious exemptions and, couldn’t you just guess, those are the exemptions on which Sebelius fashioned hers. And even in those states, the Catholics have options. For two, they can self-insure their prescription drug coverage or drop drug coverage altogether. There are no such options with the federal plan. Besides, we’re not talking about individual states here. The state level, after all, is where these matters properly rest. We’re talking about a federal program and a Constitution that states “Congress shall make no law…”

Why does the left always feel the need to change the parameters of the debate? In their framings, “illegal immigration” invariably becomes “immigration.” “Limited government” invariably becomes “no government.” And so on. One might be forced to conclude that they’re simply incapable of mounting a cogent argument based on the merits of the issue at hand and so have to create armies of straw men. This is not an assault on women’s health nor on women’s rights. Nor on contraception, abortion rights or anything else. The only assault being perpetrated here is by the Obama Administration on the First Amendment and the American people.

SukieTawdry on February 9, 2012 at 9:28 PM

We know enough about the world today that, to believe in religion, requires the rejection of reality and the fabrication of fantasy. Freedom of religion is nothing more than freedom of superstition. I am not a fan of BO but on this issue I must agree with him.

Bandit13 on February 9, 2012 at 9:50 PM

This is a cryptic reference to Obama. In spite of what Obama claims, Obama is a Muslim. Once a Muslim, always a Muslim.

timberline

BO is not a muslim…He is an atheist. He sees religion for what it is; Primitive thought that projects human characteristics onto mythical beings, and is determined to dramatically reduce its role in this country. This happens to be BO’s ONLY redeeming quality.

Bandit13 on February 9, 2012 at 9:59 PM

hillbillyjim on February 9, 2012 at 8:11 PM

The frog is just about boiled.

Obama does this and the best we can do is debate about it on the evening news.

Cleombrotus on February 9, 2012 at 10:39 PM

Bandit13 on February 9, 2012 at 9:50 PM

Then you’re a bigger fan of his than you realize. Maybe you’ll share a cell with him in Hades.

Cleombrotus on February 9, 2012 at 10:42 PM

Bandit13 on February 9, 2012 at 9:50 PM

Nobody cares what you think of religion nor is it relevant. The issue is what the Constitution thinks of religion and the practice thereof. As it turns out, the Constitution has great respect for it.

SukieTawdry on February 9, 2012 at 11:27 PM

Smedley on February 9, 2012 at 8:39 PM

bigot

cptacek on February 9, 2012 at 11:42 PM

Constitutional scholar?

Hardly.

Constitution-hater?

Um, yep.

I guess he took that goddamn America sh!t to heart.

That’s what us bitter clingers get for electing such a megalomaniac.

hillbillyjim on February 9, 2012 at 8:02 PM

I don’t think the bitter clingers voted for him. And I know this Bitter Clinger never did and never would.

It was the clueless leeches that voted for him.

Bitter Clinger on February 10, 2012 at 12:08 AM

Down with King Obama!!! Mad King Obama!!

Sherman1864 on February 10, 2012 at 2:37 AM

I absolutely love watching the right go b*tsh*t about this. Anti-Birth control crusade!? In 2012?? THAT’s the horse you’re going to ride!? Does no one here see what a political loser this issue will be for you?

I’m not going to go as far as Charlie Cook and suggest that the Administration anticipated this level of reaction and went ahead anyway because they saw an upside for them. But I have no doubt that the public at large –especially non-political women of child-bearing age, and their husbands as well– will recoil when they see the right’s attack on their access to birth control.

And please, don’t tell me the “religious liberty” aspect is going to play stronger with the general public than the attempted restriction on birth control restrictions. It hasn’t been an issue in the 28 states that already require coverage equity, but now you decide to make a big deal out of it?

I’ll bet many of these women didn’t even know that the aging celibate males of the Church hierarchy condemns them as sinners for wearing IUDs. And I’m even more certain they were unaware that Catholic-owned businesses consider themselves above a law that applies to all other business. Thanks for waking them up, wingnuts!

This will redound to the the President’s political benefit, especially if the USCCB carries through on today’s hint that they will oppose the contraceptive carriage requirement in ALL businesses, not just the ones run by the church. And as a bonus, the archaic patriarchal strictures of a deservedly-dying Church take another hit.

Sounds like a win-win.

Drew Lowell on February 9, 2012 at 7:32 PM

Your amusement at watching the Right “go b*tsh*t about this” (people like John Kerry, Dick Durbin, Joe Biden, and Tim Kaine are proving that they are actually DINOs by their opposition to this policy, aren’t they?) can’t match the amusement people like me have watching tunnel-visioned & tone-deaf people like you have orgasms over what you perceive to be political missteps by the Right at the very same time your cluelessness and self-superiority is setting you up to getting shellacked in the voting booth, like what happened to you in 2010. Remember that?

Why don’t you remind us how good you felt realizing the Democrats got beaten badly then by a bunch of stupid, barbaric, gun-clinging religious nuts who, unlike you, lack the genetic ability to perceive how intelligent and benevolent President “aircrafts” is? And, after that, we’d love to hear your explanation why Sotomeyer and Kagan decided to out themselves as Constitutionally-clueless, wingnut Righties by participating in the 9-0 spanking 0bamessiah’s administration received from the USSC in Hosanna-Tabor Church v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission! At the same time, if we’re only so lucky, you’ll tell us how 0bamessiah’s loss in that case was intentional, for, as all you divinely-enlightened Lefties know, 0bamessiah is too smart to ever make a mistake – wow, as I think about it, maybe newly-outed Sotomayer and Kagan were part of His plot, too! You geniuses leave nothing to chance, do you?

Please keep believing, for the sake of people like me, that 0bamessiah’s failures at further advancing His agenda are due to a messaging problem, and have nothing at all to do with the message! Please!? :)

Bizarro No. 1 on February 10, 2012 at 5:57 AM

BO is not a muslim…He is an atheist. He sees religion for what it is; Primitive thought that projects human characteristics onto mythical beings, and is determined to dramatically reduce its role in this country. This happens to be BO’s ONLY redeeming quality.

Bandit13 on February 9, 2012 at 9:59 PM

God is a mythical being? You know and can prove this how?

Since religion is apparently all about projecting human charactistics onto mythical beings, which human charateristic would you say was being represented/projected when Jesus was quoted as telling us to be perfect like His Heavenly Father?

In your mind, is the desire for ethical/moral perfection a bad one? If it’s not, and if you can’t prove that God is a mythical being, what would you say is motivating you to care enough to go around spreading your pet belief that all religions, even one which tells people to strive for ethically/morally perfection, should have a dramatically reduced role in this country?

Bizarro No. 1 on February 10, 2012 at 6:44 AM

I meant to say “…your pet belief opinion…”

Bizarro No. 1 on February 10, 2012 at 6:51 AM

@bandit13

He (soetero) sees religion for what it is; Primitive thought that projects human characteristics onto mythical beings, and is determined to dramatically reduce its role in this country.

Interesting- so then what was President Checkbox doing at a Christian prayer breakfast the other day, badly paraphrasing scripture and trying to use it to justify screwing with tax rates?

This makes earflaps either a bald faced liar if you are correct in your assessment, or a believer in “primitive thought and mythical beings”.

Which is it, scooter?

GrassMudHorsey on February 10, 2012 at 7:58 AM

@lorien 1973

Mandates for catholics: bad

Mandates for everyone else: good

Wait. What?

Bzzzzt. Wrong, bogus framing of the argument.

Try this:

Mandates for Catholics: Fascist overreach by a lawless regime.

Mandates for everyone else: Fascist overreach by a lawless regime.

Wait. What the hell did you vote in, 52?

GrassMudHorsey on February 10, 2012 at 8:01 AM

Bandit13 on February 9, 2012 at 9:59 PM

Drew Lowell on February 9, 2012 at 7:32 PM

I wish to high heaven that we could get less sanctimonious atheists in the comment section. You’d think they’d take their cues from AP, who is upfront about his beliefs (or lack thereof) without offending every believer in range.

But subtlety is not the nouveau atheist’s strong suit, to say the least. It’s obvious they’re still angry at Mom and Dad for dragging them to church every week.

Grace_is_sufficient on February 10, 2012 at 8:05 AM

How about that – at least 5 Democrats are against Obama violating the Constitution?!

easyt65 on February 10, 2012 at 9:57 AM

ABC says Lieberman, Manchin, Casey, and both Nelsons (Bill and Ben) have headed for the lifeboats, but I think that count’s already outdated.

What do Senators Manchin, Casey, and Bill Nelson(FL) have in common? They’re all up for re-election this year. Casey would be in a REALLY tight spot if Rick Santorum, whom Casey beat in the 2006 Senate election by touting himself as a pro-life Democrat, could publicly denounce Casey as pro-abortion. What about those other Senate freshmen who squeaked into office in 2006, like Jon Tester(MT) and Claire McCaskill(MO)? Or the other Democrat Senators left in the South, like Mary Landrieu (LA), Mark Pryor (AR), and Jim Webb(VA)?

Rubio and Manchin might not have 60 votes to get past a filibuster, but they are right to bring this up, to force Senators to publicly take sides on this issue. Democrat Senators who support Obama will become more vulnerable in November, and if enough Democrats vote against Obama to save their own seats, the Republican Presidential nominee can use this against Obama, by saying that the majority of the American people (through their Senators) oppose Obama’s policy.

Steve Z on February 10, 2012 at 10:17 AM

“In the fall, [Planned Parenthood's Cecile] Richards brought in polling indicating that the American people overwhelmingly supported the birth control benefit in health insurance. She also highlighted statistics showing the overwhelming use of birth control.”

It doesn’t matter if 110% want birth control in their policies, its a question of constitutionality.

PS Kill your kids on your own dime

Bevan on February 10, 2012 at 1:13 PM

“In the fall, [Planned Parenthood's Cecile] Richards brought in polling indicating that the American people overwhelmingly supported the birth control benefit in health insurance. She also highlighted statistics showing the overwhelming use of birth control.”

It doesn’t matter if 110% want birth control in their policies, its a question of constitutionality.

PS Kill your kids on your own dime

Bevan on February 10, 2012 at 1:13 PM

I wonder if Ms. Richards bothered to ask anyone if they also supported forcing religious institutions to provide or pay for services which violated their beliefs? I’m going to bet not. It’s easy and probably true to say that a majority of the population is ok with contraception covered on health insurance (not abortion, but contraception), and that a majority use it. But it is a whole different question and realm of discussion when you move it to forcing a religious institution to violate a core belief to provide it.

Oddly enough, I notice the small core of liberals who often comment here on HotGas have been noticably absent from the discussions of this issue. I wonder if even they have realized that Dear Leader has truly overstepped his Constitutional boundaries on this one.

“First they came for the Catholics…”

gravityman on February 10, 2012 at 2:08 PM

Comment pages: 1 2