NY Times poll shows there's no "war on women", not even close
 

In today's New York Times poll, a huge majority of Americans(57-36 percent, which is a rout) believe that religiously affiliated employers should be exempt from offering contraceptives to employees, i fthe objection is based on moral grounds.

This poll was conducted by the most liberal rag out there, and still the outcome could not be more clear...despite what you hear in the media, Americans seethis is not about contraception, but about religious freedom. I hope liberals keep beating the "war on women"" drum, because even the New York Times says it ain't resonating with the folks.

Poll: Most back exemption to HHS mandate - (BP)

Regarding your conclusions on the poll...they are flawed. If you read the actual poll you'd see that a clear majority do see this as a women's health issue...they even asked that specific question.

I'd also note that polls taken just the week prior showed 61% support for the contraception provision.

-spence

take any poll asking if "x" should be provided for free and guess what you get? :uhuh: 61% seem a little low in this day and age

hey, are all of the entities, way over 1000(seven entire states and 1,372 businesses, unions and other institutions ) I'm pretty sure, who have somehow gotten Obamacare "the law of the land" waivers, going to be waivered from this mandate as well??? just wondering? it could be construed as a "war on women"

My conclusion was not the least bit flawed...you just need to claim that, because the fcats make your side look out of touch.

A majority of people want to be able to "get" contraception. But the New York Times poll I posted sjows, EVEN ACCORDING TO THE NY TIMES, that a big majority don't want religios institutions to be forced to provide that which they teach is immoral.

Spence, I didn't conduct that poll, the NY Times did. I'm sorry that you hate the results of that poll, but the facts is still the facts.

Keep spinning Spence. And keep ignoring everything which challenges your cnclusions.

Let's recap...

The poll says that 57% of Americans want exemptions for religious institutions.

I said that as a result of this poll, it's clear that a majority of Americans want exemptions for religios institutions.

Spence says my conclusion (which wasn't any interpretation, just a regurgitation of what the poll showed) was flawed.

Spence, people want contraception. But not at the expenswe of trampling the constitution.

Spence, your mind is unable, or unwilling, to process that which doesn't support liberal ideology. This is not rocket science, it's as simple as it gets.

You concluded from the CBS/NYTimes poll that Americans felt this was an issue of religious freedom rather than women's health.

The same poll you cited included a specific question with nearly the exact same wording you used that contradicts your own conclusion.

Multiple polls held in a similar time period also offer contradictory findings to your conclusion.

Republicans Losing on Birth Control as 77% in Poll Spurn Debate - Businessweek

Birth Control Mandate Supported by Most Catholics, Evangelicals, Says New Poll, Christian News

For someone so obsessed with facts you sure seem to hate facing them :hihi:

-spence

"Multiple polls held in a similar time period also offer contradictory findings to your conclusion"

The polls you cited did not specifically ask about religious exemptions. The polls you cited said that most Americans want contraception available through health insurance.

The poll I cited, by the NY Times, went one step further, and asked whether or not exemptions should be granted on religious grounds. The results of that poll speak for themselves.

Even if the NY Tmes poll showed otherwise, we still have the issue of that pesky constitution, and the Bill Of Rights contained therein.

Furthermore, the Catholic bishops have said that contraception WOULD BE PROVIDED if there was a documented medical reason for the contraception (my wife has such an issue, we had to clear her use of contraception with my priest). This is worth pointing out, because the issue therefore has nothing whatsoever to sdo with legitimate health issues, but rather, liberal desires to have others pay for them to engage in recreational sex. Thats all this is about.

Liberals think free love and casual sex is not only something to be celebrated, but something that the public has to pay for. Absurd.

"More than six in 10 respondents to a Bloomberg National Poll -- including almost 70 percent of women -- say the issue involves health care and access to birth control, according to the survey taken March 8-11." :smash:

shouldn't this be 100%?

Let's all fight about birth control while they turn us into Serfs without us realizing it..

Zimmy and Spence...

The Church has said it will cover contraception where there is a legitimate medical need.

What about that sentence do you not underatsnd?

When it's for a medical purposes, meaning when it's actually about healthcare, the Church will pay. They don't want to pay when it's strictly a way to engage in casual sex.

This has nothing, nothing, to do with healthcare. Anyone who says differently is either lying or ignorant.

Where am I wrong?

Your conclusion remains to be disturbingly flawed.

Because American's appeared to be in favor for a religious exemption in one poll, doesn't magically over ride Americans believing the issue is a women's rights issue as shown in three polls.

Your conclusion was that...hell, the title for the thread had nothing to do about religion but rather a "war on women" your quotes.

Further, in just your last post you make idiotic comments that this is all about sexual promiscuity, the same sort of pig headed crap that has lost Rush 100 paid sponsors.

Your claim about Catholic Bishops seems to indicate they're a lot closer to middle ground with Obama's compromise position than you are.

The poll you cited doesn't include anything about shifting Catholic positions...Are you changing your story?

Who's side are you on again?

-spence

you are very angry lately Spence...it's "messiah failure syndrome"...hope you can recover :)

All that and you didn't even make a point?

-spence

you say stuff like that when you are REALLY angry...and wrong....take a nap...there's always tomorrow:)

I'd think if I was wrong you'd have made the point by now.

Instead you want to argue that public opinion is governed by the Constitution?

-spence

no, you want to argue the Constitution is governed by public opinion

I argued that public opinion is irrelevent where we are governed by the Constitution

:rotf2::rotf2::rotf2::rotf2:

I agree completely. The "involves health care" part is pretty ridiculous and could have could been "is about" or "is an issue of." I didn't check what the actual language was in the poll. I imagine they were trying to tease out whether people really believe this is solely a religious freedom issue. Clearly, many don't. 70% of women polled are apparently liars or ignorant :buds::rotf2:

Growing economy, health care passed (especially pleasing because it spites your type so much :)), pretty much leading in the polls, wall street hiring, markets up. If you don't hate him, it is actually pretty darn good. Better to be on his side of the isle, for sure. Look at all the pent up anger on the right. Not good to live like that.

so what you are saying is 1.7% growth in 2011, a Constitutionally questionable power grab that the CBO now says will cost nearly double what it was origianlly promised over 10 years, a relatively small lead by a sitting president over a yet to be determined challenger,...... I thought you guys hated Wall Street,...... again, I thought you guys hated Wall Street, "pretty good is an interesting way of putting it", yeah, you get to hang out with Reid, Pelosi, Schumer, Wasserman Schultz, etc...you know..all the CONSTITUTIONALISTS..., the only people out there angry, marching, breaking stuff and getting arrested are the OCCUPY nuts and they're supported and funded by "his side of the aisle".......there must be a pill they're handing out....glad you are happy...and confident Zim:)

you forgot unemployment which if we factor in those that have given up looking it really over 10%...but this admin needs to get to 8% by election day


here's a poll that may have some relevence in terms of a Presidential Election:
CBS/NYT March 12th

Scribd

condition of the National Eonomy these days- fairly bad/very bad 75%
is the economy getting better/worse ?- worse/same 65%
do you app/disapp of the way BO is handling the economy?- disapp 54%...up from 50% last month
is the country going in right/wrong direction- seriously gotten off the wrong track 63%
compared to 4 years ago is your family better/worse?- worse/about same 80%
is the price of gas something the President can do a lot about?- yes, can do a lot 54%

*note at the bottom of the poll, Republicans were the smallest sampling less than 1/3rd of those polled

perception is an interesting thing:uhuh:



and this, you always have to remember, is with Obama enjoying constant cheerleading from nearly every media outlet....which you'd think would really sway "public opinion"

President Romney will be hardly different than President Obama. Santorum would get trounced. All in all, the nut jobs on the far right lose out in any case.

Repubs. are now coming out against renewing the Violence Against Women Act.

"Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska sternly warned her colleagues that the party was at risk of being successfully painted as antiwoman — with potentially grievous political consequences in the fall, several Republican senators said Wednesday."

If 1% of independents switch sides b/c of this war on woman, the Repubs are toast.

Zimmy, who are the nutjobs on this issue?

My side says that if women need contraception for legitimate medical reasons, they will provide it. But the church will not pay for the tools for folks to engage in casual sex.

Your side says that's not good enough. Your side says that somehow (no one can tell me what the logic is) that employers are obligated to pay for the means to engage in voluntary, casual, recreational sex.

The poll I shared shows tht a huge majority of Americans are on my side, not your side. So who are the "nut jobs:"?

Zimmy, Spence, Paul S...anyone...where does it say that employers shuold make it easier for their employees to have casual sex? Why stop at condoms? Why not force the Catholic church to provide employees with rooms with mirrors on the ceilings, vibrating beds, and Barry White music in the background?

"If 1% of independents switch sides b/c of this war on woman, the Repubs are toast"

And if 1% of Catholics make the opposite switch because we don't like having our rights trampled upon, the liberals are toast.

You cannot say it's about healthcare. This is about liberals wanting others to pay for them to have casual sex. Maybe a majority of Americans support that, I don't know. But let's at least frame the question honestly, is that too much to ask?

War on women...not according to the NY Times poll...

If we want my wife's covered on our insurance, so we can have sex w/o having a kid right now, is that 'casual sex' or 'recreational sex' I see both terms used...? Just curious where the line is.

Hey Mr. freedom, who gives you the right to say it isn't about health care? You certainly like to determine what other people should think. I agree, it isn't a "war" on women, the nutso obsession with contraception and sex sure is going to put-off enough women to make it harder for any Republican, whether you care about the polls or not.

I'm not claiming any "right" to say it's not about healthcare, I'm saying the facts show it's not about healthcare. Legitimate healthcare needs are covered. What the church wants to avoid covering is not "medicine" by ane rational definition.

"the nutso obsession with contraception "

Excuse me? My side says contraception is fine, just don't ask the Catholic church to pay for it. Nothing nutso about that...

"make it harder for any Republican"

yeah, that explains why the GOP did so poorly in 2010 I guess...

I'm not saying that sex with one's spouse isn't more meaningful than a one night stand, give me a little credit?. I'm saying that when I have sex with my wife, and we're trying to avoid getting pregnant, I'm not asking anyone else to violate their religious beliefs to make it happen. I don't work for the Catholic church, but if I did, I'd buy my own condoms and call it a day.

And we need to stop framing this as a "healthcare" issue. Liberals deliberately do that to marginalize the Catholic church, and make us look like we're turning a blind eye to legitimate health needs. What does is say about liberals, when they are framing the debate so dishonestly? Even THEY know they have no logical argument when they discuss it honestly, so the do what liberals always do, and demonize instead of debate.

According to Santorum, any sex that isn't a specific attempt to procreate is recreational and immoral. Not that his Church or Bible teaches that.

You are not trying to say that this recent uproar over contraception was equally relevant in 2010 are you?

Dishonesty? The question could also be made that an insurance company should not discriminate against a client because of the employers belief, no? You will be much better off when you start to consider that people with other views are not inherently wrong.

Nope. What I'm saying, and I'm 100% correct, is that conservative views on sex, and Catholic views on sex, have not changed one bit since 2010. Liberals are making hay out of this, because what are they going to do, point to the economy? Gas prices? Our debt?

You mentioned my side's "nutso" views on sex. We feel sex is a healthy, yet serious, thing, not to be taken lightly.

Your side says that if it feels good, DO IT! As a result of that, numbers are up for unwanted pregnancies, abortions, divorce, infidelity, and kids born out of wedlock. That's irrefutably a result of making sex a casual thing. Those results, in my opinion, do not represent a great cultural leap forward. Your side won't have that conversation, because it makes you look crazy.

"an insurance company should not discriminate against a client because of the employers belief, no?"

Zimmy, for the last time, there IS NO LAW that says that women have the right to contraception, except where there are legitimate health needs.

However, there IS precedent (the 1st amendment) saying that the feds cannot force a religion to violate its beliefs.

What part of those 2 paragraphs can't you understand? I know you don't like it, you don't have to like it. But liberals need to realize that the Bill Of Rights even applies to Catholics.

"You will be much better off when you start to consider that people with other views are not inherently wrong"

You called my church's beliefs "nutso", and now you're telling me I need to me more mindful of the possibility that the other side is right? Get over yourself, OK? Did you get appointed God, and I missed that announcement?

The First Amendment says my side is right, and your side is wrong.

Which Catholic views? Santorums or the churches? Which divorce rates? Newt's? You know divorce rates are higher among Republicans, for whatever that is worth? You say too much patently untrue bs.

By the way, do you even know what the first Amendment says? The insurance coverage of contraception does not establich a religion or prohibit free excercise of religion. Anyone who does not want the contraception does not have to take it. The church isn't required to foot the bill.

"Which Catholic views? Santorums or the churches?"

This may be news to you, but Rick Santorum is not the Pope. If he says something, he is not speaking on beghalf of the Church. The Catholic Church advocates family planning, which is a form of birth control.

"Which divorce rates? Newt's?"

Unless I said that no Republican ever got divorced, Newt's past has nothing to do with this. I said divorce rates are higher after the sexual revolution than they were before. Newt Gingrich's divore statistics don't reflect on anyone other than Newt Gingrich. You're going to pick one extreme case, and apply it to all conservatives? You think that's reasonable? Do you also assume Osama Bin Laden's actions tell you something about all Muslims? Godd luck getting out of that...

"You know divorce rates are higher among Republicans, for whatever that is worth?"

I didn't know that. I never said divorce rates are lower for Republicans,. I said that the sexual revolution (which was a liberal cause) had a lot of devasting consequences on the stable family unit, and nothing you said refutes that one bit.

"You say too much patently untrue bs"

One example please. I've made mistakes here, and I admit them. That's the difference between me and you, and between me and Spence.

"do you even know what the first Amendment says?"

Sure. Here is the relevent portion...

"prohibits the federal and state governments from establishing an official religion, or from favoring or disfavoring one view of religion over another"

"The church isn't required to foot the bill"

They aren't? Zimmy, if the church's insurance policy is expanded to provide contraception, who do you think does pay the bill? The customer, that's who.

You liberals crack me up. Time and time again, you act as if taking money from businesses is mutually exclusive from taking money from individuals. Liberals act as if there's this giant, infinite ATM out there called "business", which we can raid whenever we want. You could not be more wrong.

How can you not understand that? Have you never ever bought something from a business? Don't those businesses raise your prices as their costs increase?

I work as an actuary Zimmy, which means it's my job to set insurance rates. When state laws require that we increase coverage, guess what? One hundred percent of the time, we pass that on to the customer. Every single time. We have no other choice.

I know what the ist amendment says. Perhaps you should be as well versed in economics 101 as I am with the 1st amendment.

Do you have any familiarity with the Church's position on this issue? The church doesn't forbid its employees from using contraception for casual sex. The church just refuses to pay for it, because the church believes it's immoral. The 1st amendment clearly gives the Church that right, doesn't it?

Based on what you are saying, the Catholic church pays for birth control anyway, unless they use a company that does not cover birth control at all. The price the employer is quoted is affected by everyone insured by the insurance provider, not just one particular employer. Obama was wrong to require Catholic organizations to directly fund the contraception. By shifting it to the insurance company, it is not specifically covered by the church.

"the Catholic church pays for birth control anyway"

If it's used as medicine (which is rare), they pay for it. The vast majority of women on birth control are not using it for medicinal purposes, but for "recreation", I don't know what else to call it.

"The price the employer is quoted is affected by everyone insured by the insurance provider, not just one particular employer"

Absolutely, 100% not true. I do this for a living. In quoting premiums for the vast majority of our customers (employers), we look at how much money that employer costs us in the form of benefits. If the church was one of our customers, and now they're forced to offer more benefits than before, that means my health insurance company will have higher benefits paid than before, which means the church must pay a higher premium. In order for my profit margin (as the insurance company) to stay the same, I have to raise my rates for the Church.

Zimmy, trust me on this. The premium you pay for any insurance policy is the expected value of what the insurance company will pay out in benefits, plus expenses (rent on the building, etc) plus a small profit load. In this case, when you increase coverage, that necessarily means that the insurance company will pay more dollars out in the form of benefits, which necessarily means they increase the premium.

Think of your auto policy. Let's say you only have liability coverage, not physical damage. If you call your agent (or company) and tell them you want to add physical damage coverage to your vehicle, you don't fully expect to pay more? You have to pay more.

"By shifting it to the insurance company, it is not specifically covered by the church"

I do not know what planet you, or Obama, live on. Zimmy, from where do you think businesses get their money? From revenue, from the customer. When a business has an increase in expenses, that is almost always passed on the customer. In this case, when an insurance policy is modified to increase coverage, it is always associated with an increase in costs. Always...

If what you and Obama said was true, that would mean you could get something for nothing. The real world doesn't work that way Zimmy. When the feds take money from businesses (through tax hikes, raising the minimum wage, whatever), the businesses pass that expense on to the customer.

Zimmy, neither you nor Obama can claim that taking money from business somehow "spares" the customers of that business from paying more. It may sound great in a press conference. But it's completely ridiculous, and I bet you know that.

Please give an actual percentage of woman who use birth control pills for medicine, if you know it. Otherwise, you are just speculating.

Did you work specifically in health insurance?