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

[Jim in CT]

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)

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

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? 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"

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

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

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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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

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

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

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

-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.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

despite what you hear in the media, Americans seethis is not about contraception, but about religious freedom.

Originally Posted by spence

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.


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

-spence

"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."

[spence]

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

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"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.

[zimmy]

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.

[PaulS]

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

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...

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

This is about liberals wanting others to pay for them to have casual sex...

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

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.

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.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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? .

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.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

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.

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.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

You cannot say it's about healthcare. This is about liberals wanting others to pay for them to have casual sex.

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

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...

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"make it harder for any Republican"

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

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

[PaulS]

What a quanundrum! Jim says there is no war on woman yet House Repubs. think the opposite???


"WASHINGTON — House Republicans, unsure how to proceed, have slowed their efforts to overturn a federal rule requiring employers, including religious institutions, to provide female employees with free health insurance coverage for contraceptives.

While most House Republicans still support legislation to broaden the exemption for religious employers, House Republican leaders are carefully reviewing their options on the issue, which Democrats used to political advantage in the Senate.

The goal of House Republicans has not changed, they said, but they worry about further alienating women in this year’s elections"

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

What a quanundrum! Jim says there is no war on woman yet House Repubs. think the opposite???


"WASHINGTON — House Republicans, unsure how to proceed, have slowed their efforts to overturn a federal rule requiring employers, including religious institutions, to provide female employees with free health insurance coverage for contraceptives.

While most House Republicans still support legislation to broaden the exemption for religious employers, House Republican leaders are carefully reviewing their options on the issue, which Democrats used to political advantage in the Senate.

The goal of House Republicans has not changed, they said, but they worry about further alienating women in this year’s elections"

Paul - I never said the media wasn't spinning this as a war on women. I'm saying that's not what it is, if you look at the facts surrounding the issue.

Instead of posting a gotcha! link, can yuo answer a question?

As you may or may not know, the church is covering contraception where there is a valid medical need. The church won't cover contraception if it's a tool to engage in recreational sex. Here is my question...why would liberals assume that an employer is legally obligated to pay for the voluntary, recreational activities of its employees?

That's all this issue boils down to. The rest is liberal spin. It may be effective spin, but it's still intellectually dishonest spin.

If your side needs to frame the debate in a totally dishonest way right off the bat, qwhat does that tell you?

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

As you may or may not know, the church is covering contraception where there is a valid medical need.

So then it is up to a doctor to decide what is a valid medical need, correct?

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Paul - I never said the media wasn't spinning this as a war on women. I'm saying that's not what it is, if you look at the facts surrounding the issue.

but I just gave you quotes from Repub. leaders saying that is how it is coming across. They did not say that the media was spinning it that way.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

but I just gave you quotes from Repub. leaders saying that is how it is coming across. They did not say that the media was spinning it that way.

Your post contained EXACTLY ZERO specific quotes from specific "Republican leaders".

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by PaulS

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.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Your post contained EXACTLY ZERO specific quotes from specific "Republican leaders".

I posted that earlier

Here are 2 more:

"Representative Judy Biggert, Republican of Illinois, said, “We should keep our focus on economic growth and jobs, instead of getting sidetracked by issues that divide us.”

Representative Tom Reed, Republican of New York, disagrees with the president’s policy. But he said: “We have clearly staked out our opposition to it. It’s time to move on to other issues, like jobs and the economy.”

[RIJIMMY]

everyone take a breath for a minute....
Can I provide another angle, one I believe 100% valid and may help liberals understand this
Religious organizations invest their $. They do it for pensions and for charitable trusts. Now, written into many (I've seen a lot) of the guidelines is that a money manager cannot invest in weapons of mass destruct, sin stocks - gambling, alcohol, etc. The religous organizations do not want any part of their $ going to things that are against their religion.
I dont think anyone here would have a problem with that, right?
Well, what if the govt suddenly changed the Social Security laws and mandated that all businesses buy into some govt run fund which invested in all kinds of stocks, some of these were sin stocks or abortion companies? Dont you think these religous organzatins have a right to say they dont want to fund this? Isnt it against their 1st amendment rights to practice their religion?
I think its a good comparision.
For the record, Im all for providing it and for free love for all BUT, unlike the people with the Tolerance stickers on their cars, I am tolerant of others beliefs and their rights.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

everyone take a breath for a minute....
Can I provide another angle, one I believe 100% valid and may help liberals understand this
.

Believe it or not, I am in complete agreement that religious organizations shouldn't be forced to pay for things that are against the religion. It gets murky once the Church or any organization chooses to employ people who have different religious beliefs, but if it is clear in the terms of employment, and the employee agrees to them, so be it. My personal opinion is that this part of the health law was questionable, though not necessarily unconstitutional. It doesn't prevent practice of religion or force anyone into a religion. That said... the law needed to be changed. The way they changed the law, no matter what someones "opinion" is, eliminates the burden for the church to specifically cover birth control of employees who choose to use it. The cost of the birth control can be eaten by the insurance company. It may reduce profits by some small percent, but it would prevent the church from paying for it. Another perspective is that the costs of all prescriptions are actually already written into the formula used by the underwriters in determining rates , so the Church is affected by birth control costs, no matter what (even if some claim that it isn't true).

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Believe it or not, I am in complete agreement that religious organizations shouldn't be forced to pay for things that are against the religion. It gets murky once the Church or any organization chooses to employ people who have different religious beliefs, but if it is clear in the terms of employment, and the employee agrees to them, so be it. My personal opinion is that this part of the health law was questionable, though not necessarily unconstitutional. It doesn't prevent practice of religion or force anyone into a religion. That said... the law needed to be changed. The way they changed the law, no matter what someones "opinion" is, eliminates the burden for the church to specifically cover birth control of employees who choose to use it. The cost of the birth control can be eaten by the insurance company. It may reduce profits by some small percent, but it would prevent the church from paying for it. Another perspective is that the costs of all prescriptions are actually already written into the formula used by the underwriters in determining rates , so the Church is affected by birth control costs, no matter what (even if some claim that it isn't true).

"I am in complete agreement that religious organizations shouldn't be forced to pay for things that are against the religion. It gets murky once the Church or any organization chooses to employ people who have different religious beliefs,"

So you think it makes sense to penalize the Catholic church for hiring non-Catholics? They should be rewarded for that kind of tolerance, no?

"The cost of the birth control can be eaten by the insurance company. "

No, it can't, and it won't. It will get passed on to the Church. Or, it would, if that law ever got enacted, but it will not. When actuaries set the rates, they do it based on what the policy covers. If the policy is changed to cover more, it necessarily costs more. Customers pay for the cost of the products they buy.

[likwid]

Divorce rates were lower when Jesus was riding dinosaurs.

IRREFUTABLE!!!!!

[spence]

Originally Posted by likwid

Divorce rates were lower when Jesus was riding dinosaurs.

IRREFUTABLE!!!!!

Are you 100% correct?

Game, set and match.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Zimmy and Spence and Likwid...I posted that after the sexual revolution and after the availability of contraception, divorces increased, abortions increased, STD's increased, and kids born out of wedlock increased.

Your response was that rates of those things were also lower when man went to the moon, and before Michael Jackson wrote Thriller.

Most rational folks concede a correlation between the sexual revolution, and those societal ills. Most rational folks concede a correlation between the availability of contraception and the societal ills I mentioned.

I assumed you were theorizing a correlation between space travel and those things I mentioned. I disagree. Now you're making it sound like I'm the one who brought up space travel. I give up...

.