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."

[scottw]

Originally Posted by zimmy

"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."

shouldn't this be 100%?

[Fishpart]

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

"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."

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?

[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.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by 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. doesn't magically over ride the Constitution....free stuff from the government or mandated by the governemnt is womens rights?...can't wait to get some men's rights

Your conclusion was that...hell, the title for the thread had nothing to do about religion but rather a "war on women" your quotes. "war on women" is the left's new montra, you should know that

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. wow, you are turning into Bill Maher

Your claim about Catholic Bishops seems to indicate they're a lot closer to middle ground with Obama's compromise position than you are. it wasn't a compromise or middle ground, maybe you aren't smart enough to recognize that

The poll you cited doesn't include anything about shifting Catholic positions...Are you changing your story? irrelevent just as polls on this issue are the irrelevent with regard to Constitutionality which is acutally a reason that the founders did not concentrate power in Washington...huh?...you can dream up polls to justify just about anything

Who's side are you on again? hopefully America's, the one where the elected officials swear to uphold and defend the Constitution, not undermine and evicerate it with the help of folks like you

-spence

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

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

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

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

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

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

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

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

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

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

\Americans seethis is not about contraception, but about religious freedom.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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

Where am I wrong?

Originally Posted by zimmy

"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."

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by scottw

shouldn't this be 100%?

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

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by scottw

"messiah failure syndrome"...hope you can recover

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.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by zimmy

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



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"

[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.

[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...

[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 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

"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?

[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.