... Democrat Obama dominated among Latino Catholics nationally and in key swing states in 2008. He won roughly three out of four Latino Catholics in New Mexico and Nevada, according to exit polls.Wisconsin's Catholics are — as Gilbert puts it — "overwhelmingly white." In 2008, these white Catholics went for Obama by a 4 point margin. But Obama won Wisconsin by 14 points, so the white Catholic vote is more conservative than the state generally. In 2010, white Catholics voted for Scott Walker by an 8 point margin. So influencing this group can be key to flipping Wisconsin one way or the other.
But he narrowly lost white Catholics in the majority of swing states he carried, winning this group in only three battlegrounds with sizable Catholic populations– Wisconsin, Iowa and Michigan. In most cases, the "white Catholic vote" was very similar to the "white vote."
Is contraception the perfect wedge issue for Republicans? How strange! It was only one month ago that Mitt Romney was puzzled that the topic of contraception was even being raised.
Posts
438 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 401 – 438 of 438B said...
“Very true and being lost in the discussion. It is not as 36 would have it in and of itself a mandate imposed by law.”
B,
Read this article:
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/gpr/13/4/gpr130419.html
Contraceptive counseling, services and supplies were covered by an amendment sponsored by Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) that was passed with the law in 2010.
“This is a prime example of a mandate that Obamacare's language allows a government agency to impose. And that is the core issue here (and why intelligent people are concerned about matters like death panels). Obamacare allows government agencies to interpret, restrict, and mandate how something of fundamental importance to any person, health care, is applied in a society of free citizens.”
According to the article at the link below, the DHHS exemption for religious employers to opt out of the contraceptive coverage provision was not part of the original law. The DHHS is being more lenient than what the law as passed by Congress requires.
http://www.guttmacher.org/media/inthenews/2011/08/01/index.html
“The Church is being bit by one of the first applications of this. The bishops are not stupid men and take a long view. They see the government mandate coming down the road that Catholic hospitals provide abortion and assisted suicide services. So it is not only a moral imperative that they must stand their ground now on just this issue, as important as it is. They can't compromise by excepting an exemption. This is not going to go away unless Obama caves in on the mandate entirely and for the clearly stated reason that is it wrong, not just hand out exemptions.”
The religious exemption in the administration's rule is the same as the exemption in Oregon, New York and California. Twenty-five other states have similar laws on the books. This is not a new issue.
Equal treatment under the law is covered by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.
Actually, it’s “equal protection.” But does the 14th Amendment have any bearing on this issue? After all, the Catholic church and it’s institutions are not preventing any of their employees from obtaining contraceptives. Contraceptives are readily available to all. It’s a question of whether the church should be forced by the government to be the entity that provides the contraceptives.
Furthermore, what about the 1st Amendment, which forbids any prohibiting by the government of the free exercise of religion? Obama forcing the Catholic church to provide contraceptives seems to me to be an obvious example of government preventing the free exercise of religion. Do the Amendments have a hierarchy of importance? If two Amendments happen to conflict which takes precedent?
How about if a majority of those employees agree with the policy? Is that still "persecution"?
Polls indicate about 60 percent of the general population and just under 60 percent of Catholics agree with the law requiring religious institutions provide insurance plans that cover contraception.
The Bill of Rights protects religious freedom, even against a majority. I wonder if the commentor has ever come across the term, “the tyranny of the majority.” Probably not.
You know, Jay, you don't help by engaging shiloh. He's a tittering jackass and in the finest tradition of the pure troll, his intention whenever he comments on this blog is to subtract from the discussion, not add to it.
You enable this jerk's agenda by validating it when you respond whenever he bloviates.
This has been a great discussion to read through. Don't help shiloh trivialize it.
master cylinder said...
Oh and Steve Koch, the Catholic church is solidly lined up with Evagelicals....totally Republican.
In 2008, Obama won 54 percent of all Catholics.
OOPS.
It isn't just birth control pills by the way. This order forces the church to pay for sterilization procedures and Plan B morning after pills (abortifacients) as well.
The Church teaching on those things isn't something that they thought up last week and they aren't considered minor one-off (venial) sins. They're considered grave matter (mortal sins).
The Church is not going to agree to be complicit in grave sin.
test
wv: revenhu lololol
Actually, it’s “equal protection.” But does the 14th Amendment have any bearing on this issue?
Of course not, and anyone invoking it quite frankly should be ignored.
It is funny to watch people pretend the 14th Amendment supercedes the 1st Amendment...
The bishops are not stupid men and take a long view. They see the government mandate coming down the road that Catholic hospitals provide abortion and assisted suicide services.
That's exactly right and you can add gay marriage to that list.
And it is beyond disturbuing the left simply has no problem with this. As long as it agrees with their political agenda it is just dandy.
36fsfiend said...
I believe there is a larger agenda in play, i
Oh of course there is. It is to use the power of the federal government to dictate preferences to religious institutions that go against centuries old moral beliefs.
And we're just getting warmed up.
The religious exemption in the administration's rule is the same as the exemption in Oregon, New York and California. Twenty-five other states have similar laws on the books. This is not a new issue.
NY Oregon & CA Mikulsky in MD, what a surprise. NOT!
All blue progressive states who could skate along, now they can't. A decision is being made
Birth control is a fundamental importance? If it's so important, then why so many unwanted pregnancies? The pill alone has been around almost 50 years, it's not like there aren't other choices, it's not the be-all-end all.
If this weren't so scary, the prezels the progs are making to justify this is funny.
It's really interesting a woman's vagina is more important that the princples our US Constitution was founded on. Aiming right for the heart of the 1st Amendment.
Someone asked why ar some of us being so Victorian about this?
Wrong century. We're protecting the most modern, forward-thinking country in the world from feudalism. We are citizens, not subjects.
The King is ordering the Church to do something.
36fienjd,
I respect the fact that you argued your case in good faith last night, but I also agree with the good father and others that you don't understand what the issue is here. I also appreciate that when backed into a corner, people can dig in. You do not understand the real issue here. Several people, the good father and bender tried to make that clear to you last night.
BTW - you don't understand the scope of Mikulski's amendment or how it applies here either. Because if it were the proof that what the church is resisting is mandated by the language of the law, there would be no question of exemption EXCEPT for the fact that Obamacare gives the power to government agencies to interpret, restrict, and mandate how Obamacare is implemented.
I know I'm leaving that hanging, as I can't for meat world reasons stay in the discussion here or respond for a couple of days, by which time it'll likely be OBE, so with all due respect, and that is not in any sense being snarky by the way, you needn't address that.
What is Catholic organizations said they didn't want to offer medical services to Jews because Jews are responsible for the death of Jesus? Would that be ok?
Muslim organizations already do this.
Polls indicate about 60 percent of the general population and just under 60 percent of Catholics agree with the law requiring religious institutions provide insurance plans that cover contraception.
No, there are no "Polls" plural.
There is 1 poll done by an organization you've never heard of that is being trumpted by Planned Parenthood and all of the leftist wing of the Internet.
By the way, is what is popular always right?
B said...
“I respect the fact that you argued your case in good faith last night, but I also agree with the good father and others that you don't understand what the issue is here. I also appreciate that when backed into a corner, people can dig in. You do not understand the real issue here. Several people, the good father and bender tried to make that clear to you last night.”
The issue is the Catholic Church would like to see abortion and contraception completely banned in this country. Period.
And the backpedaling begins:
With the White House under fire for its new rule requiring employers including religious organizations to offer health insurance that fully covers birth control coverage, ABC News has learned that later today the White House — possibly President Obama himself — will likely announce an attempt to accommodate these religious groups.
And the "accomodation" is utter crap.
But even so, will any of these Catholic leaders or voters take this lesson with them to the polling places in November?
The issue is the Catholic Church would like to see abortion and contraception completely banned in this country. Period.
While that may describe the Church's position on contraception and abortion, it is not the issue here. The issue here is that the federal government is forcing the Church to go against basic tenets and provide those services.
36fsfiend said...
The issue is the Catholic Church would like to see abortion and contraception completely banned in this country. Period.
No, it isn't. And to claim that simply reinforces the conviction that not only do you not get the issue at hand. If you beleive that, you are not aware of or appreciate how the church conducts itself in America. Which may explain why you do not get the issue at hand.
Also, for the first time in this discussion, you've showed your real flag.
Anyway, this discussion will have to continue without me. Have a good weekend all.
B said...
"No, it isn't. And to claim that simply reinforces the conviction that not only do you not get the issue at hand. If you beleive that, you are not aware of or appreciate how the church conducts itself in America. Which may explain why you do not get the issue at hand."
Actual, I have plenty of experience with the Catholic Church.
The issue is the Catholic Church would like to see abortion and contraception completely banned in this country. Period.
The issue is the King's control.
Oh, and as a reminder:
The Obama Admin argued before the SCOTUS that the Lutheran Church had no right to decide who it could or could not name and employ as a minister (Hosanna-Tabor vs EEOC) – and lost 9-0.
Pretending this is about "women's health" or "equal protection" is silly.
Nobody with a brain believes that.
Don't worry Seeing Red, King Barry is going to wave away the requirement, at least in part, later today.
How's that for "the rule of law"???
Unless it's actually written into law don't trust him. This man threw over 100 years of bankruptcy law.
36: All last night you were yammering on about how the contraception provision was part of a law that was passed by the congress and signed by the president and therefore everybody goddamnit had to comply. But as you should now know this is being made up as they go along, improvising what is covered by this magical "insurance" that was crammed down our throats. So we now find that the "insurance" is going to cover all kinds of things that the government has decided are important.
I suggest the govt. try to compel Mosques to serve pork because dietary rules are bullshit since pork is now safe to eat and most muslims have eaten pork at some point in their lives. In fact, most like pork. Try that out.
The Catholic Church would do well to start lopping off heads to get a little respect. And room.
"lopping off heads"
Pretty sure "lopping off heads" goes against god's teachings ie the Catholic religion, but it wouldn't be the 1st time the Catholic church was hypocritical re: the Bible.
Shiloh: "hypocritical?" Oh no, not that. But speaking of hypocritical, you would no more take this stance against Islam than you would have a serious thought.
BTW it looks like the smartest president ever is caving on the issue at hand so you were right it will be forgotten in a couple of months.
Didn't take that long, after all: Obama to Announce Contraception Rule ‘Accommodation’ for Religious Organizations.
The last thing that the Obama campaign, as well as the campaigns of Dems in swing districts supporting the President, needed was to be in direct opposition with the Roman Catholic Church over this issue in an election year.
What might be of some interest here in the future, even if the Administration does draft a loophole for the Catholic institutions here, is the question of whether this is going to have any effect on the upcoming Supreme Court decision on the Constitutionality of ObamaCare.
Keep in mind that the current religious composition of the High Court is 6 Roman Catholics and 3 Jews. Five of the six Catholics comprise the more conservative elements on the Court. Might this be enough to push one or more of them over towards the anti-ObamaCare side? We shall see.
"it will be forgotten in a couple of months."
Probably a couple weeks, so I admit, ;) I was probably wrong.
btw, the president just gave a cool, calm and collected press conference in which he characterized his conservative opposition re: this issue, in so many words, as raving lunatics.
The president also pointed out, correctly, to a national audience that 98% of Catholic women go against the tenet of the church re: contraception/birth control. Shocking! So much for religious moral authority.
So now, conservative Bishops, who weren't gonna vote for Obama anyways, will have to invent a new wedge issue on which to rail against Obama.
So it shall be written, so it shall be done ...
Again, as I stated from the beginning, to me it’s an issue of equal treatment under the law for those employees in these institutions who are not Catholic. Equal treatment under the law is covered by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.
The issue is the Catholic Church would like to see abortion and contraception completely banned in this country. Period.
I have plenty of experience with the Catholic Church.
Granted, but the above statements, all from the same commentor, are irrelevant to the issue at hand – which is should the Catholic church be forced by Obama to provide contraceptives.
It seems that the commentor is obsessed by an off-topic issue and is capriciously applying that idee fixe to a totally different controversy, to wit:
The church(along with many other groups) favors banning abortion and contraception so that means the commentor will probably be on the opposite side of any controversy with which the church is involved. It’s an emotional response, not an intellectual one. The inept 14th Amendment justification is the rationalization of an emotional feeling of resentment by the commentor.
Sorry for the hiatus in posting. I was unable to chime in this morning.
36: "The issue is the Catholic Church would like to see abortion and contraception completely banned in this country. Period."
So what if they do? As a group of citizens, the Church is free to advocate for making abortion and contraception illegal without exception. They can petition their representative to propose a bill in Congress. You are free to vote against it if it makes it on the ballot. The un-democratic thing would be if the Church's voice was silenced simply because of who it is.
And really, that's what this comes down to: rather than let the issue be debated openly, you would rather the Church not be able to advocate its position. You'd rather censor it because you think it's views have no merit and because you have some convoluted understanding of the First Amendment and separation of church and state.
There is always a lot of talk about "forcing values" on non-believers. The truth is, every law practically boils down to some set of values being "forced upon" a subset of the population who disagrees. Laws that eliminate the death penalty, or increase welfare, or provide for taxpayer-funded abortion all "legislate morality". The difference, it seems, is the degree to which the law conforms to your own opinions. When the Supreme Court ruled it was unconstitutional to ban abortion in certain cases, that was forcing the values of the pro-choice movement on state governments (and pro-lifers represented by those governments).
Shiloh: "The president also pointed out, correctly, to a national audience that 98% of Catholic women go against the tenet of the church re: contraception/birth control. Shocking! So much for religious moral authority."
I'm beginning to wonder if the original meaning of the word "shiloh" in Hebrew might actually be "one who misses the point".
The truth or value of a moral teaching is neither dependent on how well the teacher expressed it nor how well the student understands it. To paraphrase my earlier post, the fact that a bad physics teacher cannot teach the subject adequately does not render the laws of physics invalid.
In this case, the fact that followers don't listen to Church leaders, or the fact that the leaders have not been properly catechizing followers for the last 40 years, does not make the principle any more false.
If you want to argue against the Church's teachings on contraception and abortion, why don't you attack it on the merits of the issuee, rather than making your entire argument dependent on what a certain percentage of the population thinks? Does having a certain percentage make the decision correct? If 70% of the population smokes, is that an argument for eliminating all regulation on tobacoo and lowering the age for smoking to 12?
One last point: the "99% of the population does it, so it mus tbe ok" argument sets up majority rule as the end-all, be-all. But it presents a serious obstacle for its proponents.
For example:
It has often been pointed out that non-contracepting, pro-life people are reproducing faster and greater than pro-choice people. In addition, children generally (not always, but mostly) have similar viewpoints to their parents. At some point, suppose pro-lifers become the majority of voters--perhaps even the significant majority, like 80%.
Now, does this make abortion wrong? in another example, what if 90% of the population thinks that it is ok to own a slave--does this make slavery permissible?
yoobee
You're non-sensical/irrelevant religious gobbledygook is duly noted.
Again, I'm just stating reality, but it's ok to deflect at Althouse as conservatives do it 24/7.
Bottom line, this is a non-issue, politically speaking as re: to Catholic parishioners.
Once again, shiloh proves that his inability to consider an opposing viewpoint has no equal. 36 could present and support an argument, rather than just anecdotes and dismissive conclusions.
One of the things about this country is that you are free to be as close-minded as you want. Perhaps shiloh takes this to heart and considers it his civic duty.
yoobee
I just choose to ignore irrelevant deflections as it's a real time saver.
I'm not here to save the world, only to point out political reality to conservatives.
Consider it a public service.
I think several points I raised bear on other issues. For instance, the "majority rule" topic can relate to just about anything you want.
I don't need your public service, because I can read the your regurgitated "predictions" on Huffington Post or whatever news source you parrot. I would prefer that you actually take a stab at responding with a real argument. Go on--it won't hurt.
You have all of this time to read and snipe comments by other posters, so I'm sure you have time to compose a paragraph or two why I'm wrong.
yoobee, I don't post at HP or kos, I only post here for the entertainment value and at a very small progressive blog which has about (5) regular conservative posters ie the opposite of Althouse, but on a much smaller scale.
Having posted on political blogs since back in the day, entertainment is all I seek, as again, no societal/political/religious etc. issue is ever gonna be solved at a political blog.
And regurgitate indeed, as there's nothing new under the sun re: cons or libs at any political blog. Just back and forth silly shouting as a rule.
take care
Post a Comment