Anyone think Administration will lose votes

[KAWDUP]

[quote="SLICK":24vrtczb]President Barack Obama's decision to require most employers to cover birth control and insurers to offer it at no cost has created a firestorm of controversy.[b:24vrtczb] But the central mandate

 

[KAWDUP]

Wait....since when do hospitals provide insurance period?

Maybe for their employees?

I think it covers both providing contraception for patients and their own employees, but I could be wrong. Has happened before and won't be the last.

Keep in mind the real story has nothing to do with the actual issue of contraception. I agree that most Americans, a great many of them Catholic already use it. No argument there.

Doesn't change the fact that it represents a slippery slope, because this will cut both ways. When a president from the other side gets elected again, having set this precedent, what else might be "dictated" that you aren't going to be too happy about?

 

[TheVictors]

This issue won't even make it into next month or even next week. All it will take is some soundbite or provocative video or quip from some candidate or otherwise to bump the issue. Some mention will be made in a Koch Bros SuperPAC Ad run in the fall on behalf of whomever (Romney), and it will simply become a bullet point along the same lines as ...

Obama is really a Muslim..
Obama isn't an American ..
Obama has caused gas prices to spike ..

"Obama thinks everyone should be having pre-marital and gay butt-sex with employer-provided condoms and also hates puppy dogs"

/Gloom and Doom Voiceover Voice

The issue doesn't have to make it to next month. People's attitudes towards candidate evolve with time, they don't flip with every issue of the week.

Well to me the OP was asking if this current story would impact the election and I don't really think so. The corporate media representing the agenda of the right is grandstanding and acting indignant as usual and - as Kawdup point out - the other side of the corporate media agenda is doing the same thing on their side. By the election, as in my sarcastic and scotch-aided example, it will simply be another talking point aimed at scaring people about "the government."

Of course there's nothing wrong with big, intrusive government so long as it's the right government and not their government interfering in its citizens' private lives and welfare.

 

[KAWDUP]

Agree with you Vic darn near all the way, except, even though it might affect the election, (which probably won't happen as you said), I was more or less thinking of potential voters, some of which make up their mind which way they will vote long before we actually get to the election, because of one particular issue, and then in their own mind get real stubborn about it. I wondered how many would actually flip their vote. Some believe it is a minute number of fence-sitters. Can't say for sure if those who do flip will affect any of the politcal outcomes, yet, but for sure I think it is going to be more than a few fence-sitters.

Hopefully you caught the part where I agree with you on darn near the whole post, too. :*)

 

[tinselwolverine]

I think I've seen that guy on TV before.

 

[Thumb]

[quote="KAWDUP":2yck1br6]
[quote="SLICK":2yck1br6]President Barack Obama's decision to require most employers to cover birth control and insurers to offer it at no cost has created a firestorm of controversy.[b:2yck1br6] But the central mandate

 

[Michchamp]

Exactly. And in the link I posted, they explained this wouldnt apply to ALL church employees; this only applies to employees in places where the church is acting outside the "temple" so to speak, e.g. at church owned hospitals, schools, etc. this is a long established rule, and is not unique to the catholic church.

And again, as pointed out, they are not forcing anyone to take birth control, just to providr for their employees should they choose to take it. They are not forcing anyone to violate their religious principles.

 

[TheVictors]

I don't downplay the issue as it is now and as it is currently being discussed. I just feel that this won't be the 'wedge issue' that forces the undecided vote. I think there will be other, more overriding considerations such as the economy and other topics. I don't think those that are already voting Obama OUT in November are any less convinced than before now, and I don't know that those who are already voting Obama for 4 MORE are going to be swayed.

Maybe I'm wrong.

 

[Michchamp]

I don't downplay the issue as it is now and as it is currently being discussed. I just feel that this won't be the 'wedge issue' that forces the undecided vote. I think there will be other, more overriding considerations such as the economy and other topics. I don't think those that are already voting Obama OUT in November are any less convinced than before now, and I don't know that those who are already voting Obama for 4 MORE are going to be swayed.

Maybe I'm wrong.

I think most people in this thread agree: this issue isn't going to change enough minds to matter. And not only that, but it's a little far in advance of the election. If they keep trying to hammer Obama over it, eventually the "shock value" would fade as more people decide that if it's such an important issue, they should learn more about it... and of course in learning more about it, they would realize, "oh, this is completely ridiculous."

 

[redandguilty]

The issue doesn't have to make it to next month. People's attitudes towards candidate evolve with time, they don't flip with every issue of the week.

Well to me the OP was asking if this current story would impact the election and I don't really think so. The corporate media representing the agenda of the right is grandstanding and acting indignant as usual and - as Kawdup point out - the other side of the corporate media agenda is doing the same thing on their side. By the election, as in my sarcastic and scotch-aided example, it will simply be another talking point aimed at scaring people about "the government."

Of course there's nothing wrong with big, intrusive government so long as it's the right government and not their government interfering in its citizens' private lives and welfare.

Yeah, I'm talking about impacting the election too. This issue could impact the election, that's what I'm claiming. For Catholic Bishops to reach out to parishoners on a political issue like this is exceedingly rare. It might just look like any other news story if you're watching TV or surfing the web, but from the pew, this looks radically different. I'm getting some of my perspective from my dad on this one (he asks me "what the internet says" about Michigan football issues all the time.) The Catholic vote is split somewhere between 40/60-60/40 Republican/Democrat. So we're talking about 10-20% of a group that make up something like 25% of voters. So this could be a significant influence to some fraction of 2.5-5% of the voters. But if only 30% of the voters in this country are actually open to switching parties (just a guess), then that 2.5-5% represent 8-16% of the votes that really matter. What fraction of the swing voting Catholics are the ones that go to church on Sunday, I don't know.

 

[Michchamp]

has the church actually come out and complained about this? Or is it just the more right-wing elements among the church or Catholic politicians like Gingrich and Santorum, and that Irish dickhead in charge of the catholic league?

Not to change the subject, but I would be really interested to see if the church would be willing to pay the costs of a lawsuit to challenge a law that would likely be upheld as constitutional anyways, especially since by the time it hits the courts, the election would be over. Unless they do that, these blowhards should shut up.

 

[Michchamp]

...
Not that it matters all that much, but have you ever seen me call Reid, Pelosi, or Obama any of the names that some of you use?

. . .

If you brought a nun here with you, and not one of those evil nuns, but a nice sweet one, I would not call anyone bad names in her presence.

for everyone else, all bets are off.

 

[redandguilty]

has the church actually come out and complained about this? Or is it just the more right-wing elements among the church or Catholic politicians like Gingrich and Santorum, and that Irish dickhead in charge of the catholic league?

Not to change the subject, but I would be really interested to see if the church would be willing to pay the costs of a lawsuit to challenge a law that would likely be upheld as constitutional anyways, especially since by the time it hits the courts, the election would be over. Unless they do that, these blowhards should shut up.

I'm not sure what you mean by complain, but from what I've read, Catholic Bishops have instructed local priests to discuss the issue with their parishioners. My impression is that in most cases this has resulted in the priests writing about the subject in the bulletin. The bulletin a document that's a few pages long, handed out to people as the exit the church after each mass, and it includes weekly schedules and announcements and it often includes about a half page of writing from the priest expending on the sermon from that mass. In some places, instead of going to the bulletin, I've read that priests were actually talking about it after mass was complete but before everyone left when announcements are made.

 

[byco42]

has the church actually come out and complained about this? Or is it just the more right-wing elements among the church or Catholic politicians like Gingrich and Santorum, and that Irish dickhead in charge of the catholic league?

Not to change the subject, but I would be really interested to see if the church would be willing to pay the costs of a lawsuit to challenge a law that would likely be upheld as constitutional anyways, especially since by the time it hits the courts, the election would be over. Unless they do that, these blowhards should shut up.

Harsh words that transcend the objection and are more indicative of your personal opinions than the issue at large. And, yes, there has been a firestorm of pushback from the Catholic Church on this issue; it's everywhere, including homilies expressed during several Masses I have attended.

 

[Michchamp]

has the church actually come out and complained about this? Or is it just the more right-wing elements among the church or Catholic politicians like Gingrich and Santorum, and that Irish dickhead in charge of the catholic league?

Not to change the subject, but I would be really interested to see if the church would be willing to pay the costs of a lawsuit to challenge a law that would likely be upheld as constitutional anyways, especially since by the time it hits the courts, the election would be over. Unless they do that, these blowhards should shut up.

Harsh words that transcend the objection and are more indicative of your personal opinions than the issue at large. And, yes, there has been a firestorm of pushback from the Catholic Church on this issue; it's everywhere, including homilies expressed during several Masses I have attended.

Well, I think that the church has a legit gripe to some extent. I don't believe it has anything to do with Obama, as much as they don't like being forced to obey a purely secular law, even though they may act to fill secular functions (hospital care, education, etc.)

The thing is, unless they're actually going to put their money where their mouth is here, and challenge the law in the courts, it looks like they're just playing politics in an election season. In which case... in a perfect world they would lose their religious tax exemptions, and start paying taxes on all that PRIMO real estate they own like everybody else.

 

[Michchamp]

If they don't want to pay for any birth control period... maybe they shouldn't operate outside the bounds of their religion, i.e. own hospitals and schools - although for some hospital religious orders like the Alexian Bros, this might be a gray area.

if the church consisted entirely of religious employees, for example, priests and nuns, and didn't work in non-religious positions (teaching, nursing, doctoring, coaching, etc.) they would fit the exceptions to the bill and not have to pay for birth control.

if they employ non-catholics as janitors, groundkeepers, doctors, nurses, teachers, they should have to pay for their birth control.

If they employ catholics in non-religious functions who ARE taking birth control... seems to me like they should really take it up with their adherents, and not whine about the government, right?

I mean, who is the one violating their religion then?

 

[redandguilty]

Harsh words that transcend the objection and are more indicative of your personal opinions than the issue at large. And, yes, there has been a firestorm of pushback from the Catholic Church on this issue; it's everywhere, including homilies expressed during several Masses I have attended.

Well, I think that the church has a legit gripe to some extent. I don't believe it has anything to do with Obama, as much as they don't like being forced to obey a purely secular law, even though they may act to fill secular functions (hospital care, education, etc.)

The thing is, unless they're actually going to put their money where their mouth is here, and challenge the law in the courts, it looks like they're just playing politics in an election season. In which case... in a perfect world they would lose their religious tax exemptions, and start paying taxes on all that PRIMO real estate they own like everybody else.

Obama is not mentioned in anything I've seen from a Bishop or priest. Just the law.

 

[Michchamp]

Well, I think that the church has a legit gripe to some extent. I don't believe it has anything to do with Obama, as much as they don't like being forced to obey a purely secular law, even though they may act to fill secular functions (hospital care, education, etc.)

The thing is, unless they're actually going to put their money where their mouth is here, and challenge the law in the courts, it looks like they're just playing politics in an election season. In which case... in a perfect world they would lose their religious tax exemptions, and start paying taxes on all that PRIMO real estate they own like everybody else.

Obama is not mentioned in anything I've seen from a Bishop or priest. Just the law.

okay.

they should just tell their adherents not to take or use birth control, and then they wouldn't have to pay for it.

 

[TheVictors]

As a "preacher's kid" I literally grew up in a church where my Mom was the Rector ...clearly revealing the fact that I am not Catholic. That said, being "Little C" instead, there are many, many similarities in both the Eucharist as well as opinion on matters like this one. But, being Anglican and differing from Catholicism on just a few social issues like contraception, ordaining women, same sex marriage, etc ...

Most Christian denominations would preach abstinance, pregnancy after marriage and a lot of the same rubrics it's just not necessarily official 'policy'

And Champ, you are Catholic yourself, yes? Brother Rice...?

 

[redandguilty]

According to wikipedia (that 3rd thing is interesting):

one in six hospitalized patients in the United States is cared for in a Catholic health care facility.

Comprising more 600 hospitals and 1,400 long-term care and other health facilities in all 50 states, the Catholic health ministry is the largest group of non-profit health care providers in the nation.

CHA created a firestorm within the Catholic Church when it defied the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and came out in support of Barack Obama's health care overhaul, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.