Two other lopsided results in the latest Fox News poll:
By a 67-25 percent margin, voters support building the Keystone XL pipeline. That includes: 87 percent of Republicans, 69 percent of independents and 50 percent of Democrats say build it.
Fox News Poll
Should Keystone XL Pipeline Be Built?
Yes 67%
No 25%
February 6-9, 2012 Registered Voters ± 3%–
The poll asked about the Obama administration requiring all employer health plans to provide birth control coverage as part of preventative services for women. (This includes Catholic and other religious-affiliated hospitals and universities that oppose doing so because it violates their religious rights.) A majority sides with the administration: 61 percent of voters approve of the requirement, while 34 percent disapprove. There’s a wide gender gap, as women (67 percent) are significantly more likely than men (53 percent) to approve. Catholics (58 percent) and Protestants (57 percent) alike approve of the requirement. And a majority of Catholic women (65 percent) as well as half of Catholic men (51 percent) also back the mandate.
Fox News Poll
Requiring All Employer Health Plans To Provide Birth Control Coverage
Approve 61%
Disapprove 34%
Given the backlash over the HHS mandate, to the point that the Obama administration had to back down, I find that poll suspect. One thing I notice right away is that the question doesn't mention drugs which can induce abortion, I have to imagine that would change the answers a lot. Still, if it's even remotely accurate, it shows that many Americans have forgotten about the Constitution and about the limits of gov't. Many of us need an education in that because otherwise we will surrender our liberty and be much the worse off for it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe Whitehouse and MSM have big megaphones -- they are framing the issue in terms of "saving you money" (ACA is supposed to bring down costs by making stuff "free" right?) and "saving women's lives" (paying for your own condoms is just like sentencing women to death!)
A lot of folks probably don't understand the constitutional issue underneath, because it is being successfully avoided in some quarters.
On a related topic, I wonder if there's any relation to the Komen story (but how could there be?) Seems weird they came up around the same time and made contraception such a big issue. Could this all be an Axelrod rope-a-dope to excite the base and distract the opposition, or just a coincidence?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNo surprise that the clear majority wants someone else to be compelled to do something, probably with the understanding that "others" are paying for it.
For example, suppose the question were whether all restaurants that served breakfast, excepting vegetarian restaurants, should be compelled to offer bacon. I think that would get an overwhelming majority. (Breakfast without bacon is like lunch without 3 martinis.) Now, rephrase the question to include whether Kosher restaurants must serve bacon. Finally, rephrase it to include whether Halal (sharia) restaurants must serve bacon.
You could also ask whether all employer health care plans should be compelled to offer plastic surgery, hair transplants, and gymnastic training; I expect that the majority would agree. Then ask if they would be willing to pay for the necessary premium increases, and give a realistic estimate. Watch the numbers change!
But back to the original question: It may really be the case that the majority takes delight in compelling faith-based organizations to act contrary to their faith. The question is, how many of those voters are so hard-core leftist that NO policy outside of the full leftist agenda would change their minds? Subtract those. Then, what might the ratio be?
Actually, the pipeline is related: It runs through someone else's back yard.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'd be very interested in seeing the exact wording of the question regarding employers mandatory requirement to provide birth control. Did it even mention religious objections, or just ask if ALL employers should provide the "free" benefit.
Point of irritation. There's no benefit that's FREE. Someone is paying for it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRep. Boehner is very frustrating to Nebraska. Our Governor Heineman has invested alot of personal political capital to re-route the pipeline.
He is not a lap dog to environmentalists, but he did make a decision to address his constituents. Oil is good, water is better. And, a slightly longer pipeline means slightly more jobs. TransCanada already agreed to it. They already started work on the new route. That delay was bad. But then it was thrown in against a payroll tax bill as the poison pill. That delay was worse.
Republicans in Congress threw our local Republicans under the bus. This was an act of revenge.
When our governor defended our concerns against Texas Republicans, even though he made it clear he did not intend to cancel the pipeline, they would not tolerate that kind of dissent.
If this revenge against Nebraska continues, Nebraska Republicans might remember it for a long time.
If you have any pull in the Republican party, please ask them not make President Obama a defender of states rights.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRep. Boehner is very frustrating to Nebraska. Our Governor Heineman has invested alot of personal political capital to re-route the pipeline.
He is not a lap dog to environmentalists, but he did make a decision to address his constituents. Oil is good, water is better. And, a slightly longer pipeline means slightly more jobs. TransCanada already agreed to it. They already started work on the new route. That delay was bad. But then it was thrown in against a payroll tax bill as the poison pill. That delay was worse.
Republicans in Congress threw our local Republicans under the bus. This was an act of revenge.
When our governor defended our concerns against Texas Republicans, even though he made it clear he did not intend to cancel the pipeline, they would not tolerate that kind of dissent.
If this revenge against Nebraska continues, Nebraska Republicans might remember it for a long time.
If you have any pull in the Republican party, please ask them not make President Obama a defender of states rights.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHere's where clarity in the language is needed. The poll should read, "majority want someone else to pay for their rubbers."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe US was anti-Catholic long before it loudly and hypocritically started espousing "religious freedom."
The Quebec Act, one of the intolerable acts that led to the Revolutionary War, was an edict that Catholics in Quebec must be afforded religious freedom. The Founding Fathers saw that as a reason to wage war to free ourselves of our English oppressors.
Yep -- The crown was oppressing us by requiring Catholics to be tolerated.
The history of hate against Catholics in this country runs long and deep. This is just proof that it still exists.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe US was anti-Catholic long before it loudly and hypocritically started espousing "religious freedom."
The Quebec Act, one of the intolerable acts that led to the Revolutionary War, was an edict that Catholics in Quebec must be afforded religious freedom. The Founding Fathers saw that as a reason to wage war to free ourselves of our English oppressors.
Yep -- The crown was oppressing us by requiring Catholics to be tolerated.
The history of hate against Catholics in this country runs long and deep. This is just proof that it still exists.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFolks, here's the exact wording of the question:
women
"The new Obama health care law requires that employer health plans provide birth control coverage as part of preventive services for women. Catholic and other religious-affiliated hospitals and universities typically have not provided any birth control coverage for their employees, and oppose the new requirement because it violates their religious rights. Overall, do you approve or disapprove of requiring employer health plans to cover birth control for women
Approve 61
Disapprove 34"
I know NRites don't like these results, but they are very likely to hold up going forward. The bishops MIGHT have had some success demanding a stronger conscience exemption for religious institutions--my guess is that they will have absolutely none in demanding the removal of contraceptive coverage entirely. It seems idiotic to most women (67% of whom support the mandate in this poll) that their basic health coverage should depend on the "conscience" of a purely secular employer, while they would probably be willing to grant a Church-owned college an exemption.
Raising the issue of abortifacients would probably not move the numbers much: please remember the famous, always-cited by conservatives gallup poll numbers. Only 20% want abortion to be illegal in all circumstances; the others would allow it in at least a few instances:
External Link
Most of them are not nearly as horrified by the "morning-after" pill, etc., as conservative Catholics are; they are not absolutists on life beginning at conception
All focusing on this issue is going to accomplish is to push a lot of independent and moderate women toward Obama in the fall, especially if the kind of dismissive and condescending anti-contraception" vibe present in many of the articles and comments on NR about this issue seep into the campaign. Contraception is uncontroversial for most of the adults in this country, including most of the Catholics, and to continually be raising alarm bells about the Republican attitude toward it will not help the Republican candidate. A religious liberty exemption for religious institutions, yes; removal of the mandate entirely, no.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusewhat would the poll results have been if the question were worded as follows,
"do you support the federal goverment forcing churchs and individuals to fund items and activities they believe to be gravely wrong and seriously immoral?"
poll results are based on two elements, how the questions are worded and what adjustments the poll operator makes to allow for respondent groupings. like how many respondents were female, how many were upper income, how many were hispanic, etc.
by taking advantage of these adjustments, a good pollster should be able to produce any result desired.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusemost people respond affirmatively when offered freebies.
considering the manipulations master poll takers are capable of and considering people were asked if they wanted something for free, the results should not surprise anyone.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse