It's 2012, but to hear the Right talk about birth control, and "emotional" women in the workforce and the military, one might think we're trapped in Downton Abbey's 1914. Is this another example of Republicans staking out positions far outside the mainstream? Or do voters oppose coverage of birth control? In last week's debate over birth control, everyone in Washington seemed to have an opinion. But polls show the public's opinion is fairly consistent.
Today's New York Times/CBS News poll shows nearly two-thirds (66 percent) support requiring private health insurance plans cover the full cost of birth control. About as many (61 percent) want to see the same coverage for women employees at religiously-affiliated institutions. Greg Sargent has some demographic breakouts, showing even half of Republicans support full coverage of birth control.
Yesterday's Pew Research Center poll showed somewhat different results, with slightly more voters wanting to give religiously-affiliated institutions exemption from coverage requirements (48 percent) than not (44 percent). However, there is an important difference between the two surveys. The Pew poll only asked this question of those who had heard at least some about the issue. Republicans were more likely to have heard about the issue than either Democrats or independents. And Tea Party aligned Republicans were far more likely to have heard a lot about the issue than other Republicans, liberal Democrats, or moderate/conservative Democrats. No doubt this yields a more conservative result.
Last week the Public Religion Research Institute released a survey showing a majority of voters say employers should provide contraception coverage at no cost. Even a majority of Catholics (58 percent) agreed. In fact, even a majority of Catholics (52 percent) agreed that religiously-affiliated institutions should have to provide that coverage.
None of this is surprising, given that 98 percent of Catholic women who have ever had sex have also used birth control, according to the Guttmacher Institute. So it's also not surprising that Obama has not taken a hit with Catholics in the wake of this debate.
Further, there seems to be no mandate for heavy-handed government involvement in social issues. The NYT/CBS poll showed two-thirds of voters overall and of Republicans say economic issues will drive their vote more than social issues. And this Gallup trend line suggests fewer voters want to see government "promote traditional values" than in the 1990s. It's also worth mentioning that many surveys have shown major movement in recent years on other social issues, such as gay marriage.
On Downton Abbey, daughter Sybil challenges her father by wearing pants and going to political rallies. As she laments the lack of women's suffrage, chauffeur Branson observes, "Politicians can't often recognize the changes that are inevitable." But these days it seems many Republican politicians can't even recognize changes that have already happened. Much to the chagrin of Downton's Lord Grantham and some Republican leaders, women wear pants, work, and use birth control.
Follow Margie Omero on Twitter: www.twitter.com/MargieOmero
THE SOLUTION: One National “Health” Policy and a second policy Reproduction “Choice” Policy, excluding sterile women , woman whose husband had a vasectomy, woman for religious conscience, and women no longer at risk of pregnancy. NildaTX, Independent
“I frankly don't care what deal Obama tries to cut ... If he wins re-election, he will wage war on the Catholic Church the morning after he's re-elected.”
Unless you refuse to pay taxes, and in the case of religious institutions, don't have paid employees or any students, you will inevitably pay for things you morally oppose. It sucks, but it's part of living in society. There are quite a few things I morally oppose that are funded by taxpayer dollars. I vote, and I accept it when my votes do not win.
As for paying for one's own birth control - if you are married and happen to have a child, should I be required to pay for your prenatal care and delivery costs (which can run into at least twenty thousand dollars)? Especially if you had multiple children? Honestly, I wouldn't be happy about that. But again, part of living in society is being annoyed yet accepting the things you are against.
What if a woman pays for birth control out of her own pocket? Should her employer dock the amount spent on birth control per month from her pay so they aren't contributing to something they morally oppose? Or maybe fire her? That would be ridiculous.
Modern society sucks, but that's life.
I do not see how this is a "denial" of birth control. The Act wants to require any employer in their health plans to cover the full cost of birth control. However, those insurance pools are from money collectively obtained through employees. - tali
I oppose the Act. Not because I wouldn't like free coverage of birth control, but because I made a choice to be sexually active and I don't see why society should foot the bill for it.
True, we're not in our older society where "traditional values" we more universally upheld -- but even based off that assumption, this all boils down to whether or not taxpayers should pay for this full coverage. If not, oppose the Act. If so, do not oppose the Act.
Please leave the "Republicans vs Democrats," "19th century politicians" and so forth out of it. It establishes a severely biased opinion, adding layers that are nonexistent; ie: the reuling will not get rid of birth control (ahem, Dems) or this is religious persecution (ahem,Reps).
As for the religious leaders, if this bill passes (even with the tentative exemption clause for religious instiutions), ultimatley they will probably need to pay despite their religious alignment because they are listed as public institutions. Therefore, their employees are listed as "public" employees and are rquired same "benefits" as everyone else --- despite religious authority not seeing it as a "benefit."
CONGRATULATIONS. HOPE OBAMA PAYS ATTENTION TO RESPONSIBLES WOMEN LIKE YOU.
Read some more balanced news coverage.
In November we should be in voting booths, firing some bazookas at these d0 ucheb@gs who somehow thought that a war on women would be a smart thing to do.
Ever wonder why church institutions get all that big bad government money---because they are classified as employers of public institutions.
Churches have lost every time they have gone to court on this matter. That's why it is covered in so many STATES---they lost.
Examples of State and Federal Cases-- Hospitals and Universities have long been classified as public institutions--thus must follow employment law. That classification also allows them to get government funding for all of their charities, hospitals and universities.
Plenty of taxpayers have sued to stop government funding of church related institutions--and they lose--because of the "public" classification.
http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/decision-contraception.html
http://motherjones.com/politics/2012/02/controversial-obama-birth-control-rule-already-law
http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/eeoc/Erickson_v_Bartell.htm
http://www.law.com/regionals/ca/opinions/jul/c037025.shtml
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/catholic-group-must-provide-birth-control
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-03-01-catholic-charities_x.htm
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A00E5DD163FF933A15753C1A9609C8B63
http://american-business.org/3236-bradfield-v-roberts-175-us-291-1899.html
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2012/02/10/146662285/rules-requiring-contraceptive-coverage-have-been-in-force-for-years
Look, you can spin this ANY way you want to but the truth of the matter is if a WOMAN chooses to exercise HER "right" to lay down and HAVE UNPROTECTED SEX then why in the HELL should I as a tax payer or the Catholic Church, or the Insurance Companies have to step up and PAY for it? I know this is going to sound like a foreign concept to someone like you ...but how about the WOMAN..."or" the WOMAN or the woman and her sex partner "PAY" FOR IT?!!! Hell the Insurance Company wasn't there in the bed with them...and neither was the Church, and neither were the tax-payers!
But, just like all the other progressives and liberals you think that SOMEONE "ELSE" SHOULD HAVE TO "PAY" FOR WHATEVER REPERCUSSIONS WERE BROUGHT ABOUT AS A RESULT OF THE WOMAN EXERCISING HER FREE WILL TO HAVE SEX. And when you can't get your way well THEN you resort to "name-calling" don't you? What the hell ever happened to being "accountable" for your actions? I know I know, a person such as yourself has never even "heard" of something like that! It's just easier to cry "racist, or 19th century politicians."
Le sigh.
Before WWII, Germany had 80 million inhabitants. Today, they still have about 80 million inhabitants.
Applying wordwide population growth figures, Germany would have more than 250 million
inhabitants. Applying US growth figures, Germany would have more than 160 million inhabitants.
Would Germany be able to help stabilise Europe if she had 160 or 250 million? Personally, I don't think so.
This former German learnt in school that the country cannot feed her population without industrial exports, a conclusion which deleted the Morgenthau Plan in favour of the Marshall Plan. So Germans have learnt that you do yourself some damage if you have significant population growth. While economists propagandise otherwise, the reality of Germany proves the point. Greeks were poor when they had 8 million, and they are poorer now ith 11 million.
All I wanted to point out was that those who talk about birth control only ever waffle on about emotional issues - but the coin has another side. A stable population can offer a stable economic environment and you just cannot debate this (or any other issue) on emotions only.
Isn't that the point? This isn't like 1914 because no one is restricting their right to buy it. This is about another top-down mandate requiring one private individual to pay for another private individual's choices. If 98% of women have used birth control, it can't be that hard to get. Vitamins are important to individual health too. Should the government make you pay for mine?
http://www.cardiovascularbusiness.com/index.php?option=com_articles&article=30544
Studies found that people were skipping out on taking their post-op meds due to the copay. However, not taking the meds increased the chance that a secondary event would happen. When they removed the copay from a test group more people took their meds, fewer people had secondary episodes that re-hospitalized them, and the plan had to spend less money.
So removing the copay **saved money**.
Now, the Affordable Care Act took a list of things that the Institute of Medicine recommended as money savers if copay was removed and insisted they be removed.
Special interest groups like Planned Parenthood out to impress their donors with how awesome they are took items on the list that their donors would be happy with and waved them around as a triumph and acted like they had something to do with the copay removal even though they hadn't. They just want to encourage more donations.
Then people like you fell for their self-serving claims but started complaining instead of donating.
And the 98% is "have used" As in "they will use it when they can get ahold of it". Just like those post op folks will take their meds if they can afford the copay but won't if they can't.
Top all of that off with their time tested and failed trickle down/supply side approach to economics, and what is left of middle America will disappear. If your wealthy however, you will be better off than ever.
And agreed that trickle down eco is a billionaires dirty joke. But as to the wealthy being better off not really, seems politicians should have spent more time in economics class or at least listen to someone who did.
The middle class makes tangible things and provides services that derive wealth for the country, of which the fat cats at top keep the majority of the wealth, and the more we in the middle disappear so does the fat cats gravy train.
But dont worry the "innovative" corps are preparing for the end of the american middle. Look into how many of the top american corps are investing large sums to expand in areas like china and india (2 of the fastest developing markets in the world).
I know for a fact GM has its eye on china.
If people understood the reasons for any mandate regarding health insurance maybe it would make sense. By having insurance (everyone) it helps keep the cost of insurance down. Those that choose not to have it and then get in an accident and are taken to the hospital, they must be treated by law. Who is going to pay for that treatment. Nobody unless your wealthy. So the hospital and other providers (DR's etcc) pass that cost along with higher prices for the rest of us.
My personal feeling is this; if people don't want to cover themselves fine, they just must sign a waiver that allows hospitals and Doctors to let them suffer and mayube die without risk of being sued. then all the people that think their rights are being treed upon can relax, and I don't have to woory that your choice is effecting my cost or my rights.