# Why Is Obama Pissing Off Catholic Voters Unneccesarily? **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [February 9, 2012, 6:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-obama-pissing-off-catholic-voters-unneccesarily/612286 "2012-02-09T06:06:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Lightnin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lightnin/32/180_2.png) [@Lightnin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lightnin)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2012, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-obama-pissing-off-catholic-voters-unneccesarily/612286/82 "2012-02-09T21:00:20Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > When I said “people who despise religious conservatives in general and the Catholic Church in particular” I did indeed have a group in mind. Specifically, it was the group of people who despise religious conservatives in general and the Catholic Church in particular. If you don’t understand one of the words in that phrase I’ll be happy to define it for you, but you could also consult a dictionary. Ah, _Argumentum ad Obtuseum_. Very well, I shall rephrase. There are a lot more religious voters whom Obama needs to court for votes than there are _people who despise religious conservatives in general and the Catholic Church in particular_. If Obama is pandering to the _people who despise religious conservatives in general and the Catholic Church in particular_, then he’s going to lose more voters than he’d get. Or you’re just making stuff up. Which is it? ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2012, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-obama-pissing-off-catholic-voters-unneccesarily/612286/83 "2012-02-09T21:00:22Z")
Also, [see the numbers](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/why-white-house-sees-political-opportunity-in-the-contraception-battle/2012/02/07/gIQAZ9hryQ_blog.html): Catholics favor this policy by a 58-37 margin. The main opposition comes from white evangelicals, who oppose it by 56-38. But Obama’s not going to get the votes of the 56% of white evangelicals who oppose it, no matter what he does. One group that gave Obama a lot of support in 2008 was young, secular women. The key with young voters is to give them a reason to show up and vote. This surely helps with that demographic. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2012, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-obama-pissing-off-catholic-voters-unneccesarily/612286/84 "2012-02-09T21:04:15Z")
> [@Uncle\_Jocko](#): > > Has anyone else noticed that almost all of these hot-button social issues, particularly those involving the Catholic Church, are really all about sex? I sure haven’t. Consider the Catholic Church’s opposition to the death penalty and torture and campaigning for rights for immigrants. Would you care to explain how these are really about sex? > [@](#): > > The church’s way is absolutely no sex for fun, no sex between unmarrried people (which means by definition no gay sex), and no sex unless it’s for procreation. Are you able to quote any passage from Catholic dogma which says this? If not, why not? ---
**Author:** ![Uncle\_Jocko](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/uncle_jocko/32/2932_2.png) [@Uncle\_Jocko](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uncle_Jocko)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2012, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-obama-pissing-off-catholic-voters-unneccesarily/612286/85 "2012-02-09T21:06:43Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Here’s what it means. At every time up to the current time, Catholic persons and organizations had the freedom to purchase insurance plans that did not cover birth control, sterilization, abortifacents, and other things that they have religious objections to. Because of the decision President Obama made, they no longer have that freedom. This is not quite entirely accurate. Ever since 2000, any health plan that covered prescription drugs of any kind - and that would be the vast majority of them - is also required to cover contraceptives. This was a relatively uncontroversial fact all during the Bush presidency, and yes, institutions run by religious groups were included in this (Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, if you’re scoring at home). The reasoning here was gender discrimination - if your plan covers Viagra, it has to cover the pill, too. mother [jones.com/politics/2012/02/controversial-Obama-birth-control-rule-already-law](http://jones.com/politics/2012/02/controversial-Obama-birth-control-rule-already-law) ---
**Author:** ![DianaG](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/7ab992/32.png) [@DianaG](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DianaG)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2012, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-obama-pissing-off-catholic-voters-unneccesarily/612286/86 "2012-02-09T21:07:49Z")
I don’t recall the Church saying that pro-capital punishment or anti-immigrant politicians should be denied communion, the way that they [said](http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1619070,00.html) pro-choice politicians should be, but I’m sure you’ll correct me if I’m mistaken. ---
**Author:** ![brocks](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7feea3/32.png) [@brocks](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brocks)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2012, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-obama-pissing-off-catholic-voters-unneccesarily/612286/87 "2012-02-09T21:11:43Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Originally Posted by **Brocks** > > And just to remind people, less contraception means more abortions. > > Can you cite a scientific study that proves this? I probably could if I looked for one, but why should I do that, since to dispute it, you have to assert that none of the abortions performed each year involve unwanted pregnancies? ---
**Author:** ![brocks](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7feea3/32.png) [@brocks](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brocks)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2012, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-obama-pissing-off-catholic-voters-unneccesarily/612286/88 "2012-02-09T21:23:29Z")
But if you’re really interested, here are a couple: [http://blog.chron.com/pattihart/2012/02/study-shows-contraceptives-reducing-teen-pregnancyabortion-rates/](http://blog.chron.com/pattihart/2012/02/study-shows-contraceptives-reducing-teen-pregnancyabortion-rates/) > **[Improvements in Contraception Are Reducing Historically High Abortion Rates...](https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB5055.html)** > > Examines the historical causes underlying traditionally high abortion rates in Russia, the contribution of family planning programs in recent years to reducing abortion rates, and prospects for continued improvement. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2012, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-obama-pissing-off-catholic-voters-unneccesarily/612286/89 "2012-02-09T21:40:33Z")
> [@Lightnin](#): > > There are a lot more religious voters whom Obama needs to court for votes than there are _people who despise religious conservatives in general and the Catholic Church in particular_. If Obama is pandering to the _people who despise religious conservatives in general and the Catholic Church in particular_, then he’s going to lose more voters than he’d get. **EvilCaptor** started the thread to discuss a certain theory of his explaining Obama’s motivations. It looks like there’s widespread agreement that the theory doesn’t hold water. If you want to discuss yuor theory that all or almost all voters in Obama’s camp don’t hate the Catholic Church, feel free to start a separate thread on that. ---
**Author:** ![DianaG](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/7ab992/32.png) [@DianaG](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DianaG)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2012, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-obama-pissing-off-catholic-voters-unneccesarily/612286/90 "2012-02-09T21:44:12Z")
Um… Lightnin’ is discussing YOUR theory that he did this to pander to “people who despise religious conservatives in general and the Catholic Church in particular.” Perhaps you should have started a separate thread for that, but since you didn’t, here seems like as good place to discuss it, unless Evil Captor objects. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2012, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-obama-pissing-off-catholic-voters-unneccesarily/612286/91 "2012-02-09T21:48:32Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Here’s what it means. At every time up to the current time, Catholic persons and organizations had the freedom to purchase insurance plans that did not cover birth control, sterilization, abortifacents, and other things that they have religious objections to. Because of the decision President Obama made, they no longer have that freedom. This is demonstrably false. At least 8 states require coverage without exemptions for religious beliefs. When come back, bring facts. And pie. Mmmmmm pie. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2012, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-obama-pissing-off-catholic-voters-unneccesarily/612286/92 "2012-02-09T21:49:14Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > If you want to discuss yuor theory that all or almost all voters in Obama’s camp don’t hate the Catholic Church, feel free to start a separate thread on that. Please don’t junior moderate. It can be annoying in its own right, but what you’re doing here is particularly irksome. You said in no uncertain terms that Obama made this move to pander to voters in his base who hate religious conservatives and the RCC specifically. It is unquestionably your theory, and one you have not supported with facts even though a few posters (including me) asked you to. You’re entitled to your opinion, but tossing out provocative opinions and refusing to cite them is aggaravating. Couple it with junior modding and it’s very close to trolling. Don’t do it again. In the meantime, you may cite your comments about Obama’s base or you may drop the theory and not bring it up again in this thread. ---
**Author:** ![Merneith](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/57b2e6/32.png) [@Merneith](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merneith)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2012, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-obama-pissing-off-catholic-voters-unneccesarily/612286/93 "2012-02-09T22:56:02Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > I put this post in elections because I’m not interested in the merits of the ruling. I’m looking at it strictly in cynical political terms. You know, the same cynical political attitude that I have read repeatedly on the Dope that is the reason Obama keeps dumping progressive ideas. > > In this case, you have a group of potential voters, Catholics. Do you quash this ruling or support it? If you quash it, what you have is a continuance of the status quo – the voters who would have voted for you will still vote for you (presumably, mostly the ones who favor contraception in their personal lives) and the ones who would not have voted for you, will not vote for you. By supporting the ruling, Obama raises the issue, but more importantly, he leaves himself vulnerable to Republican claims that he’s bullying the Catholic Church with his Presidential mojo. I know that such arguments are false, but elections typically are not won with rational arguments. (Remember: I’ll have a beer with George Bush, not John Kerry?) > > My thought is that Obama is cynically using the issue to crank up the Republican social conservatives and get them out in support of their man Santorum, knowing the independent morons (not saying all independents are morons, but a lot of them are, and those are the ones the parties focus on) can easily be brought back into the Democratic fold by quashing the regulation once the Republican nominee has been chosen. > > Got nothing to do with the underlying issue. I wrote about this last summer, when Obama first issued his executive order mandating that, under his Health Care Act, all insurance plans would be required to provide birth control with no co-pay. Here’s a link to my post back then: [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14087757&postcount=10](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14087757&postcount=10) And a link to the Huffington Post article I was referenced - > **[Obama Administration: Health Insurers Must Cover Birth Control With No Copays](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/obama-birth-control-health-insurance_n_914818)** > > Obama Administration: Health Insurers Must Cover Birth Control With No Copays > [@Merneith](#): > > Something else that happened today is that Obama issued an executive order stating that insurers must provide birth control to women without charging a co-pay. Also, they must provide breast pumps for nursing mothers and screening for cervical cancer prevention. I think this order was timed specifically to remind us progressives that Obama has a lot of stuff coming down the line, like health care changes, and if we want that stuff to happen we need to keep supporting him. At least that’s how it looks to me. > > This debt bill is another thing Obama can point to as a political win, even if the specifics aren’t that great. Plus Obama is already signalling that if he’s reelected, he’ll consider ending the Bush tax cuts as part of further debt reduction - but that won’t happen if he’s not elected. > > I think Obama got the deal he wanted here, but I think he’s playing a very long game. We’ll see if it works out. > > cite: [HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0)…\_n\_914818.html That original executive order was released on August 1 last year - which was the same day that the grueling Debt Crisis bill ended in confusion and a tentative win for the Dems. Obama had taken a lot of crap at the time for not standing up to the Republicans. I said at the time in a different post that I was starting to think Obama was playing Rope-a-Dope with the Republicans, offering them all sorts of compromises they weren’t going to take. In the end, the Dems got a temporary bill passed and set up the “super-congress” committee, which I initially hated, but ultimately, the super-congress fell through again, leaving Obama free to end the Bush tax cuts next year - if he’s elected. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that Obama signed that executive order on the day that the debt crisis bill passed, or that it’s a coincidence that the issue is back in the news right when it’s ginning up the Republican candidates to “run against birth control.” (Oh, they aren’t really, of course. Mostly. That’s not the point. They’re not pig fuckers either. Mostly.) And I agree with Rachel Maddow. This is about winning the women’s vote. And I absolutely believe Obama knows it. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2012, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-obama-pissing-off-catholic-voters-unneccesarily/612286/94 "2012-02-09T23:47:23Z")
Obama’s giving Catholics freedom, ITR. With this new rule, Catholics employed by the church have the freedom to choose whether or not to get birth control. They didn’t have that choice before if they worked for the church and couldn’t afford it. So you see, this is a pro-Catholic move As an atheist, then, I’m horribly offended by this and think its another attack on secularism in this country ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2012, 12:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-obama-pissing-off-catholic-voters-unneccesarily/612286/95 "2012-02-10T00:36:59Z")
Really, what Obama needs to do is to get out the word, through channels sympathetic to him, just what this measure actually does. It’s a challenge, though, since he needs to target this clarification to Catholics (others would probably just be confused at why he’s bringing it up), and I’m not sure how he would accomplish this. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2012, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-obama-pissing-off-catholic-voters-unneccesarily/612286/96 "2012-02-10T00:53:42Z")
> [@DianaG](#): > > I don’t recall the Church saying that pro-capital punishment or anti-immigrant politicians should be denied communion, the way that they [said](http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1619070,00.html) pro-choice politicians should be, but I’m sure you’ll correct me if I’m mistaken. I was thinking along the same lines the other day - that the RCC still takes what we would regard as liberal positions on a goodly number of issues, but it just never seems that they put any weight or force behind their views on those. But abortion or homosexuality or contraception - you’ll hear from them on issues like these. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2012, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-obama-pissing-off-catholic-voters-unneccesarily/612286/97 "2012-02-10T01:04:22Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > Obama’s giving Catholics freedom, ITR. With this new rule, Catholics employed by the church have the freedom to choose whether or not to get birth control. They didn’t have that choice before if they worked for the church and couldn’t afford it. Catholics employed by the church already have the freedom to choose whether or not to get birth control before this rule goes into effect. Affording it is not an issue, since it’s available for free in many places. But before this rule was created, Catholics who ran an organization had the freedom to choose whether or not to buy an insurance program that covered birth control. Now they no longer have the freedom to make that choice. Therefore the rule in question takes freedom away from Catholics and others. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2012, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-obama-pissing-off-catholic-voters-unneccesarily/612286/98 "2012-02-10T01:06:12Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > This is demonstrably false. At least 8 states require coverage without exemptions for religious beliefs. > > When come back, bring facts. Can you name those eight states and name the legislation–or better yet, link to the legislation–that takes away the rights of churches to buy the insurance plans that they want in those eight states? ---
**Author:** ![Jas09](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d07c76/32.png) [@Jas09](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jas09)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2012, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-obama-pissing-off-catholic-voters-unneccesarily/612286/99 "2012-02-10T01:13:30Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > But before this rule was created, Catholics who ran an organization had the freedom to choose whether or not to buy an insurance program that covered birth control. Now they no longer have the freedom to make that choice. Therefore the rule in question takes freedom away from Catholics and others. That’s not exactly true. Catholic organization do not have to provide health insurance to their employees. All they have to do is pay the fine and their conscience is clean. ---
**Author:** ![Jas09](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d07c76/32.png) [@Jas09](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jas09)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2012, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-obama-pissing-off-catholic-voters-unneccesarily/612286/100 "2012-02-10T01:17:27Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Can you name those eight states and name the legislation–or better yet, link to the legislation–that takes away the rights of churches to buy the insurance plans that they want in those eight states? Here’s a quote from the [statute in Georgia](http://law.onecle.com/georgia/33/33-24-59.6.html): > [@](#): > > (c) Every health benefit policy that is delivered, issued, executed, or renewed in this state or approved for issuance or renewal in this state by the Commissioner on or after July 1, 1999, which provides coverage for prescription drugs on an outpatient basis shall provide coverage for any prescribed drug or device approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration for use as a contraceptive. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2012, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-obama-pissing-off-catholic-voters-unneccesarily/612286/101 "2012-02-10T01:27:16Z")
> [@Simplicio](#): > > According to the panel that made the recommendation to implement the policy “Women citing cost concerns were twice as likely as other women to rely on condoms or less effective methods like withdrawal or periodic abstinence.” According to [the CDC](http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_23/sr23_029.pdf), “Contraceptive use in the United States is virtually universal among women of reproductive age” among women who have had sex. If there’s actually any serious problem getting contraceptives among women, why would the CDC report that? Furthermore, if there’s a serious problem of women employed by the Catholic Church not being able to pay for their birth control pills from the Church’s insurance program, then why can’t they just switch to a different insurance program? Wasn’t the central claim of Obama’s health care program that it would provide good, affordable coverage options to everyone? > [@](#): > > Just to be clear, do you think the 29 states that have the same regulations also have them just to give a middle finger to the Church? You say it’s 29 states, **Snowboarder Bo** says it’s eight states. Who should I trust? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-obama-pissing-off-catholic-voters-unneccesarily/612286.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-obama-pissing-off-catholic-voters-unneccesarily/612286.md?page=6)