# 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:** 6
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2012, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-obama-pissing-off-catholic-voters-unneccesarily/612286/102 "2012-02-10T01:30:47Z")
Can anyone provide a citation for the proposition that heretofore the Catholic Church has regarded it to be sinful to provide an adult with otherwise beneficial resources that may or may not be used to commit a sin depending entirely on the choice of that other adult, when forced to make that provision by the state? > [@ITR\_champion](#): > > …-that takes away the rights of churches to buy the insurance plans that they want … I realize this is short hand, but it’s really misleading shorthand given that the regulation in question explicitly provides for the exemption of churches. ---
**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, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-obama-pissing-off-catholic-voters-unneccesarily/612286/103 "2012-02-10T01:52:04Z")
> [@Jas09](#): > > Here’s a quote from the [statute in Georgia](http://law.onecle.com/georgia/33/33-24-59.6.html): Let’s suppose for the sake of argument that there are [eight states](http://cnsnews.com/news/article/santorum-mr-president-were-not-stupid) (or [three states](http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/290603/unconscionable-editors)) that deny churches the right to choose insurance plans that don’t cover birth control. How many states actually enforce that law? The thing is that such a law is unconstitutional, and if anyone ever fought it all the way to the Supreme Court it would surely be knocked down, as I already mentioned. Further, according to the second article I just linked to, the state laws have loopholes that let employers continue buying the insurance they want. Obama’s new rule closes those loopholes. So broadly speaking it’s still true that churches and other religious bodies had the right to buy the insurance of their choice, but after this rule change they will not, until the Supreme Court knocks it down. > [@Richard Parker](#): > > I realize this is short hand, but it’s really misleading shorthand given that the regulation in question explicitly provides for the exemption of churches. It does not, though the Obama administration is trying to pretend that it does. To quote the article I linked to earlier: Sebelius included one small conscience exemption: A religious employer who objects to medical treatment aimed at prevention of the disease commonly known as “pregnancy” may leave it out of their health insurance coverage provided the employer satisfies three criteria: (1) It has religious inculcation as its primary duty; (2) It primarily employs people of the same faith; and (3) It primarily serves people of the same faith. This fig leaf is enough to cover most small churches​—​so long as your parish employs only a couple of priests and a secretary, it would probably get a pass. Larger institutions would not. In the Catholic world, for instance, a diocesan office often employs lots of people​—​lawyers, janitors, administrative staff​—​who are not necessarily Catholic. And the duties of such offices extend far beyond inculcation of the faith​—​to include charity, community service, and education ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2012, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-obama-pissing-off-catholic-voters-unneccesarily/612286/104 "2012-02-10T02:01:51Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Let’s suppose for the sake of argument that there are [eight states](http://cnsnews.com/news/article/santorum-mr-president-were-not-stupid) (or [three states](http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/290603/unconscionable-editors)) that deny churches the right to choose insurance plans that don’t cover birth control. How many states actually enforce that law? The thing is that such a law is unconstitutional, and if anyone ever fought it all the way to the Supreme Court it would surely be knocked down, as I already mentioned. Further, according to the second article I just linked to, the state laws have loopholes that let employers continue buying the insurance they want. Obama’s new rule closes those loopholes. So broadly speaking it’s still true that churches and other religious bodies had the right to buy the insurance of their choice, but after this rule change they will not, until the Supreme Court knocks it down. > It does not, though the Obama administration is trying to pretend that it does. To quote the article I linked to earlier: > > Sebelius included one small conscience exemption: A religious employer who objects to medical treatment aimed at prevention of the disease commonly known as “pregnancy” may leave it out of their health insurance coverage provided the employer satisfies three criteria: (1) It has religious inculcation as its primary duty; (2) It primarily employs people of the same faith; and (3) It primarily serves people of the same faith. This fig leaf is enough to cover most small churches​—​so long as your parish employs only a couple of priests and a secretary, it would probably get a pass. Larger institutions would not. > > In the Catholic world, for instance, a diocesan office often employs lots of people​—​lawyers, janitors, administrative staff​—​who are not necessarily Catholic. And the duties of such offices extend far beyond inculcation of the faith​—​to include charity, community service, and education Catholics aren’t paying for birth control under this rule. They are paying for overall health insurance, if they decide that they want to provide insurance. It’s utterly childish to claim that this is unconstitutional. No one is forced to provide insurance. Also, are you okay with a Jehova’s Witness business offering health insurance that doesn’t allow blood transfusions? ---
**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 10, 2012, 2:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-obama-pissing-off-catholic-voters-unneccesarily/612286/105 "2012-02-10T02:10:34Z")
> [@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? Your :rolleyes: characterization of the legislation aside, I can link to relevant statutes, sure. No problem. Here’s eight states that don’t recognize any exemptions. Washington - [Wash. Rev. Code § 48.41.110](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=48.41.110) Montana - this policy came about as a result of an administrative ruling or an Attorney General opinion, so there’s no statute to find. Colorado - [Colo. Rev. Stat. § 10-16-104](http://www.joycefoster.com/docs/1021_enr.pdf) Wisconsin - [Wis. Stat. § 609.805](http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/609/805) and [§ 632.895(17)](http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/632/VI/895/17) Iowa [Iowa Code § 514C.19](http://coolice.legis.state.ia.us/Cool-ICE/default.asp?category=billinfo&service=IowaCode&ga=83) Vermont - [Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 8 § 4099c](http://www.leg.state.vt.us/statutes/fullsection.cfm?Title=08&Chapter=107&Section=04099c) New Hampshire - [N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 415:18-I](http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/xxxvii/415/415-18-i.htm), [§ 420-A:17-c](http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/xxxvii/420-a/420-a-17-c.htm) & [§ 420-B:8-gg](http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/xxxvii/420-b/420-b-8-gg.htm) Georgia - [Ga. Code § 33-24-59.6](http://law.onecle.com/georgia/33/33-24-59.6.html) It didn’t take me long to find these, by the way. A google search for “required insurance contraceptives” brought me [here](http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/health/insurance-coverage-for-contraception-state-laws.aspx) pretty easily. Note that Ohio, Illinois, Virginia and Michigan require contraceptives be part of insurance coverage and may not include exemptions as well. I didn’t bother to check up on those, as the eight I did check up on clearly refute your earlier assertion fine by themselves. I just wanted to note that it was, as I said before, _at least eight_ states that do not recognize an exemption. It could be 12 or more that do not. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2012, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-obama-pissing-off-catholic-voters-unneccesarily/612286/106 "2012-02-10T02:12:46Z")
As an aside, the 28 states require church owned businesses, like colleges and hospitals to offer health insurance with contraception covered. This isn’t required for churches themselves or church-run non college schools. The 8 states don’t have the church exemption. Edit: That was directed to ITR, because he appears to be confused. ---
**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 10, 2012, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-obama-pissing-off-catholic-voters-unneccesarily/612286/107 "2012-02-10T02:12:58Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > You say it’s 29 states, **Snowboarder Bo** says it’s eight states. Who should I trust? You need to learn to read (or remember) better. I said _at least_ 8 states _do not recognize an exemption from providing coverage for religious reasons_. Please don’t twist the things I’ve said to mean anything other than what I wrote. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2012, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-obama-pissing-off-catholic-voters-unneccesarily/612286/108 "2012-02-10T02:26:54Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > It does not, though the Obama administration is trying to pretend that it does. That Catholics include lot of other things as adjunct to their places of worship, like schools that employ people of many faiths, does not mean the law doesn’t cover what most people understand to be a “church.” The regulation provides for exemption of any institution – _regardless of size_ – that: “(1) has the inculcation of religious values as its purpose;(2) primarily employs persons who share its religious tenets; (3) primarily serves persons who share its religious tenets; and (4) is a non-profit organization under section 6033(a)(1) and section 6033(a)(3)(A)(i) or (iii) of the Code. Section 6033(a)(3)(A)(i) and (iii) refer to churches, their integrated auxiliaries, and conventions or associations of churches, as well as to the exclusively religious activities of any religious order.” When you say that they’re “pretending” to cover churches, you are incorrect. The law does indeed exempt churches. I guess reasonable people can disagree about whether Catholic schools that do not primarily employ Catholics are considered a church, but to call the people who don’t call it a church pretenders is unfair. How about a shot at my request for a cite? ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2012, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-obama-pissing-off-catholic-voters-unneccesarily/612286/109 "2012-02-10T03:42:03Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > You’re overcomplicating this. They attacked Kerry, his campaign didn’t respond adequately, and partly as a result, Kerry lost. No I’m not. I accurately described the strategy and nature of the campaign I think. What do you think consists of “over-complicating”? ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2012, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-obama-pissing-off-catholic-voters-unneccesarily/612286/110 "2012-02-10T03:52:07Z")
> [@DianaG](#): > > 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. I’ll let the mods do the objecting, if any. Just because I start a thread does not mean I control it. ---
**Author:** ![2ManyTacos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/3da27b/32.png) [@2ManyTacos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2ManyTacos)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2012, 5:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-obama-pissing-off-catholic-voters-unneccesarily/612286/111 "2012-02-10T05:18:00Z")
You guys just know that the WH is going to backpedal on this decision, right? I don’t it want to, but it’s painfully obvious in the [news](http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/72702.html) that the administration is already seeking ways to find a comprmise. I find it hilarious that this entire issue was actually settled over two weeks ago (with the initial decision) and only in the past few DAYS has it spiraled into a ridiculously overblown non-controversy. I will say that, yes, for the time being, these regulations will effectively galvanize the socially conservative base of the GOP; but infinitely more important, _come the actual election,_ this decision (if it stands) will galvanize the entire voting bloc of women for fuck’s sake. In Obama’s favor. The question, then, becomes how will a compromise be reached? ---
**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, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-obama-pissing-off-catholic-voters-unneccesarily/612286/112 "2012-02-10T15:36:14Z")
> [@2ManyTacos](#): > > You guys just know that the WH is going to backpedal on this decision, right? I don’t it want to, but it’s painfully obvious in the [news](http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/72702.html) that the administration is already seeking ways to find a comprmise. No it won’t. President Obama is not making this decision based on cynical partisan politics. He chose to deprive religious institutions of the freedom to choose their own insurance because he firmly believes that it’s the right thing to do. He will not back down in … [Oh](http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/72719.html). Never mind. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2012, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-obama-pissing-off-catholic-voters-unneccesarily/612286/113 "2012-02-10T16:04:17Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > No it won’t. President Obama is not making this decision based on cynical partisan politics. He chose to deprive religious institutions of the freedom to choose their own insurance because he firmly believes that it’s the right thing to do. He will not back down in … > > [Oh](http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/72719.html). Never mind. That’s not really backing down. He is saying that he wants indurance companies to pick up the cost of providing free contraceptives for religious employers. Do you know what the cost of providing free contraceptives for religious comes to? Its not that much. The $600/year is mitigated by the savings in extra births (prenatal, delivery, neonatal, all that stuff), I don’t know if it actualy saves them money but I bet it makes a big dent. Apparently its about $200/year after expected savings according to some analysts. > **[We Examine the Birth Control Coverage Debate](http://www.healthinsurancerates.com/56-birth-control-and-health-insurance.html)** > > Though insurers have made progress toward universal coverage of birth control, many insured women continue to pay out-of-pocket. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2012, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-obama-pissing-off-catholic-voters-unneccesarily/612286/114 "2012-02-10T16:41:26Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > 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. You don’t have the facts straight. The church was taking the freedom of its employees away by not providing them contraception. Unlike probably you and me, lots of poorer people can’t afford contraception. Its not a choice by forcing them to pay for it on their own since they cannot get it. Obama’s rule gives them that freedom, since they are now able to have the opportunity to get birth control, even though they won’t use it being good Catholics, or so I’m told. The church was too skittish anyway, because lots of their members would listen to such an edict and not use contraception, but by making that choice unavailable to them, the church is not allowing these good Catholics to express their faith, only their adherence to man’s law Instead, ask why the church was taking away the freedom of its employees by imposing its own religious views on them. Other religions don’t do that. You never hear of a Jehova’s Witness-run hospital force its “no blood transfusions” rule on its employees. Their employees have that option available, but like good JW’s, they forgo the transfusions by choice and die with dignity. The same thing happens to Islamic hospitals. They are very much pro-choice in that they serve pork in their cafeterias and don’t have a rule about keeping men and women apart, even for surgeries. Their faith is so strong that they allow hundreds of pounds of pork to go to waste every week since nobody will eat it, but its still on the menu. And their members understand that if a woman comes in to the ER for a stab wound from dishonoring her husband, the proper thing is to let her die if no female doctors are available. Nobody complains because those religious institutions have faith and god on their side ---
**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 10, 2012, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-obama-pissing-off-catholic-voters-unneccesarily/612286/115 "2012-02-10T17:05:40Z")
Yog has a good point. Why can’t the churches provide contraceptives (just like any other business), but rely on their parishioners to _not use them_? Is there a reason why the state has to help the church enforce its own rules? ---
**Author:** ![Girl\_Next\_Door](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@Girl\_Next\_Door](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Girl_Next_Door)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2012, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-obama-pissing-off-catholic-voters-unneccesarily/612286/116 "2012-02-10T18:34:35Z")
[http://leslieirishevans.com/roll-over-obama/](http://leslieirishevans.com/roll-over-obama/) ---
**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, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-obama-pissing-off-catholic-voters-unneccesarily/612286/117 "2012-02-10T18:49:02Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > You don’t have the facts straight. The church was taking the freedom of its employees away by not providing them contraception. Not providing something to your employees is not the same as taking the freedom of your employees. The federal government doesn’t provide free motorcycles to its employees, but it isn’t taking away its employees freedom to ride motorcycles. > [@](#): > > Unlike probably you and me, lots of poorer people can’t afford contraception. I’ve already provided a cite to a CDC report which says that contraception use is “nearly universal” among those who choose to be sexually active. Hiow could that be so if “lots of poorer people can’t afford contraception”? > [@](#): > > Its not a choice by forcing them to pay for it on their own since they cannot get it. Even if we suppose that there’s a single church employee who’s too poor to afford contraception, which we don’t have any reason to believe, why can’t that hypothetical employee just get contraception from any of the many sources that give it away for free. I’ve asked several times already and gotten no answer. ---
**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, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-obama-pissing-off-catholic-voters-unneccesarily/612286/118 "2012-02-10T18:58:14Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > That Catholics include lot of other things as adjunct to their places of worship, like schools that employ people of many faiths, does not mean the law doesn’t cover what most people understand to be a “church.” The regulation provides for exemption of any institution – _regardless of size_ – that: “(1) has the inculcation of religious values as its purpose;(2) primarily employs persons who share its religious tenets; (3) primarily serves persons who share its religious tenets; and (4) is a non-profit organization under section 6033(a)(1) and section 6033(a)(3)(A)(i) or (iii) of the Code. Section 6033(a)(3)(A)(i) and (iii) refer to churches, their integrated auxiliaries, and conventions or associations of churches, as well as to the exclusively religious activities of any religious order.” > > When you say that they’re “pretending” to cover churches, you are incorrect. The law does indeed exempt churches. I see nothing in what you quoted which says that the exemption would have covered all churches. If they had wanted to exempt all churches, the Obama Adminstration could simply have written “all churches and other religious institutions will be exempted”. They chose not to do so, and instead wrote an exemption full of ambiguity, that certainly could be used to take away rights from some churches. In any case, President Obama has now changed his mind, so the question is moot. > [@](#): > > How about a shot at my request for a cite? You mean the one you asked for in post #100? I know nothing about the topic and see no relevance between that and Obama’s, um, aborted attempt to strip religious organizations of part of their freedom. ---
**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, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-obama-pissing-off-catholic-voters-unneccesarily/612286/119 "2012-02-10T19:09:38Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Do you know what the cost of providing free contraceptives for religious comes to? Its not that much. The $600/year is mitigated by the savings in extra births (prenatal, delivery, neonatal, all that stuff), I don’t know if it actualy saves them money but I bet it makes a big dent. Apparently its about $200/year after expected savings according to some analysts. > > [We Examine the Birth Control Coverage Debate](http://www.healthinsurancerates.com/56-birth-control-and-health-insurance.html) First of all, your cite does not back up a claim of $200/year expected _savings_ for covering birth control. It says that the total _cost_ of birth control is about $16 per month according to some, once everything is factored in. If that’s correct, then the poor people we’re hearing so much about will be $200 per year poorer as a result of this decision. Further, as I’ve pointed out, there’s no reason to believe that insurance companies paying for contraceptives will reduce abortions or births. Everyone in the USA who wants contraception can get it easily even if their insurance doesn’t cover it. Nonetheless, we still have about a million abortions per year, and roughly half of pregnancies are unplanned. (According to the same CDC report that I cited eariler.) ---
**Author:** ![Frankenstein\_Monster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ccd318/32.png) [@Frankenstein\_Monster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frankenstein_Monster)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2012, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-obama-pissing-off-catholic-voters-unneccesarily/612286/120 "2012-02-10T19:13:04Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > … The thing is that such a law is unconstitutional, and if anyone ever fought it all the way to the Supreme Court it would surely be knocked down, as I already mentioned. Been there, done that. It’s actually the opposite. It is unconstitutional to offer insurance providing prescription coverage but **not** providing contraception coverage. [Erickson v. Bartell Drug Co.](http://www.povertylaw.org/poverty-law-library/case/53100/53144) Also it is constitutional (at least in state law) to require contraceptive coverage. [Catholic Charities v. Dinallo](http://www.aclu.org/reproductive-freedom/us-supreme-court-denies-review-new-york-law-requiring-insurers-cover-contracept) ---
**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 10, 2012, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-obama-pissing-off-catholic-voters-unneccesarily/612286/121 "2012-02-10T19:20:46Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > You mean the one you asked for in post #100? I know nothing about the topic and see no relevance between that and Obama’s, um, aborted attempt to strip religious organizations of part of their freedom. As has been pointed out, Obama did no such thing. It’s the religious organizations who were trying to strip freedoms from their employees by not allowing them to \*choose \*whether they wanted to use contraceptives or not. Do you think churches should be allowed to make that decision for its employees? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-obama-pissing-off-catholic-voters-unneccesarily/612286.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-obama-pissing-off-catholic-voters-unneccesarily/612286.md?page=7)