# 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:** 9
**Author:** ![CaptMurdock](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/captmurdock/32/11736_2.png) [@CaptMurdock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CaptMurdock)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2012, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-obama-pissing-off-catholic-voters-unneccesarily/612286/162 "2012-02-11T16:53:13Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Nope. Citing something that says the bill might outlaw one form of contraception is not hanging your hat on the “birth control is wrong” issue. If you think that women’s groups and the Democrats in general are going to allow the kind of hairsplitting implied in the cite, I’ve got this bridge with a wonderful view of Brooklyn to sell you. The radical right would love to get the kind of foothold to allow them to say “We’ve outlawed one kind of birth control…” The fact that not only Santorum but also Gingrich, Paul and Romney have indeed hung their hats on this tells me that this has broad appeal within the GOP. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2012, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-obama-pissing-off-catholic-voters-unneccesarily/612286/163 "2012-02-11T17:13:21Z")
> [@CaptMurdock](#): > > If you think that women’s groups and the Democrats in general are going to allow the kind of hairsplitting implied in the cite, I’ve got this bridge with a wonderful view of Brooklyn to sell you. The radical right would love to get the kind of foothold to allow them to say “We’ve outlawed one kind of birth control…” The fact that not only Santorum but also Gingrich, Paul and Romney have indeed hung their hats on this tells me that this has broad appeal within the GOP. Oh, please. First of all, that cite is an opinion piece. Did you not notice the “opinion” label at the top? And we have Romney’s [own words](http://www.salon.com/2012/01/08/mitt_romneys_birth_control_fake_out/) from one of the debates: > [@Mitt Romney](#): > > I can’t imagine that states would want to ban contraception. If I were a governor or a legislator in a state, I would totally oppose any effort to ban contraception. Now, I’m happy to dis Romney for dodging the larger issue (whether he agrees with the decision in _Griswold_), but I think a direct quote from him outwieghs an opinion piece about his agreement with legislation that is clearly aimed at the abortion issue, and that the writer claims might apply elsewhere. ---
**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 11, 2012, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-obama-pissing-off-catholic-voters-unneccesarily/612286/164 "2012-02-11T17:37:12Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Oh, please. First of all, that cite is an opinion piece. Did you not notice the “opinion” label at the top? > > And we have Romney’s [own words](http://www.salon.com/2012/01/08/mitt_romneys_birth_control_fake_out/) from one of the debates: > > Now, I’m happy to dis Romney for dodging the larger issue (whether he agrees with the decision in _Griswold_), but I think a direct quote from him outwieghs an opinion piece about his agreement with legislation that is clearly aimed at the abortion issue, and that the writer claims might apply elsewhere. I understand you want to be fair to the Republicans, but you’re being a little obtuse here. Romney has said he supports a personhood amendment. That would outlaw birth control that prevents implantation. From: [http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/11/dems-attack-romney-on-abortion-personhood/](http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/11/dems-attack-romney-on-abortion-personhood/) > [@](#): > > “Would you have supported the constitutional amendment that would have established the definition of life at conception?” Huckabee asked. > “Absolutely,” Romney replied. Now one problem with this is that Romney appears to actually be too stupid to understand how birthcontrol works. Given that he was brought up in a religion that promotes ignorance of things sexual, I suppose it might an honest mistake. From: [Iowa Woman Schools Romney On Anti-Abortion Amendment And Birth Control | Crooks and Liars](http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/david/iowa-woman-schools-romney-anti-abortion-amen) > [@](#): > > At a town hall event in Sioux City, Iowa Thursday, a woman told Romney that she was concerned about what this meant for hormonal birth control. > > “That would essentially mean banning most forms of birth control,” she noted. “Ninety-eight percent of American women, including me, use birth control. So, could you help me understand why you oppose the use of birth control?” > > “I don’t,” Romney declared. “Life begins at conception; birth control prevents conception.” Now is that Romney being stupid, or trying to dodge the question in a way that a stupid audience won’t realize? I don’t know. Either way, he’s either a fucking fringe nut, or he’s so uneducated he shouldn’t be advocating positions on the issue. The question I have, is would you be splitting hairs as fine, if a Republican had called someone anti-gun if that person had supported a total ban on handguns and shotguns, but leaving rifles okay for private ownership? You don’t think that person could be called pro-banning guns? It seems your, “It only is outlawing most kinds of birth control, not all” defense of the Republican frontrunners is pretty lame. In any case, you’re completely wrong on this overall issue, this was in no way an attack on Catholics. This was Catholic bishops realizing they could grab the headlines for a few weeks with a bullshit trumped up charge, so that people would see them as under attack. The Catholic church is living under this rule in 28 states and a more draconian rule in 8. They didn’t bitch about it when those laws were passed, because the sensible Catholics in charge weren’t hysterical twats. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2012, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-obama-pissing-off-catholic-voters-unneccesarily/612286/165 "2012-02-11T17:51:59Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > I understand you want to be fair to the Republicans, but you’re being a little obtuse here. > > Romney has said he supports a personhood amendment. That would outlaw birth control that prevents implantation. > > From: [http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/11/dems-attack-romney-on-abortion-personhood/](http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/11/dems-attack-romney-on-abortion-personhood/) > Now one problem with this is that Romney appears to actually be too stupid to understand how birthcontrol works. Given that he was brought up in a religion that promotes ignorance of things sexual, I suppose it might an honest mistake. > > From: [Iowa Woman Schools Romney On Anti-Abortion Amendment And Birth Control | Crooks and Liars](http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/david/iowa-woman-schools-romney-anti-abortion-amen) > Now is that Romney being stupid, or trying to dodge the question in a way that a stupid audience won’t realize? I don’t know. Either way, he’s either a fucking fringe nut, or he’s so uneducated he shouldn’t be advocating positions on the issue. OK, that’s a more reasoned approach. Romney is currently parading himself as a born again pro-lifer, and I can see why he would support the Personhood amendment in that case. There is a claim that that amendment might ban hormonal contraception, so we can at the most say that his message is muddled on the issue. But given his direct statement, I think saying he as anti-birth control based on the facts at hand is simply fallacious. > [@](#): > > The question I have, is would you be splitting hairs as fine, if a Republican had called someone anti-gun if that person had supported a total ban on handguns and shotguns, but leaving rifles okay for private ownership? You don’t think that person could be called pro-banning guns? No, I don’t think that person could be accurately portrayed as being pro-banning guns. Frankly, I don’t think those types of soundbites are useful or accurate in most cases. That goes for “soft on crime” or “soft on terror” or claims by right wingers that Obama is “anti-religion”. > [@](#): > > It seems your, “It only is outlawing most kinds of birth control, not all” defense of the Republican frontrunners is pretty lame. I don’t concede that Romney is in favor of outlawing any kind of birth control. I don’t accept the extrapolation of his support of personhood being defined as “at conception” is an endorsement of a banning of hormonal birth control. > [@](#): > > In any case, you’re completely wrong on this overall issue, this was in no way an attack on Catholics. This was Catholic bishops realizing they could grab the headlines for a few weeks with a bullshit trumped up charge, so that people would see them as under attack. The Catholic church is living under this rule in 28 states and a more draconian rule in 8. They didn’t bitch about it when those laws were passed, because the sensible Catholics in charge weren’t hysterical twats. Well, I never said it was an attack on Catholics, but it should be noted that at least two Catholics in Obama’s own cabinet, including his V-fucking-P opposed the original position put forth by Sebelius. ---
**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 11, 2012, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-obama-pissing-off-catholic-voters-unneccesarily/612286/166 "2012-02-11T17:59:40Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Well, I never said it was an attack on Catholics, but it should be noted that at least two Catholics in Obama’s own cabinet, including his V-fucking-P opposed the original position put forth by Sebelius. Well Catholics themselves probably feel attacked, somehow. Because they respect the church hugely. Even Chris Matthews was iffy on this, and he’s as liberal an Obama booster as you find on TV. I don’t doubt that Catholics legitimately felt attacked. Or that the church was being attacked. But I don’t think that means they were right. In any case, I like that there is this compromise and it makes both sides walk away with heads unbowed. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2012, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-obama-pissing-off-catholic-voters-unneccesarily/612286/167 "2012-02-11T19:12:52Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > …parading himself as a born again pro-lifer… That’s it! Eureka, I’ve got it! Forget contraception, preventing people from being born. Prevent them from being born _again_! Boy, I got vision, and the rest of the world wears bifocals… ---
**Author:** ![pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a9a28c/32.png) [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pseudotriton_ruber_ruber)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2012, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-obama-pissing-off-catholic-voters-unneccesarily/612286/168 "2012-02-11T19:58:26Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Well Catholics themselves probably feel attacked, somehow. Because they respect the church hugely. Even Chris Matthews was iffy on this, and he’s as liberal an Obama booster as you find on TV. > > I don’t doubt that Catholics legitimately felt attacked. Or that the church was being attacked. But I don’t think that means they were right. > > In any case, I like that there is this compromise and it makes both sides walk away with heads unbowed. Which is one of the things that made me conclude that this was about tribalism, not religion per se. Group X goes “Wah, wah, wah, I’m being attacked,” and all its members go “Yeah, don’t pick on us,” even if they don’t agree with the actual Group X values that are being “attacked” themselves. Circling the wagons IRL–“gotta protect our kind,” “Our folks, right or wrong.” Totally sick mentality. ---
**Author:** ![brocks](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7feea3/32.png) [@brocks](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brocks)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2012, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-obama-pissing-off-catholic-voters-unneccesarily/612286/169 "2012-02-11T22:07:37Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Nope. Citing something that says the bill might outlaw one form of contraception is not hanging your hat on the “birth control is wrong” issue. So you were just playing some childish game with your earlier requests for specifics. Good to know that I should just ignore you in the future. ---
**Author:** ![crowmanyclouds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crowmanyclouds/32/19884_2.png) [@crowmanyclouds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crowmanyclouds)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2012, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-obama-pissing-off-catholic-voters-unneccesarily/612286/170 "2012-02-12T00:09:44Z")
I’ll assume that since this is a press release there’s no issue with posting the whole thing, But clink on the link to enjoy the, seemingly random, bolding! > [@](#): > > [Bishops Renew Call to Legislative Action on Religious Liberty](http://www.usccb.org/news/2012/12-026.cfm) > > February 10, 2012 > Regulatory changes limited and unclear > Rescission of mandate only complete solution > Continue urging passage of Respect for Rights of Conscience Act > > WASHINGTON – The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) have issued the following statement: > > The Catholic bishops have long supported access to life-affirming healthcare for all, and the conscience rights of everyone involved in the complex process of providing that healthcare. That is why we raised two serious objections to the “preventive services” regulation issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in August 2011. > > First, we objected to the rule forcing private health plans — nationwide, by the stroke of a bureaucrat’s pen—to cover sterilization and contraception, including drugs that may cause abortion. All the other mandated “preventive services” prevent disease, and pregnancy is not a disease. Moreover, forcing plans to cover abortifacients violates existing federal conscience laws. Therefore, we called for the rescission of the mandate altogether. > > Second, we explained that the mandate would impose a burden of unprecedented reach and severity on the consciences of those who consider such “services” immoral: insurers forced to write policies including this coverage; employers and schools forced to sponsor and subsidize the coverage; and individual employees and students forced to pay premiums for the coverage. We therefore urged HHS, if it insisted on keeping the mandate, to provide a conscience exemption for all of these stakeholders—not just the extremely small subset of “religious employers” that HHS proposed to exempt initially. > > Today, the President has done two things. > > First, he has decided to retain HHS’s nationwide mandate of insurance coverage of sterilization and contraception, including some abortifacients. This is both unsupported in the law and remains a grave moral concern. We cannot fail to reiterate this, even as so many would focus exclusively on the question of religious liberty. > > Second, the President has announced some changes in how that mandate will be administered, which is still unclear in its details. As far as we can tell at this point, the change appears to have the following basic contours: > > ·It would still mandate that all insurers must include coverage for the objectionable services in all the policies they would write. At this point, it would appear that self-insuring religious employers, and religious insurance companies, are not exempt from this mandate. > > ·It would allow non-profit, religious employers to declare that they do not offer such coverage. But the employee and insurer may separately agree to add that coverage. The employee would not have to pay any additional amount to obtain this coverage, and the coverage would be provided as a part of the employer’s policy, not as a separate rider. > > ·Finally, we are told that the one-year extension on the effective date (from August 1, 2012 to August 1, 2013) is available to any non-profit religious employer who desires it, without any government application or approval process. > > These changes require careful moral analysis, and moreover, appear subject to some measure of change. But we note at the outset that the lack of clear protection for key stakeholders—for self-insured religious employers; for religious and secular for-profit employers; for secular non-profit employers; for religious insurers; and for individuals—is unacceptable and must be corrected. And in the case where the employee and insurer agree to add the objectionable coverage, that coverage is still provided as a part of the objecting employer’s plan, financed in the same way as the rest of the coverage offered by the objecting employer. This, too, raises serious moral concerns. > > We just received information about this proposal for the first time this morning; we were not consulted in advance. Some information we have is in writing and some is oral. We will, of course, continue to press for the greatest conscience protection we can secure from the Executive Branch. But stepping away from the particulars, we note that today’s proposal continues to involve needless government intrusion in the internal governance of religious institutions, and to threaten government coercion of religious people and groups to violate their most deeply held convictions. In a nation dedicated to religious liberty as its first and founding principle, we should not be limited to negotiating within these parameters. The only complete solution to this religious liberty problem is for HHS to rescind the mandate of these objectionable services. > > We will therefore continue—with no less vigor, no less sense of urgency—our efforts to correct this problem through the other two branches of government. For example, we renew our call on Congress to pass, and the Administration to sign, the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act. And we renew our call to the Catholic faithful, and to all our fellow Americans, to join together in this effort to protect religious liberty and freedom of conscience for all. CMC fnord! ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2012, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-obama-pissing-off-catholic-voters-unneccesarily/612286/171 "2012-02-12T00:35:38Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > The question I have, is would you be splitting hairs as fine, if a Republican had called someone anti-gun if that person had supported a total ban on handguns and shotguns, but leaving rifles okay for private ownership? You don’t think that person could be called pro-banning guns? > [@John\_Mace](#): > > No, I don’t think that person could be _ **accurately** _ portrayed as being pro-banning guns. Well. “Accurately.” What about “plausibly?” ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2012, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-obama-pissing-off-catholic-voters-unneccesarily/612286/172 "2012-02-12T02:31:15Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > No, I don’t think that person could be accurately portrayed as being pro-banning guns. Frankly, I don’t think those types of soundbites are useful or accurate in most cases. That goes for “soft on crime” or “soft on terror” or claims by right wingers that Obama is “anti-religion”. Awesome! Cause that’s what I am! _high fives_ ---
**Author:** ![Argent\_Towers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e8c25b/32.png) [@Argent\_Towers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Argent_Towers)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2012, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-obama-pissing-off-catholic-voters-unneccesarily/612286/173 "2012-02-12T02:47:22Z")
> [@dorsk188](#): > > Actually, a lot of left-leaning and moderate Catholic men ( **EJ Dione** , Mark Shields, Chris Matthews) are making a stink. I know this has absolutely _nothing_ to do with anything, but I have to say it anyway. I met E.J. Dione back in 2010 when I was in England. He was at a dinner with my father and a few other people in Oxford, and I came along. I drank two entire bottles of white wine at that dinner, then walked to a pub and had some ale, then staggered to a Chinese restaurant and ordered a gigantic platter of fried fish, then somehow made it back to the room at Oxford where we were staying. I remember I had an interesting conversation with him about Rhodesia. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2012, 3:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-obama-pissing-off-catholic-voters-unneccesarily/612286/174 "2012-02-12T03:33:18Z")
What is this “sterilization” the Catholics keep talking about being forced to pay for? I wasn’t aware there are any sterilization programs going on right now ---
**Author:** ![SeldomSeen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/7ba0ec/32.png) [@SeldomSeen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SeldomSeen)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2012, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-obama-pissing-off-catholic-voters-unneccesarily/612286/175 "2012-02-12T03:42:05Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > What is this “sterilization” the Catholics keep talking about being forced to pay for? I wasn’t aware there are any sterilization programs going on right now I think they mean vasectomy/tubal ligation. Technically correct, but it seems a little disingenuous to suddenly start referring to it as “sterilization”. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2012, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-obama-pissing-off-catholic-voters-unneccesarily/612286/176 "2012-02-12T16:00:05Z")
> [@SeldomSeen](#): > > I think they mean vasectomy/tubal ligation. Technically correct, but it seems a little disingenuous to suddenly start referring to it as “sterilization”. Wow, WTF, that is just flat out lying. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2012, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-obama-pissing-off-catholic-voters-unneccesarily/612286/177 "2012-02-12T18:34:52Z")
> [@SeldomSeen](#): > > I think they mean vasectomy/tubal ligation. Technically correct, but it seems a little disingenuous to suddenly start referring to it as “sterilization”. It is not sudden. Sterilization AFAIK has always been the general term for vasectomies and tubal ligation. It does not carry a negative connotation when these are entirely voluntary procedures. Many people choose sterilization as practical and permanent alternative to birth control. I have no idea whether these proposed rules have any impact on these procedures or not. ---
**Author:** ![SeldomSeen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/7ba0ec/32.png) [@SeldomSeen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SeldomSeen)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2012, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-obama-pissing-off-catholic-voters-unneccesarily/612286/178 "2012-02-12T20:35:30Z")
Catholic doctrine regards vasectomies & tubal ligations in the same light as any other form of birth control; i.e. forbidden. Full coverage insurance programs typically pay for these proceedures just as they do for chemical birth control. Hence the Church’s opposition to being “forced to pay for sterilization proceedures”. And by phrasing it the way they have, they are, in fact, attempting to put a negative connotation on it. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2012, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-obama-pissing-off-catholic-voters-unneccesarily/612286/179 "2012-02-12T20:51:30Z")
> [@brocks](#): > > So you were just playing some childish game with your earlier requests for specifics. Good to know that I should just ignore you in the future. Is that a threat or a promise? I’m hoping it’s the latter. ---
**Author:** ![Merneith](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/57b2e6/32.png) [@Merneith](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merneith)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2012, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-obama-pissing-off-catholic-voters-unneccesarily/612286/180 "2012-02-12T21:18:28Z")
Republicans in congress are rejecting Obama’s compromise position of having the women get their birth control directly from the insurerer. Senator Roy Blunt introduced legislation in the senate allowing employers from opting out of offering birth control coverage for moral objections. Mitch McConnell seems to think they’re going to get a vote on it. In the House, Paul Ryan - House Budget Committee chairman - wants to see something similar and seems to think he can get the legislation passed there. Elsewhere, White House chief of staff Jacob Lew says the issue is settled and they’re going to move ahead on their compromise. So yeah. The republicans in congress are actually going to try to legislate against birth control coverage! In an election year!! Good job, Mr. President! > **[HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News](https://www.huffpost.com/?err_code=404&err_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2F2012%2F02%2F12%2Fmitch-mcconnell-birth-control_n_1271593.html)** > > Read the latest headlines, news stories, and opinion from Politics, Entertainment, Life, Perspectives, and more. ---
**Author:** ![Jas09](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d07c76/32.png) [@Jas09](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jas09)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2012, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-obama-pissing-off-catholic-voters-unneccesarily/612286/181 "2012-02-13T21:14:02Z")
> [@Merneith](#): > > So yeah. The republicans in congress are actually going to try to legislate against birth control coverage! In an election year!! Good job, Mr. President! And the few moderate GOP Senators (read: Snowe and Collins) are already jumping off that ship. I really can’t believe that the GOP is allowing the Health Care fight to be on such fertile ground for Democrats. Fight the underlying bill, not the one component that seems very well supported. Now Obama can very easily paint the repeal efforts as an attack on contraception. This is almost as dumb as attacking PPACA by railing against the pre-existing conditions clauses or the limits on rescission. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-obama-pissing-off-catholic-voters-unneccesarily/612286.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-obama-pissing-off-catholic-voters-unneccesarily/612286.md?page=10)