Posted on 03/14/2012 8:55:53 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o
Caught cocooning in public: Here’s what the NYT‘s story on its latest poll told readers:
In recent weeks, there has been much debate over the government’s role in guaranteeing insurance coverage for contraception, including for those who work for religious organizations. The poll found that women were split as to whether health insurance plans should cover the costs of birth control and whether employers with religious objections should be able to opt out. |
If the Times says women were “split,” you know that must mean they were actually narrowly against the NYT‘s preferred position. Sure enough, when asked, “Should health insurance plans for all employees have to cover the full cost of birth control for female employees or should employers be able to opt out for moral or religious reasons?” women favored opting out by a 46-44 margin. The margin increased to a decisive 53-38 for “religiously affiliated employers, such as a hospital or university.”
That’s among women. Unbeknownst to those who read only the Times‘ main story, the poll asked the same question to men. They were not split. Men favored opting out by a 20 point margin (57 vs. 37), except when a “religiously affiliated employer” was involved, in which case the margin increased to 25 points. Combining men and women, a substantial majority (51-40) favors allowing an opt-out–--increasing to 57-36 where religiously-affiliated institutions are involved.
These are not close results. It’s hard to read this poll and not conclude that, contrary to some accounts, Obama wasn’t such a genius to pick a fight over mandated contraception coverage–because he appears to be losing the public debate on the question. That’s a conclusion the Times story effectively hides from readers.
It’s also one possible explanation for Obama’s otherwise somewhat mystifying overall drop in approval during the period–March 7-11–when the poll was in the field. But not an approved explanation.
Gas prices are the official MSM explanation. Got it? Gas prices.
Imagine my surprise.
Time to throw Fluke under the bus, hahaha!
Lies, damnlies, and the New York Times.
Excellent!
The liberals will call it all women's health issue, but it is more than that. People who are driven by their morals and religious beliefs oppose the mandates now, but they also fear what the mandates will be later. Assisted suicide, euthanasia, mandatory organ donation? Who knows what Obama and Sebilius will find reasonable next.
Frankly I was afraid our Oprahized female population would take to another freebie like ducks to water. I am gratified that it appears this did not happen.
“The Fluke” is fluked.
She will be tossed aside like a used, government provided, birth control device on a hot Saturday night in Georgetown.
Liberals often assume that just because they have a position everyone else in the country will just adopt it, too — I really think liberals live in a self-deluded world, and they have no grasp of how out-of-touch they are with the rest of the country.
>>Time to throw Fluke under the bus, hahaha!<<
There are plenty of guys there — she’ll be happy (so long as they provide the condoms).
I’m shocked the NYT lied!!!
Oh, the radical feminists don’t give up that easily. There is an article in the WSJ, this morning about the call by some woman for governmental regulation of Viagra. They want to require men to have rectal exams and counseling on the dangers of Viagra before receiving a prescription. They are now blaming men for the opposition to insurance coverage for contraception and abortion.
The media have been working 24/7 to frame this as a bigoted attack on women’s rights and on the availability of contraceptives. Even with that kind of bias in the reporting, it appears that the voters are 2-1 against Obama.
The Republicans should point out that no one is questioning Ms. Fluke’s right to buy condoms, pills, or whatever, or to request her boyfriends and casual acquaintances to do so (although I have heard she is actually a lesbian). We are only protesting Obama’s direct violation of the First Amendment and religious freedom, plus his Nazi government forcing the taxpayers to fund the one-night-stands of college students.
Next thing, they’ll be asking us to pay for the restaurant meal that customarily precedes going to bed. And Michelle will specify what kind of food must be served. Chicken nuggets, vegetables, fruit, and low-fat milk, I would imagine.
Only a liberal can see the moral equivalence between terminating a human life and assisting someone with erectile dysfunction.
Example: Health care. If the government is giving away "free" medical care, why would anyone disagree?
(That "free" medical care comes out of the taxpayer's pocket never occures to them, since the things that can be taxed are infinite, and the tax revenue well is bottomless.)
They are positively fixated on sex and all associated topics.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.