Catholic Church ready to declare war on Obama

[TitanTiger 20,499]

Doesn't birth control prevent abortion?

"Do not do evil that good may come of it."

Why would you think that someone would think that it's ok to do one thing they believe is sinful in order to prevent another...not as a matter of last resort of being forced to choose, but willingly?

Maybe that 98% that have used birth control confess their "sin" in onfessional

Maybe you should quit relying on idiotic, meaningless statistics.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

White House Flubs Contraception Compromise

Walter Russell Mead's Blog

by Walter Russell Mead

First the Obama administration managed to alienate both its liberal supporters and its religious critics by pushing and then pulling back its HHS contraception mandate. Now the White House has succeeded in hitting the political sour spot yet again by producing a compromise designed to placate the Catholic bisho...without consulting the Catholic bishops. Reports the Times:

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops — which has led the opposition to the plan — said in a statement late Friday that the solution offered by the White House to quell a political furor was “unacceptable and must be corrected” because it still infringed on the religious liberty and conscience of Catholics. . . .

Administration officials said the White House had never expected to get the bishops’ support, given their absolute opposition to contraception, and was surprised when the initial statement of the bishops conference on Friday was noncommittal and went so far as to call the president’s modification a step in the right direction.

This isn’t political rocket science. Given the bishops’ openness on the issue, all the administration had to do was sit down with the conference and work out a mutually agreeable compromise before making the first announcement about it—let alone the second. Is this a deliberate choice of polarizing tactics to solidify the base, or simple ineptitude and arrogance? Via Meadia is waiting for more light.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

Just to bury the "98%" meme statistically illiterate people are so fond of quoting, a breakdown of the actual survey by Guttmacher:

However, the 98% figure is bogus. It comes from Figure 3 in a Guttmacher Institute study of the kinds of contraceptives women choose. Now, the mission of the Guttmacher Institute is to propagandize the use of contraceptives, and their studies should be viewed in that light. However, this particular study, though statistically primitive, does not itself make the claim attributed to it by the statistically illiterate.

The 98% seems suspicious. What of the elderly? What about nuns? What about the proverbially fertile Catholic mother? Do they comprise only 2% of the Church?

Remember what we said that the results of sample S can only be projected onto the population P from which it was randomly selected? Ignore for a moment the issues related to methodology, randomness, etc. What was their population?

We discover that the study was restricted to “women at risk for unintended pregnancy.” [emph. added]. They defined this group as those:

• aged 15-44

• who were “sexually active” in the three months prior to the survey

• but were not pregnant, postpartum or trying to get pregnant

IOW, it excluded any woman participating in the Darwinian effort to colonize the future. Excluded are Catholic women who are married, trying to have a baby (or at least open to the possibility), nuns and other virgins, and any woman older than 44 years or younger than 15. This may actually exclude a fair number of Catholic women”from the population.

So the study tells us only that 98% of women of child-bearing age who want to have sex without having babies use some form of birth control. That qualifies as a sort of “d’uh” moment...

...Now what about those “Catholic women.” Figure 1 in the Guttmacher report provides a breakdown of religious participation. We find that only 30% of the “Catholic women” in their study reported attending church weekly, versus 11% who said “never” and 29% who said less than monthly. IOW, 40% of those claiming to be Catholic are either Easter Bunnies or never attend Mass. It’s unclear how “Catholic” such women really are. But it certainly seems as if they are less likely to have been touched by catechesis.

http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2012/02/statistics-obamas-and-internet-memes.html

[arnaldoabru 11]

Just to bury the "98%" meme statistically illiterate people are so fond of quoting, a breakdown of the actual survey by Guttmacher:

However, the 98% figure is bogus. It comes from Figure 3 in a Guttmacher Institute study of the kinds of contraceptives women choose. Now, the mission of the Guttmacher Institute is to propagandize the use of contraceptives, and their studies should be viewed in that light. However, this particular study, though statistically primitive, does not itself make the claim attributed to it by the statistically illiterate.

The 98% seems suspicious. What of the elderly? What about nuns? What about the proverbially fertile Catholic mother? Do they comprise only 2% of the Church?

Remember what we said that the results of sample S can only be projected onto the population P from which it was randomly selected? Ignore for a moment the issues related to methodology, randomness, etc. What was their population?

We discover that the study was restricted to “women at risk for unintended pregnancy.” [emph. added]. They defined this group as those:

• aged 15-44

• who were “sexually active” in the three months prior to the survey

• but were not pregnant, postpartum or trying to get pregnant

IOW, it excluded any woman participating in the Darwinian effort to colonize the future. Excluded are Catholic women who are married, trying to have a baby (or at least open to the possibility), nuns and other virgins, and any woman older than 44 years or younger than 15. This may actually exclude a fair number of Catholic women”from the population.

So the study tells us only that 98% of women of child-bearing age who want to have sex without having babies use some form of birth control. That qualifies as a sort of “d’uh” moment...

...Now what about those “Catholic women.” Figure 1 in the Guttmacher report provides a breakdown of religious participation. We find that only 30% of the “Catholic women” in their study reported attending church weekly, versus 11% who said “never” and 29% who said less than monthly. IOW, 40% of those claiming to be Catholic are either Easter Bunnies or never attend Mass. It’s unclear how “Catholic” such women really are. But it certainly seems as if they are less likely to have been touched by catechesis.

http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2012/02/statistics-obamas-and-internet-memes.html

I'm not familiar with that web site, maybe you could shed a little light

[Tigermike 3,035]

Just to bury the "98%" meme statistically illiterate people are so fond of quoting, a breakdown of the actual survey by Guttmacher:

However, the 98% figure is bogus. It comes from Figure 3 in a Guttmacher Institute study of the kinds of contraceptives women choose. Now, the mission of the Guttmacher Institute is to propagandize the use of contraceptives, and their studies should be viewed in that light. However, this particular study, though statistically primitive, does not itself make the claim attributed to it by the statistically illiterate.

The 98% seems suspicious. What of the elderly? What about nuns? What about the proverbially fertile Catholic mother? Do they comprise only 2% of the Church?

Remember what we said that the results of sample S can only be projected onto the population P from which it was randomly selected? Ignore for a moment the issues related to methodology, randomness, etc. What was their population?

We discover that the study was restricted to “women at risk for unintended pregnancy.” [emph. added]. They defined this group as those:

• aged 15-44

• who were “sexually active” in the three months prior to the survey

• but were not pregnant, postpartum or trying to get pregnant

IOW, it excluded any woman participating in the Darwinian effort to colonize the future. Excluded are Catholic women who are married, trying to have a baby (or at least open to the possibility), nuns and other virgins, and any woman older than 44 years or younger than 15. This may actually exclude a fair number of Catholic women”from the population.

So the study tells us only that 98% of women of child-bearing age who want to have sex without having babies use some form of birth control. That qualifies as a sort of “d’uh” moment...

...Now what about those “Catholic women.” Figure 1 in the Guttmacher report provides a breakdown of religious participation. We find that only 30% of the “Catholic women” in their study reported attending church weekly, versus 11% who said “never” and 29% who said less than monthly. IOW, 40% of those claiming to be Catholic are either Easter Bunnies or never attend Mass. It’s unclear how “Catholic” such women really are. But it certainly seems as if they are less likely to have been touched by catechesis.

http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2012/02/statistics-obamas-and-internet-memes.html

I'm not familiar with that web site, maybe you could shed a little light

Try this.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

I'm not familiar with that web site, maybe you could shed a little light

It's a blog run by a statistician, though he blogs about all sorts of matters.

[TexasTiger 12,947]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57377864-503544/poll-most-back-mandating-contraception-coverage

The number is similar among self-professed Catholics surveyed: 61 percent said they support the Obama administration's rule, while 32 percent oppose it.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57377864-503544/poll-most-back-mandating-contraception-coverage

The number is similar among self-professed Catholics surveyed: 61 percent said they support the Obama administration's rule, while 32 percent oppose it.

Again, I would question what is meant by "Catholic." Does that mean, "I grew up Catholic but barely show up to Mass even for Easter and Christmas now"? Or does that mean, "I'm at Mass most Sundays and regularly participate in the life of the Church and the sacraments." Because without that information, the result could be misleading.

I also object to the wording of the question. It simply said, "Should Religious Employers Be Required to Cover Contraception?" Didn't give any explanation as to why this was an issue at all. The Rasmussen poll gave a proper balanced wording to this question. And being a marketing major in college, I do remember how marketing and polling questions were to be worded and how the order of the questions affected or mitigated bias.

Here are the Rasmussen questions:

1. Should health insurance companies be required by law to cover all government-approved contraceptives for women, without co-payments or other charges to the patient?

2. If health insurance companies are required to cover all government-approved contraceptives for women, without any charges to the patient, will that increase the cost of health insurance, decrease the cost of health insurance, or have no impact on the cost of health insurance?

3. The requirement to provide contraceptives for women violates deeply held beliefs of some churches and religious organizations. If providing such coverage violates the beliefs of a church or religious organization, should the government still require them to provide coverage for contraceptives?

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/questions/pt_survey_questions/february_2012/questions_contraceptive_mandate_february_6_7_2012

When you properly ask the questions (first asking the general, then proceed to the specific and give a balanced explanation of the 'disagreement'), you get a different result. In that survey, 50% opposed the mandate and only 39% supported it.

[TexasTiger 12,947]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57377864-503544/poll-most-back-mandating-contraception-coverage

The number is similar among self-professed Catholics surveyed: 61 percent said they support the Obama administration's rule, while 32 percent oppose it.

Again, I would question what is meant by "Catholic." Does that mean, "I grew up Catholic but barely show up to Mass even for Easter and Christmas now"? Or does that mean, "I'm at Mass most Sundays and regularly participate in the life of the Church and the sacraments." Because without that information, the result could be misleading.

I also object to the wording of the question. It simply said, "Should Religious Employers Be Required to Cover Contraception?" Didn't give any explanation as to why this was an issue at all. The Rasmussen poll gave a proper balanced wording to this question. And being a marketing major in college, I do remember how marketing and polling questions were to be worded and how the order of the questions affected or mitigated bias.

Here are the Rasmussen questions:

1. Should health insurance companies be required by law to cover all government-approved contraceptives for women, without co-payments or other charges to the patient?

2. If health insurance companies are required to cover all government-approved contraceptives for women, without any charges to the patient, will that increase the cost of health insurance, decrease the cost of health insurance, or have no impact on the cost of health insurance?

3. The requirement to provide contraceptives for women violates deeply held beliefs of some churches and religious organizations. If providing such coverage violates the beliefs of a church or religious organization, should the government still require them to provide coverage for contraceptives?

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/questions/pt_survey_questions/february_2012/questions_contraceptive_mandate_february_6_7_2012

When you properly ask the questions (first asking the general, then proceed to the specific and give a balanced explanation of the 'disagreement'), you get a different result. In that survey, 50% opposed the mandate and only 39% supported it.

The questions you like so much are among the more biased, intended-to-solicit-a-particular outcome I have ever seen. And what does a copay have to do with your larger concern? With so many issues mixed in there, you don't really have a clue what is tipping the scale for the respondents.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

You're nuts. That's a question that actually puts out there what the disagreement is. People get that folks want certain drugs covered and can respond accordingly. But then they are offered essentially the same question, but with a complicating factor. That's not bias. It's how it's supposed to be done.

What's the beef with the copay question? I'm not following why that would be a problem.

[arnaldoabru 11]

Andrew Sullivan suggest that the Obama administration purposly made this an issue, knowing that Santurom would jump all over it, gaining steam with the "base" coming into the Southern states primaries. Thereby helping Santorum getting the Republican nomonation? What do you think?

If true,.....it was brillant. President Obama....still the smartest man in the room.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

I think you're giving too much credit. Do I think it was a calculated political move? Of course. But trying to get Santorum's poll numbers up? Hardly. The administration is making the calculation that 1) people love being given freebies and 2) he could shore up support among women that would outpace whatever votes he loses among Catholics. He basically sold out one group for another.

[RunInRed 16,427]

Another data point for the discussion...

Poll: Most back mandating contraception coverage

Amid continued controversy surrounding an Obama administration policy mandating that women working at religiously-affiliated institutions be provided with free access to contraceptive health care, a new CBS News/New York Times poll shows that most Americans - including Catholics - appear to support the rule.

According to a survey, conducted between Feb. 8-13, 61 percent of Americans support federally-mandated contraception coverage for religiously-affiliated employers; 31 percent oppose such coverage.

The number is similar among self-professed Catholics surveyed: 61 percent said they support the Obama administration's rule, while 32 percent oppose it.

Majorities of both men and women said they are in favor of the rule, though support among women is especially pronounced, with 66 percent supporting and 26 percent opposing it. Among men, 55 percent of men are in favor; 38 percent object.

The survey's margin of error is plus or minus three percentage points.

[RunInRed 16,427]

As usual, Stewart nails it...

"You've confused a war on your religion with not getting everything you want..."

<iframe src="http://media.mtvnservices.com/embed/mgid:cms:video:thedailyshow.com:408200" width="512" height="288" frameborder="0"></iframe>

[Tigermike 3,035]

As usual, Stewart nails it...

"You've confused a war on your religion with not getting everything you want..."

<iframe src="http://media.mtvnservices.com/embed/mgid:cms:video:thedailyshow.com:408200" width="512" height="288" frameborder="0"></iframe>

[TexasTiger 12,947]

You're nuts.

If you think Rasumussen has given "a balanced explanation of the 'disagreement'," you're nuts.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

As usual, Stewart nails it...

"You've confused a war on your religion with not getting everything you want..."

<iframe src="http://media.mtvnservices.com/embed/mgid:cms:video:thedailyshow.com:408200" width="512" height="288" frameborder="0"></iframe>

I'd say he's got it reversed. The other side has confused first principles with lesser ones. The free exercise of religion is enshrined in the Bill of Rights. The freedom to have another pay for your contraceptives is not.

Put another way:

[TitanTiger 20,499]

You're nuts.

If you think Rasumussen has given "a balanced explanation of the 'disagreement'," you're nuts.

He asked a general question first to determine if the respondent's feel mandating that insurance companies provide contraception in their coverage without extra cost to the employee is alright. Once you get that answer, you move on to other factors so the answers to those don't affect the answer to the general principle of paid-for contraception. Then he basically asks if effects on overall health care costs would change your response. Then he asks if such a requirement violates some organization's religious beliefs would that affect your response. This is a normal progression of how to ask something properly.

[MDM4AU 332]

Oh, soooo THIS!

[Grumps 3,704]

It seriously sounds like many of you think it is ok to violate someone's right to freedom of religious expression if polls show that the people are in favor of it. Truly astounding!

[BamaGrad03 0]

That 61% number doesn't mean much to me at all. Catholics, I'd argue, have the largest contingent of loosely (one could say barely) affiliated followers in the country -- because their numbers just so huge.

Devout Catholics, on the other hand, are staunchly so. And to suggest that the fringe Catholics who don't go to mass, who don't adhere to the core beliefs, and who are basically "Catholic" because their parents were -- hardly speak for the teachings and standards of the Catholic church.

No matter how much these polls wished they did.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

Another data point for the discussion...

Poll: Most back mandating contraception coverage

Amid continued controversy surrounding an Obama administration policy mandating that women working at religiously-affiliated institutions be provided with free access to contraceptive health care, a new CBS News/New York Times poll shows that most Americans - including Catholics - appear to support the rule.

According to a survey, conducted between Feb. 8-13, 61 percent of Americans support federally-mandated contraception coverage for religiously-affiliated employers; 31 percent oppose such coverage.

The number is similar among self-professed Catholics surveyed: 61 percent said they support the Obama administration's rule, while 32 percent oppose it.

Majorities of both men and women said they are in favor of the rule, though support among women is especially pronounced, with 66 percent supporting and 26 percent opposing it. Among men, 55 percent of men are in favor; 38 percent object.

The survey's margin of error is plus or minus three percentage points.

Yeah, that's the same poll Tex linked to. And my response to it still stands:

...I would question what is meant by "Catholic." Does that mean, "I grew up Catholic but barely show up to Mass even for Easter and Christmas now"? Or does that mean, "I'm at Mass most Sundays and regularly participate in the life of the Church and the sacraments." Because without that information, the result could be misleading.

I also object to the wording of the question. It simply said, "Should Religious Employers Be Required to Cover Contraception?" Didn't give any explanation as to why this was an issue at all.

Like I mentioned to arnaldo when he jumped on the 98% figure...if I posted a poll that said 96% of self-described Democrats said they supported the Bush tax cuts, but then you found that half those folks have never voted in an election, another third voted Democrat only occasionally and that only about 10% of the bunch voted in state, local and national elections for Democrats, lobbied for Democratic initiatives or donated to Democratic causes, would you say that 96% figure meant anything at all?

Of course not. So forgive me if I don't take vague figures like "61% of Catholics believe..." all that seriously, especially when the question is also worded so poorly.

[RunInRed 16,427]

That 61% number doesn't mean much to me at all. Catholics, I'd argue, have the largest contingent of loosely (one could say barely) affiliated followers in the country -- because their numbers just so huge.

Devout Catholics, on the other hand, are staunchly so. And to suggest that the fringe Catholics who don't go to mass, who don't adhere to the core beliefs, and who are basically "Catholic" because their parents were -- hardly speak for the teachings and standards of the Catholic church.

No matter how much these polls wished they did.

The numbers are what they are. We've had several polls now say the exact same thing. Bottom line: The majority does not share the opinion you and others are putting forward.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

That 61% number doesn't mean much to me at all. Catholics, I'd argue, have the largest contingent of loosely (one could say barely) affiliated followers in the country -- because their numbers just so huge.

Devout Catholics, on the other hand, are staunchly so. And to suggest that the fringe Catholics who don't go to mass, who don't adhere to the core beliefs, and who are basically "Catholic" because their parents were -- hardly speak for the teachings and standards of the Catholic church.

No matter how much these polls wished they did.

The numbers are what they are. We've had several polls now say the exact same thing.

This is disingenous. You know it's essentially meaningless and I showed you a perfect example of how using Democrats as the target group. Don't stand there and act like you're on solid ground when you know the caveats to this poll are big enough to drive a semi through.

[RunInRed 16,427]

It seriously sounds like many of you think it is ok to violate someone's right to freedom of religious expression if polls show that the people are in favor of it. Truly astounding!

Simply put, some of us think this is a pure overreaction and honestly don't see how anyone's 'freedom of religious expression' is being trampled on ... or to put it another way, you can still do whatever the heck you personally want. And as such, like I explained to Titan above, it then comes down to dollars/the argument over paying for something you may disagree with ... well, that comes with being in a society: You don't always get your way.