CONGRESS

Public Divided Over Birth-Control Coverage

President Barack Obama and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius in the Brady Press Briefing Room of the White House in Washington, Friday, Feb., 10, 2012, as the president announced the revamp of his contraception policy requiring religious institutions to fully pay for birth control. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)  
National Journal
Ronald Brownstein
Feb. 27, 2012, 4:42 p.m.

On the dock­et of con­tra­cep­tion-re­lated is­sues di­vid­ing the parties, more Amer­ic­ans lean to­ward the po­s­i­tions held by Pres­id­ent Obama and most Demo­crats, though in sev­er­al cases only nar­rowly, ac­cord­ing to the latest United Tech­no­lo­gies/Na­tion­al Journ­al Con­gres­sion­al Con­nec­tion Poll.

Prob­ing dis­putes over health in­sur­ance cov­er­age for con­tra­cep­tion and pren­at­al test­ing, fed­er­al fund­ing for Planned Par­ent­hood, and wheth­er em­ploy­ers must provide cov­er­age for pro­ced­ures that vi­ol­ate their mor­al or re­li­gious con­vic­tions, the sur­vey found that wo­men tilt more to­ward the Demo­crat­ic po­s­i­tion than men, with the gap usu­ally even more pro­nounced among whites.

The is­sue of con­tra­cep­tion has ig­nited a series of con­flicts in re­cent weeks. The con­front­a­tion es­cal­ated in Janu­ary when Obama an­nounced a policy that ini­tially would have re­quired re­li­giously af­fil­i­ated em­ploy­ers like Cath­ol­ic uni­versit­ies or hos­pit­als (though not churches them­selves) to fund birth con­trol at no cost if they provide health in­sur­ance to their work­ers. After a back­lash, Obama un­veiled a plan to re­quire the in­sur­ance com­pan­ies, rather than the re­li­giously af­fil­i­ated em­ploy­ers, to fund cov­er­age for con­tra­cep­tion at no ad­di­tion­al cost to the work­er.

Crit­ics de­ride that as a wispy dis­tinc­tion, but in the sur­vey 49 per­cent of adults polled said they sup­por­ted Obama’s plan, com­pared with 40 per­cent who op­posed it. This is­sue pro­voked sharp di­vi­sions by gender, race, and par­tis­an­ship. Men split evenly on the pro­pos­al, with 44 per­cent sup­port­ing and 44 per­cent op­pos­ing; wo­men, by con­trast, sup­por­ted Obama’s ap­proach by a sol­id 53 per­cent-to-36 per­cent ma­jor­ity. Like­wise, while whites split evenly on the idea, minor­it­ies backed it by about 2-to-1. And while three-fifths of Re­pub­lic­ans op­posed the com­prom­ise, nearly two-thirds of Demo­crats, along with just over half of in­de­pend­ents, backed it. (In this Con­gres­sion­al Con­nec­tion Poll, the find­ings by party are re­por­ted only among re­gistered voters, not all adults.)

But in a res­ult that un­der­scores how much the fram­ing of these is­sues can af­fect at­ti­tudes, re­spond­ents split much more closely on a Re­pub­lic­an le­gis­lat­ive pro­pos­al that would have the ef­fect of over­rid­ing Obama’s plan. The sur­vey noted that “Some mem­bers of Con­gress have pro­posed le­gis­la­tion that would al­low em­ploy­ers to deny cov­er­age for any med­ic­al ser­vice that vi­ol­ates the em­ploy­er’s mor­al con­vic­tions or re­li­gious be­liefs”; the Sen­ate is ex­pec­ted to vote this week on such an amend­ment from Sen. Roy Blunt, a Mis­souri Re­pub­lic­an.

On that ques­tion, 44 per­cent said they op­posed cre­at­ing such an ex­emp­tion for em­ploy­ers, while 40 per­cent sup­por­ted the idea. The idea was op­posed by men and wo­men as well as whites and non­whites, though only by very nar­row plur­al­it­ies. Even the par­tis­an splits were muted: Re­pub­lic­ans favored it only nar­rowly, in­de­pend­ents di­vided about evenly, and Demo­crats op­posed it, though not over­whelm­ingly.

The Con­gres­sion­al Con­nec­tion Poll, con­duc­ted by Prin­ceton Sur­vey Re­search As­so­ci­ates In­ter­na­tion­al, sur­veyed 1,005 adults Feb. 23-26; it has a mar­gin of er­ror of plus or minus 3.5 per­cent­age points. The mar­gin of er­ror for re­gistered voters is plus or minus 4.3 per­cent­age points.

On two oth­er con­tra­cep­tion-re­lated ideas ad­vanced by Re­pub­lic­ans, opin­ion tilted much more to­ward res­ist­ance. One ques­tion told re­spond­ents that the House of Rep­res­ent­at­ives last year “voted to elim­in­ate fund­ing for Planned Par­ent­hood, which provides a vari­ety of health care ser­vices to wo­men such as birth con­trol and breast can­cer screen­ings” and noted that “[s]ome Planned Par­ent­hood clin­ics per­form abor­tions, though not us­ing fed­er­al funds.” Giv­en that de­scrip­tion of the de­cision, fully 69 per­cent of those polled said they op­posed cut­ting off fund­ing; just 24 per­cent en­dorsed it. This idea faced broad op­pos­i­tion; 66 per­cent of men, 71 per­cent of wo­men, 65 per­cent of whites, 78 per­cent of non­whites, 70 per­cent of in­de­pend­ents, and 79 per­cent of adults un­der 30 all said they op­posed the fund­ing cutoff.

An­oth­er ques­tion tested at­ti­tudes to­ward GOP pres­id­en­tial con­tender Rick San­tor­um’s re­cent cri­ti­cism of the man­date in the fed­er­al health care law that em­ploy­ers provid­ing in­sur­ance must cov­er pren­at­al tests for preg­nant wo­men. Without men­tion­ing San­tor­um by name, the ques­tion noted, “Some op­pose the man­date be­cause pren­at­al test­ing may en­cour­age more abor­tions.” But even after hear­ing that ar­gu­ment, 60 per­cent of adults sur­veyed said they sup­por­ted the man­date, double the 30 per­cent who op­posed it. Once again, wo­men, minor­it­ies, young people, in­de­pend­ents, and Demo­crats were es­pe­cially sup­port­ive of the man­date; Re­pub­lic­ans op­posed it nar­rowly, 49 per­cent to 41 per­cent.

On each of these ques­tions, opin­ion among Cath­ol­ics closely tracked at­ti­tudes among oth­er Amer­ic­ans. Cath­ol­ics backed the Obama com­prom­ise by 52 per­cent to 41 per­cent””ac­tu­ally a slightly wider mar­gin for the pres­id­ent than the 48 per­cent-to-39 per­cent split among non-Cath­ol­ics. Cath­ol­ics split ex­actly evenly (43 per­cent to 43 per­cent) on the ex­emp­tions in Blunt’s pro­pos­al. More than three-fifths of Cath­ol­ics sup­por­ted the pren­at­al-test­ing man­date and three-fourths of them op­posed cut­ting off Planned Par­ent­hood fund­ing. White Cath­ol­ics showed little dif­fer­ence from non­white Cath­ol­ics on those ques­tions.

The poll sug­ges­ted that each side may mo­tiv­ate its base on these is­sues. Sixty per­cent of col­lege-edu­cated white wo­men sup­por­ted the Obama com­prom­ise. In sharp con­trast, the plan faced plur­al­ity op­pos­i­tion from non­col­lege white men and wo­men, and col­lege-edu­cated white men, all of whom are usu­ally tough­er audi­ences for Demo­crats. Like­wise, two-thirds of whites un­der 34 sup­por­ted the re­vised Obama plan””while nearly three-fifths of white seni­ors op­posed it. Two key swing groups””white Cath­ol­ics and white in­de­pend­ents””tilted nar­rowly to­ward the Obama po­s­i­tion. 

What We're Following See More »
STAFF PICKS
When It Comes to Mining Asteroids, Technology Is Only the First Problem
2 days ago
WHY WE CARE

Foreign Policy takes a look at the future of mining the estimated "100,000 near-Earth objects—including asteroids and comets—in the neighborhood of our planet. Some of these NEOs, as they’re called, are small. Others are substantial and potentially packed full of water and various important minerals, such as nickel, cobalt, and iron. One day, advocates believe, those objects will be tapped by variations on the equipment used in the coal mines of Kentucky or in the diamond mines of Africa. And for immense gain: According to industry experts, the contents of a single asteroid could be worth trillions of dollars." But the technology to get us there is only the first step. Experts say "a multinational body might emerge" to manage rights to NEOs, as well as a body of law, including an international court.

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Obama Reflects on His Economic Record
2 days ago
WHY WE CARE

Not to be outdone by Jeffrey Goldberg's recent piece in The Atlantic about President Obama's foreign policy, the New York Times Magazine checks in with a longread on the president's economic legacy. In it, Obama is cognizant that the economic reality--73 straight months of growth--isn't matched by public perceptions. Some of that, he says, is due to a constant drumbeat from the right that "that denies any progress." But he also accepts some blame himself. “I mean, the truth of the matter is that if we had been able to more effectively communicate all the steps we had taken to the swing voter,” he said, “then we might have maintained a majority in the House or the Senate.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Reagan Families, Allies Lash Out at Will Ferrell
2 days ago
WHY WE CARE

Ronald Reagan's children and political allies took to the media and Twitter this week to chide funnyman Will Ferrell for his plans to play a dementia-addled Reagan in his second term in a new comedy entitled Reagan. In an open letter, Reagan's daughter Patti Davis tells Ferrell, who's also a producer on the movie, “Perhaps for your comedy you would like to visit some dementia facilities. I have—I didn’t find anything comedic there, and my hope would be that if you’re a decent human being, you wouldn’t either.” Michael Reagan, the president's son, tweeted, "What an Outrag....Alzheimers is not joke...It kills..You should be ashamed all of you." And former Rep. Joe Walsh called it an example of "Hollywood taking a shot at conservatives again."

Source:
PEAK CONFIDENCE
Clinton No Longer Running Primary Ads
2 days ago
WHY WE CARE

In a sign that she’s ready to put a longer-than-ex­pec­ted primary battle be­hind her, former Sec­ret­ary of State Hil­lary Clin­ton (D) is no longer go­ing on the air in up­com­ing primary states. “Team Clin­ton hasn’t spent a single cent in … Cali­for­nia, In­di­ana, Ken­tucky, Ore­gon and West Vir­gin­ia, while” Sen. Bernie Sanders’ (I-VT) “cam­paign has spent a little more than $1 mil­lion in those same states.” Meanwhile, Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Sanders’ "lone back­er in the Sen­ate, said the can­did­ate should end his pres­id­en­tial cam­paign if he’s los­ing to Hil­lary Clin­ton after the primary sea­son con­cludes in June, break­ing sharply with the can­did­ate who is vow­ing to take his in­sur­gent bid to the party con­ven­tion in Phil­adelphia.”

Source:
CITIZENS UNITED PT. 2?
Movie Based on ‘Clinton Cash’ to Debut at Cannes
2 days ago
WHY WE CARE

The team behind the bestselling "Clinton Cash"—author Peter Schweizer and Breitbart's Stephen Bannon—is turning the book into a movie that will have its U.S. premiere just before the Democratic National Convention this summer. The film will get its global debut "next month in Cannes, France, during the Cannes Film Festival. (The movie is not a part of the festival, but will be shown at a screening arranged for distributors)." Bloomberg has a trailer up, pointing out that it's "less Ken Burns than Jerry Bruckheimer, featuring blood-drenched money, radical madrassas, and ominous footage of the Clintons."

Source:
×