if they say there is a ground-swell of anger, well, who is to prove them wrong? It's sick what goes on in this country... the US is nothing more than a Billionaire's Ballroom and none of us are invited.

You are invited to clean up the fuckin mess when they are done.

The whole religion thing is a non-issue created by the GOP wannabees who never will be. .
You bought into it big time and you can't seem to realize how foolish it makes you appear.

It has made social issues front and center, which is good for Obama. That helps Santorum and hurts Romney, who does not want social issues to be the main issues, having been on various sides of those issues.

The Republicans want this election to be about the economy.

Interesting. That makes sense. It has helped keep Santorum in the race, and made people focus on Romney's weaknesses in the social issues area.

But ultimately, I don't think there's any doubt that this election will be mainly about the economy. And "forcing" Catholic-affiliated orgs to provide b.c. plays into the "King Obama" who wants a big government telling you what to do, even when it goes against your conscience, morality, or beliefs...because it plays into that vision of him, I think it hurts him ultimately among some independents. (The left is of course in favor of the b.c. rule, but would vote for Obama anyway.)

I'm not in favor of ins. cos. being forced to provide b.c. at all, regardless of whether org. is religiously affiliated or not. But I'm gong to vote for Obama, anyway. But there are some who would be on the fence, and this will concern them and make them wonder if the right is right about Obama.

What the hell, is this 1958? Who the hell do the pedophile protecting Bishops think they are?!

and see things in shades of gray. They are often right-leaning.

Just like why the Bain issue hurts Romney but wouldn't necessarily hurt, say, Santorum. Because there exists already an issue about Romney being part of the 1%, "corporations are people" crowd, and unable to connect with ordinary people esp those who have been laid off.

is the Catholic Church.

They have alot of soul-searching to do.

I.e., remember that most of those often referred to as "evangelicals" are Protestants, not Catholics, and there is a centuries-long war still being waged between the two. Catholics only represent about 24% of the population.

Folks seem to focus on the anti-Mormon sentiment against someone like Romney but there's still alot of anti-Catholic rage out there. All one needs to do is say - "Well you know the current Pope served in Nazi Germany in Hitler's Youth corps" and this issue will be dropped like a hot-potato for something else (no matter the fact that he supposedly deserted the military)...

As we're now full blown into "silly season", the next big elephant in the room (other than the war-mongering by neocons about Iran and Syria) is "guns" and "gun control". So brace for more insanity.

The right, 'independent minded people' and the church are skewering themselves with this and I think Obama should continue to sharpen their swords for them.

The idea that this hurts Obama is ludicrous. Perhaps the health care industry want to limit availability and expenditures for birth control, but most American people do not.

Less than 40% of the country believes in the Catholic Church's right to an exemption to the rule.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2012/02/our-polling-on-the-birth-control-issue.html

The only places this issue is an "issue" is in the media, the extreme right, and in the Catholic leadership. The rank-and-file do not give a shit.

Nobody is "forcing" anything on anybody. Insurance companies are quite willing and even eager to pay for contraception because it saves them a lot of money. In fact, coverage for contraception costs the policyholder nothing "extra" at all. That's why this is a non-issue created entirely out of whole cloth by the media.

Your assertions about "independents" (there really is no such thing, anyway) doesn't hold water because everyone who does have insurance realizes this too. The only constituency that this story "matters" to is those who would never vote for Obama anyway.

In this case, it's the government telling the church not to block women's freedoms, based on religious dogma. The only thing the government is "forcing" is basic fairness.

And I totally agree that it's not playing against Obama except among people who'd never vote for him anyway.

elective, not to treat a medical condition. B.c. can be prescribed for a med. condition...that may be covered. Exception: Unless some states have forced the ins. cos. to provide it.

That's why it is part of Obama's healthcare reform...that ins. cos. now have to cover b.c. prescriptions. This latest controversy is about not including an EXEMPTION for orgs affiliated with churches, like Notre Dame.

It may depend on your policy and maybe your state, but any insurance policy that has a prescription drug benefit will also pay for contraceptives. It is prescribed and the policy pays for prescriptions. It's been this way for as long as I can remember.

Also, insurance companies are well aware that any cost associated with providing contraceptives is far less that the costs they would incur otherwise.

Like I said, this isn't any change at all for insurance companies. This is just a controversy manufactured by the media.

as part of the health care reform act. If it were covered when not forced, then there would be no need for it.

You must be young. I remember when this was litigated decades ago. Ins. cos. were deadset against paying for birth control.

Insurance Coverage for Contraception Laws

Updated August 2011

An estimated 11.6 million American women use oral contraceptives, the leading method of contraceptive in the United States. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, almost half of all pregnancies in the United States are unintended. Unintended pregnancies are associated with increased risk for poor birth outcomes.

Employer-based coverage is the primary form of health insurance for 64 percent of women of reproductive age. Almost all insurance plans cover prescription drugs, but many still do not cover the range of contraceptive drugs and devices that are approved by the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Federal law requires insurance coverage of contraceptives for federal employees and their dependents, allowing a few religious insurers exemption from the requirements.

At least 26 states have laws requiring insurers that cover prescription drugs also provide coverage for any Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved contraceptive. These states include: Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin.
An additional two states—Michigan± and Montana—require insurance coverage of contraceptives as a result of administrative ruling or an Attorney General opinion.
Two states—Texas and Virginia—require that employers be offered the option to include coverage of contraceptives within their health plans.
Some laws prohibit insurance plans from excluding contraceptive services or supplies.
Some states include an exemption for employers who object to such coverage for religious reasons.
Twenty states offer exemptions from contraceptive coverage (usually for religion) for insurers or employers in their policies: Arizona, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas and West Virginia. (These states are indicated with an * in the table below.)
Several states require employers to notify employees of their refusal to provide contraceptive coverage.

http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/health/insurance-coverage-for-contraception-state-laws.aspx

Tweety and his guests all were spouting that same BS this morning. It's the same crap on every other network, too, save for Current TV, and the left-leaning side of MSNBC. I haven't heard a peep from average people on this matter. It's only been the MSM and the most rabid Obama-haters. I think the MSM is purposely hiding the fact that most people think their spin on this is wrong.

The people don't support him. And now the "left" thinks this controversy is a win for Obama, it's only because the MSM is spinning it that it's a problem....it's all their fault?

I think it's obvious that a controversy about the government forcing private companies to do something, esp. related to the evil "Obamacare," is not a good thing in an election year.

Scarborough was pointing out, though, that it hurts Romney, which I hadn't thought of. So there is a silver lining to the controversy.

I think most people support the decision by Obama. I'm different in that I don't, but it doesn't affect my support for Obama. But when I hear the media talk about the controversy, I know it's not spin because I didn't need anyone to tell me that it was a controversial decision not supported by a lot of people. I'm one of those people, and I'm an Obama supporter.

the truth has no meaning or usefulness with the MSM. They need people to tune in and watch so they can sell the ad dollars.

And that is it in a nutshell - which is why we no longer watch.

and thrive based on their ability to generate ad dollars, through viewer- or readership.

He does not seem to be in trouble with his Catholic *constituents*, most of whom disagree with their own church. As a constituency, the Bishops are insignificant.

is about to go through an ugly trial. And it's bad enough that the Cardinal overseeing the most egregious era of pedophilia, died a couple weeks ago - under what the prosecution keeps hinting may have been "unusual circumstances" while trying to poo-poo the lack of autopsy (the man had Alzheimer's and cancer, etc.).

Schieffer can tabloid-size whatever he wants to appear "hard hitting" as a journalist, but too many of these Dioceses are heading towards or are in bankruptcy, closing schools and parishes, paying out record settlements, and fighting decades worth of lawsuits.

So once again, the emperor-without-clothes media exposes themselves to a public who will ho-hum their latest poutrage. I expect the former, self-expectation as heir-apparent to Walter Cronkite and Dan Rather, is probably bitter at being relegated to a once-a-week dying format.

takes anything he says seriously anymore.

but longer term it will likely help him as the debate goes to birth control. The Catholic church is about a 100 years behind on this issue. Its about time they have a more progressive reasonable Pope to set this matter straight. The whole world is suffering due to overpopulation and much of the blame lies with the Catholic church's position on birth control.

because Obama wants all Americans to benefit from the new coverage rule. It's a ginned-up nontroversy to cover up the fact that the economy is doing better.

is what the repukes will be in as the whole country realizes that they support STDs and unwanted pregnancies on the one hand and then turning their backs on them afterwards.

I change the channel when one of these alleged pundits begins to open their mouths.

He's not like Rachel or Big Ed or Larry. They're great, but they have infotainment shows.

Scheiffer is a real journalist/newsman. For 23 years he was anchor on the Saturday edition of CBS Evening News, incl. being Chief Washington Correspondent. He has been the host of Fact the Nation since 1991. His career with CBS has almost exclusively dealt with national politics.

So he knows a thing or two about national politics and issues. He's not a pundit.