« | Main | Thoughts on Maine »

February 10, 2012


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Mike P.

The words 'abortifacient' and 'sterilization' didn't make it into the question?


Looks like the Clan of the Red Beanie is screwing the (pre-pubescent) pooch on this one. Let the GOP follow along while I continue to accumulate Obama shares at Intrade for $6 each.


Mike is exactly right. If birth control alone is almost 50/50 with Catholics, then abortifacient and sterilization would certainly bring a majority of Catholics, and probably Americans, too, to oppose the HHS rule.

And I just want to point out how farsical it is to show that "the Bishops are really not speakings for Catholics as a whole" because a majority of self-professing Catholics say that Obama is right on this. First of all, the Catholic Church is not a democracy. Those same liberal Catholics might like it to be (and I'd like pigs to fly), but the Church is simply not a "democracy," nor can it ever be. The Bishops are charged with teaching what the Church teaches to the faithful, without regard for what your run-of-the-mill Catholic might think about it. If a majority of Catholics believe that pigs fly, the Church has no obligation to begin teaching that pigs fly. Second, did you crosstab the regularity of church attendance among these Catholics of yours? Many Catholics call themselves as much, but are really only marginally affiliated with the Church. To be sure, a Catholic is still a Catholic if they don't go to Mass, but they aren't a very good Catholic. So nobody should be surprised that Catholics who disregard the Church's teachings on a lot of other stuff, also disregard a more counter-cultural teaching about contraception.


"Republicans will win this fall if they can convince voters that the economy stinks and it's Barack Obama's fault and putting them in power will fix the problem." But that would require them to have solutions that will actually fix the problem, wouldn't it?

Beating the drums on God, guns, gays, and the Pill is much easier.

Obama 2012

Thanks for this polling. It's absurd the way the pundits are trying to make being pro-contraceptive into a political loser.

I feel like some of these guys aren't aware of what decade we're living in.

By going this anti-birth control route the Republicans are marginalizing themselves (once again.) The Democrats should let them dig this hole.


Re-poll the question, I bet the result would be very different as other polling firms that have polled more recently have found other results.


What percentage of practicing Catholics support the mandate? Only about half of self-identifying Catholics actually attend Mass at least once a month and hold Catholic beliefs. For instance, only 60% of self identifying Catholics reported believing in heaven. Self-identifying Carholics are hardly a good barometer for actual Catholic opinions.


Classic case of "polling to the result" by asking a question to produce the answer you want. If given a choice, most will choose free stuff, little caring that it's an accounting trick..
This is a straight-up First Amendment issue. Occupy won't take down their tents or cease their protests. Journalists defend their rights to publish and protect sources. Pacifists do not have to take up arms even in defense of their country.
The federal government cannot mandate that people of faith violate their ethical beliefs.


I've been interested in the appearance of the word 'abortifacient' in this dialogue.

Upon doing some Google research, it seems that what we have here is the conscious construction of a self-serving definition by the "right to life" crowd.

This starts with the biological fiction that a fertilized zygote -- not yet implanted -- is a "new individual".

This begs the question as to how an un-implanted, fertilized zygote develops into any embryo and ultimately is given birth as a baby, which is a biological impossibility, and also ignores the issue that many fertilized zygotes are expelled without being implanted.

So what we seem to have is the contrived definition that any substance (i.e. birth control pills) that prevents either an egg from being fertilized, or a fertilized zygote from being implanted is in fact causing an abortion.

Interesting to witness how consistently the evangelical right wing in America has constantly redefined language itself to further its agenda.


Ask this question. Should religious organizations be able to hire only people who agree with their policies or should they be forced to hire people who disagree with their policies and demand services that go against that religions teachings?

If the government allowed employers to be more selective in their hiring this would not be problem. It should be Ok for employers to limit their hiring to people who agree with their policies provided those policies are legal.


"If they want to make it about social issues and making it easy and affordable for women to access birth control, Democrats win."

As Mike implied, there's a huge difference between "birth control" and abortifacients. If that significant distinction wasn't included in your question, then I cannot agree with your blanket interpretation of the findings. In fact, I think if social issues rise to the fore, Obama will still get the boot--maybe even more so.

Texas Aggie

Since abortifacients aren't covered by the plan, I'm not sure why anyone would want to ask about it in this context other than to try to deliberately confuse the issue.

And for those who are bent out of shape about what constitutes a "real catholic," it's votes that we're concerned about here and being a "real catholic" counts only one vote, same as a "fake catholic." So when you lump the two groups together, the votes go for being for the provision of contraception in the insurance plan. That the catholic church is a dictatorship is beside the point in the US because people can vote the way they want, not the way a dictator demands. But it does bring into question what kind of president Rick Santorum would be.

glenda sitnek

One thing that isn't being considered is the insurance carrier who chooses the Catholic owned/operated system as their preferred provider of healthcare. In smaller cities, such as Spfld, MO we have 2 major hospitals and both have partnerships with insurance providers. The supplement to Medicare I chose, because of benefits and I'm retired, was Humana who works almost exclusively with the Mercy System, Catholic operated. I am not Catholic and, in fact, take issues with several of their beliefs, but there is no exemption available to me to choose my primary care doctor. I must choose from their system and if he's Catholic, well that's that. If their clientele cannot be exempted, why should they have any exemptions? After all they receive government funding from both Medicare and Medicaid as well. I haven't heard anyone discussing this issue.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

PPP POLLS BY YEAR: 2006-2017

We came to PPP after a public poll in the San Jose Mayoral race showed our opponent ahead by 8 points. They found our candidate (Sam Liccardo) ahead by 3 points and that allowed us to be able to push back with the press against the perception that our opponent was now a strong favorite in the race. Sam ended up winning by 2 points and is now the next Mayor of San Jose. PPP worked very fast and had a very accurate read on the electorate when we needed them
–Eric Jaye, Storefront Political Media.

For more information on hiring PPP for your polling needs click here

Among the Best Pollsters, Year after Year.

2014 :
Rated Most Accurate Pollster in Governor’s Races Nationally

2012 :
Correctly predicted the winner of every state in the Presidential race, and the winner of every major Senate race

2010 :
First pollster to predict Scott Brown’s upset win over Martha Coakley in the Massachusetts Senate race, only pollster to predict Christine O’Donnell’s upset victory over Mike Castle in the Delaware Republican Senate primary.

2008 :
Ranked by the Wall Street Journal as the 2nd most accurate swing state pollster in the Presidential election.

WSJ Graphic


Public Policy Polling
2912 Highwoods Blvd., Suite 201
Raleigh, NC 27604
Phone: 888.621.6988

Questions or Comments?
Email Us




Dean Debnam Dean Debnam
Public Policy Polling CEO

PPP is best known for putting out highly accurate polling on key political races across the country, but we also do affordable private research for candidates and organizations.  Why pay tens of thousands of dollars for a survey when one of the most reliable companies in the nation can do it for less?"

Learn more about working
with PPP for your next project >


Facebook Facebook
Twitter Twitter
RSS Feed RSS Reader