[Vision2020] Support Is Found for Birth Control Coverage and Gay Unions

[Art Deco]

  [image: The New York Times] <http://www.nytimes.com/>


------------------------------
February 14, 2012
Support Is Found for Birth Control Coverage and Gay Unions By MARJORIE
CONNELLY<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/c/marjorie_connelly/index.html?inline=nyt-per>

Despite the deep divide between some religious leaders and government
officials over contraceptives, the latest New York Times/CBS News poll
found most voters support the new federal directive that health insurance
plans provide coverage for birth control.

In addition, most voters said they favored some type of legal recognition
for same-sex couples, at a time when the New Jersey Legislature is set to
vote on gay marriage and after a federal appellate court ruled that
Proposition 8’s ban on same-sex
marriage<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/s/same_sex_marriage/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier>in
California was unconstitutional.

While same-sex marriage and coverage for contraceptives have generated
significant debate this month, the poll suggests that voters do not place
social issues high on their agenda. When asked to name one issue that
presidential candidates should discuss, most voters, including Republicans
who described themselves as primary voters, mentioned an economic problem,
like unemployment or the budget deficit. Few said they wanted to hear the
candidates talk about abortion or gay marriage, for example.

On contraceptive coverage, 65 percent of voters in the poll said they
supported the Obama administration’s requirement that health insurance
plans cover the cost of birth control, and 59 percent, said the health
insurance plans of religiously affiliated employers should cover the cost
of birth control.

In a compromise last week, President Obama said insurance companies could
shoulder the costs required under the new federal health care
law<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/health/diseasesconditionsandhealthtopics/health_insurance_and_managed_care/health_care_reform/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier>,
but the Conference of Catholic Bishops and other religious leaders continue
to oppose the rule.

A majority of Catholic voters in the poll were at odds with the church’s
official stance, agreeing with most other voters that religiously
affiliated employers should offer health insurance that provides
contraception. Jennifer Davison, 38, a Catholic from Lomita, Calif., agrees
with the federal requirement. “My opinion is that it is a personal issue
rather than a religious issue,” she said in a follow-up interview.

Unlike Catholics, white evangelical Christian voters were more divided,
with half objecting to requiring the health insurance plans of religious
employers to cover contraceptives; 43 percent supported it. “It is a
religious issue with me,” said Jessica Isner, 22, an evangelical Christian
from Elkins, W. Va. “I believe that providing birth control is O.K. if the
hospital is not religiously affiliated.”

Gay marriage is another debate in which the Catholic laity disagrees with
church doctrine. More than two-thirds of Catholic voters supported some
sort of legal recognition of gay couples’ relationships: 44 percent favored
marriage, and 25 percent preferred civil unions. Twenty-four percent said
gay couples should receive no legal recognition.

Again, white evangelical Christian voters expressed more conservative
views. A majority said there should not be legal recognition of a gay
relationship, while 18 percent said they should be allowed to marry and 25
percent supported civil unions.

The nationwide telephone poll included 1,064 registered voters, of whom 226
were Catholic and 238 were white evangelical Christians. The margins of
sampling error are plus or minus three percentage points for all voters,
plus or minus seven points for Catholics, and plus or minus six points for
white evangelical Christians.

Marina Stefan contributed reporting.


-- 
Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)
art.deco.studios at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20120215/98113c1d/attachment.html>