Pigs Fly! Fox News Democrat Doug Schoen Smacks Down Hannity’s Catholic Contraception Constitutional Crisis

Regular readers know that Fox News' “Democratic pollster” Doug Schoen is hardly a muscular voice for progressive values. He’s more often a muscular voice for Republican memes – and has even penned editorials calling on President Obama not to run for re-election. So imagine my shock when Schoen appeared on Hannity last night and took a strong stand on behalf of the Obama administration’s new rule requiring employers (including Catholic institutions, though not churches) to offer reproductive-health benefits at no additional cost as part of their health coverage. As Hannity hammed it up over Obama’s “war against our Constitution,” Schoen told him that this Republican hissy fit was going to cost “more votes.” So you know the polling has to be squarely on President Obama’s side.

Hannity pontificated, “As far as I’m concerned, this is a war against our Constitution, the First Amendment, freedom of religion, the free exercise thereof!” Father Jonathan Morris, Fox News’ favorite Catholic GOP mouthpiece and the other guest, was with Hannity all the way.

After Hannity finished railing, Schoen said calmly, “I see it differently. 98% of Catholic women use contraception. 60% support this very measure. Doctors who want to opt out can opt out.”

But Hannity was still on his Hanctimonious high horse of hysteria: “This president chose contraception over freedom of religion! That’s why this is important!”

It would have been great had Schoen pointed out that “pro life” Hannity can’t stop salivating for more war and death, but we’ll take what we can get here.

Schoen agreed with Hannity that this country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles “but not edicts, and freedom of choice is preserved.”

Then, Schoen added a statement that was almost certainly more painful for Hannity than any contraception coverage: “This is gonna cost the Republicans more votes.”

Sure enough, the polling is on the side of contraception. U.S. News reported yesterday: a new study by the Public Religion Research Institute shows that Catholics overwhelmingly support the new rules. The poll reveals that six out of ten Catholics believe employers should be required to provide their employees with healthcare plans that cover contraception, while 55 percent of Americans at large supported the new requirement.

NPR reported similar results from Public Policy Polling. Those results also specifically bolstered Schoen’s contention that Republican Mitt Romney’s opposition would cost votes:

Even a majority of Catholics appeared to support the Obama administration decision though by a narrower margin, 53 percent to 45 percent.

One of the most interesting findings was the response of Catholics to the question of whether they would be more or less inclined to support the GOP presidential candidate in November because of his (opposing) position on the issue.

Forty six percent of Catholics said they would be less likely to support Romney versus 28 percent who said they would be more likely and 23 percent said it would make no difference.

The hypocrisy is stunning, of course. Where’s Hannity’s outrage over the substantially similar law Romney supported in Massachusetts? Where have Hannity and Morris been as many Catholic universities and hospitals have already covered contraception in their health plans?

In a Hill editorial, Democratic consultant and MSNBC commentator Karen Finney noted:

In its criticism, the church also ignores the fact that no individual is required to buy a plan that covers contraception costs, houses of worship are exempt and no Catholic doctor is forced to write a prescription.

Furthermore, she wrote:

Notably, questions of morality have not been raised about the coverage of prescriptions enhancing a man’s sexual pleasure in the plans currently offered.

Do you like this post?

	Tweet

Showing 9 reactions

Yakki PsD commented 2012-02-09 14:57:10 -0500 · Flag

EL84: Frank was’t supporting any of those views. In fact,he said they were all “rediculous”. The fact that it comes from a Conservative point of view makes it even more pertinent,in that he AGREES with the the ideas of freedom.

He’s not supporting them in his comment bro. He was lambasting them. Just sayin’.

And over all I think it needs to be pointed out that the good ‘fathers’ of the Catholic Church will get a cold reception in heaven,as Jesus won’t know who they are.

el84 commented 2012-02-08 14:45:46 -0500 · Flag

Frank, ready for the logic? Point 1. There are no insurance policies that provide for the purchase of illicit drugs. This is health and right to equal coverage issue by an employer that receives money from the government. The place of business is not a church. 2. ditto. 3. Your take on what employers can dictate in insurance packages is not based in fact and reality. Truth would be better here. Ditto for the JH claim. Freedom of employers to impose their religion… does this include excluding blacks, the disabled, non-Catholics? You claim to take a conservative view, yet you advocate group authoritarian power over individual rights. Corporations are not people. St. Alphonsus Hospital is an employer, not a church. This is the United States, not a country under Roman Catholic rule.
Your apples to oranges nonsense didn’t work. An insurance policy is not a vacation package. Health rights, especially gender-based ones that affect women’s health (was your vasectomy or Viagra covered?) are not remuneration. Try logic instead of fallacy next time.

Robert Urban commented 2012-02-08 14:41:31 -0500 · Flag

Funny I didn’t hear the Jewish community outrage all these years of insurance companies covering insulin for the people they hired since it was mostly made from swine pancreas.

Inis Magrath commented 2012-02-08 12:30:27 -0500 · Flag

Frank — please stop using facts and logic to make your point. It gets in the way of the Republican talking points.

Thx4 Fish commented 2012-02-08 12:16:36 -0500 · Flag

The Catholic church, headed by men who don’t have to deal with pregnancy at all, has been bringing this issue to the pulpit, and acting as though it has no idea that most of the women sitting there in church have been using contraception for generations. Only those who want to be outraged by this will be outraged—whether they use contraception or not.

truman commented 2012-02-08 09:20:56 -0500 · Flag

If only Hugh and Lillian Hannity had used better contraception.

Visitor 55 commented 2012-02-08 08:28:02 -0500 · Flag

Good comment Frank. kkklannity and the rest of the religious right-wing extremists who are having fits about this want everyone to believe that President Obama is forcing all women to go on birth control. This is what the FokkksGOPTV pukes want their stupid sheep to believe. And just as sure as kkklannity is full of shit, the majority of the sheep will believe it.

Frank Burns commented 2012-02-08 07:31:42 -0500 · Flag

A few pertinent questions: 1. If an employer remunerates employees with cash, and the employees choose to use that cash to buy illicit drugs, is the employer âbuyingâ the drugs for them? 2. If an employer includes paid vacation in the pay package, and the employee chooses to go to Las Vegas for her vacation, is the employer âpayingâ the employee to go out and drink and gamble? 3. If an employer includes a normal (nonreligious) insurance policy in the pay package, and the employee chooses legal health procedures that go against the employerâs religious beliefs (i.e. blood transfusions, birth control, organ transplants, etc., is the employer âprovidingâ those services to the employee? Is there any substantial different between these three cases? I think not.
In this light we see that this whole controversy is being misrepresented. The only religious liberty issue involved is the freedom of employers with religious beliefs to one way or another make ethical choices for their employees, taking away their right to choose.
A Jehovahâs Witness who owned a company could choose to remove any possibility of blood transfusions from the health insurance he includes as part of his pay package. This is ridiculous, and the Catholic clergy should should be ashamed of themselves for having distorted this thing as a religious freedom issue â the only freedom here is the freedom they wish to take away from their non-Catholic workers, who have earned their pay packages and should be treated as adults who can make the decisions of how to use them on their own. This (mine) is an essentially CONSERVATIVE argument.