where the problem could be coming from. Remember that he is doing this about 3 or 4 days after the administration signalled they were working on it - and on the day that someone as prominent as the VP was quoted live saying that and saying the president was with him.
On Ed and Rachel Maddow's shows, the only side given any credence were those who were arguing not to change at all. Now, I suspect that there is no possible compromise that will make everyone happy. I do think that it might be possible to peel off some of those who are angered without losing women's access to affordable birth control.
O'Donnell seemed to me to personally support the full expansion of coverage, but he suggests that it could come at a political cost. His chart on the one poll that asked the question differently to Catholics, as do you support CATHOLIC HOSPITALS UNIVERSITIES OR CHARITIES having to buy insurance that paid workers 100% for birth control costs AND the costs of the morning after bill and sterilizations, did get a 49%/51% split. Note this does NOT mean this is the split in how they will vote.
This does suggest that could be some limited political cost - that could really only be told if the numbers were at state level. If these are ALL Catholics in normally red states or in super blue states like Rhode Island, Maryland and Massachusetts (I think also the states with the highest % Catholics), it doesn't matter. If they could break the states by red, purple and blue, and make the same calculation, it would be more interesting. As each would have a far smaller sample than the full study, the estimate would have a very wide variance, but the point estimates would still be interesting. My concern is that enough of the conservative Catholics upset by this might be in PA and Ohio.
I am NOT saying that if it "hurts" with the Catholic vote, you should not do it - and I really cannot see a way to fix it - no matter how much Biden, Daley and others in the administration say they want to. What is the viable compromise? Maybe a special waiver on the morning after pill being paid for this category of employers? Could that be sold to individual Catholics, unhappy with the decision, as honoring their rejection of abortion - no matter how early? This will NOT make the church happy, but it is pretty clear that the vast majority of Catholics clearly do not think birth control is the same as abortion. (The PP site says that that is $10 - $70, but that those under 17 need a prescription raising the cost because it costs to visit a doctor. If the doctor's visit were covered, this might be a reasonable compromise.) The fact is that this coverage will likely vastly reduce the number of abortions. I wonder if there were any studies in the states where Birth control is covered free or at a low price as to the before and after numbers. I wonder if the question were changed to make it just about birth control if the numbers would change.
It may be that the answer will come from within the community most effected - the employees of the Catholic hospitals and Universities. It appears from the reporting on all three shows yesterday, that many of the Catholic hospitals and schools already cover birth control. One question should be where does this leave some who are already getting coverage with copays if a waiver is given. It was said by some that this was done to be competitive, which implies they are dealing with a population that can chose to be elsewhere. This may suggest that there will be some counter movement by some coalition of the hospital employees and of University employees if their current coverage is threatened - which it likely would be now that the issue has been risen. This means you have a motivated, articulate group with an obvious personal vested interest who might speak out against the hierarchy - more than they have on other issues.
Going back to the real theme of this thread, is it a problem that O'Donnell is covering it as news and trying to look at the down side. I actually value his intelligent, look at this question. I really don't want a lefty Fox News equivalent where no one can deviate from the message. There will be many - like most on this thread - who reject what he is saying and there are strong measures that were presented by both Ed and Maddow (and many here on DU). O'Donnell is not repeating the ridiculous attacks of the Republicans, he is pointing out some some information that shows a less bright picture. I think we are better off if we see things from as many points as possible - and that we reject the impulse to cherry pick the data.
= new reply since forum marked as read
