Image 01 Image 03

Remember when no one understood why ABC asked about contraception at the NH Republican debate?

Remember when no one understood why ABC asked about contraception at the NH Republican debate?

Remember when George Stephanopoulos, at the New Hampshire Republican debate on January 7, brought up and harped on whether the candidates thought states could ban contraception?

Everyone, at least on our side of the aisle, shook their heads in disbelief as to why Stephanopoulos was bringing up the issue.  There was no active controversy over contraception, it wasn’t in the news, and there were far more pressing political issues, yet what seemed like an eternity of debate time was devoted to the subject at the insistence of Stephanopoulos.

It was, shall we say, something out of left field.

When Romney said, it’s working just fine, leave it alone, everyone laughed.

Newt’s comeback was prophetic in hindsight:

Well what do you know, about a month later the Obama administration proposes administrative rules under Obamacare which would require free contraception be provided even by religious institutions which oppose contraception on religious grounds.

It’s almost as if Stephanopoulos got the memo first. Unless, of course, you believe in coincidences.

Update:  Thanks for the h/t


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


    shortwave8669 in reply to Ragspierre. | February 13, 2012 at 9:45 am

    HHS announced this rule just 3 days later. Steffi may very well have seen the memo. On the CBS Face the Nation host Bob Schieffer asked new White House Chief of Staff Jack Lew if this rule was the reason former COS Bill Daley (Catholic) resigned. Lew dodged the question- twice.

    The WH was worried and Steffi was the trial ballon

    1. How many questions at political debates are Democrat trial balloons, with focus groups and pollsters ready to follow up?

    (Not that the GOP is too pure for this kind of thing, but, given the composition of the media, they have fewer opportunities than the Democrats do.)

    2. Constructing conspiracy theories is a low-probability undertaking. Not only that, but the framers of such theories tend to present them—and the framers’ wishful thinking—as facts.

    My rhetorical question above is a speculation, not a theory.

    (I don’t deny the existence of conspiracies. Quite the contrary. My point is that the odds of correctly identifying and characterizing a conspiracy are low.)

    Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | February 13, 2012 at 11:28 am

    For people to act in a concerted fashion does not require a “star-chamber” conspiracy…and that pretty much never happens.

    Like-minded people know what would help other like-minded people, and simply saying something like, “It would be interesting to see what the GOP candidates think about contraception” would be all that was needed.

    Nobody has to say, “Hey, George, The Brain has directed that you ask…”

      1. True. Like emergent order.

      2. Similar considerations hold for corruption. Nobody has to say, If you look after our interests, your future holds think tank appointments, consultancies, speaking fees, positions as executive or board member, etc.

      3. All that said, the example that Bill pointed out is suspiciously specific.

    I’m sure it had nothing to do with Santorum’s controversial position that states have the right to ban all forms of contraception, and the fact that Santorum had just a very close second (that ultimately turned out to be first) in the Iowa Caucuses.

A la Bob Euker…..In the front row!

Surprise! The Democrats and media working together! Shocking I know 🙂

Loved Newt’s answer! No hedging, no pandering, just a clear, honest, right to the core of the issue, answer.

At the time, I had thought the question was asked to the wrong person. Santorum is on record with some controversial comments on contraception. The interview from has received a lot of attention on the lefty blogs. I had wondered why Romney and Newt were asked the question.
Excerpts of the interview Santorum by caffeinated thoughts :
Full video of the actual interview:

Newt had the White House sweating harder than Shaq at the foul line.

Newt had the White House shaking harder than a bowl of pudding held by a nervous Parkinson’s sufferer during an earthquake.

Newt had the White House shaking like Marion Barry trying to give a urine sample.

Did anybody think those journolist dumbbells would really cease their activity?

Newt had the White House shaking harder than an epileptic in a strobe light factory.

The contraception issue, of course, isn’t about contraception at all. Romney I think knew this but didn’t say so, and Newt knew it and gave his answer.

It’s not about preventing conception.

It’s about power.

In any left revolution, be it progressive, bolshevik, socialist, fascist, maoist, or bolivaran, it is necessary to knock down organized religion. The Catholic Church competes for the hearts and minds of people and does so effectively, as do the evangelical Protestant churches, etc. Further, the Church is organized and so can put out a message of opposition.

So at some point the revolution has to take the Church on, or lose. Socialists today understand the power the Church had in Poland in the 1970s, in Nicaragua and El Salvador in the 1980s, and in Venezuela today. The current revolution will not make the mistake of allowing the Church to survive long-term.

If the revolution is strong enough to take out the Church directly, it does so. But if not, it has to take on the Church in ways that compromise the Church’s moral authority and organization. It’s rather Alinsky-like, eh?

Hence contraception today. This is no mistake on the part of the revolutionary left employed within the Obama administration. They understand that contraception is a popular issue, that most people either favor widespread availability or are libertarian enough to say that it isn’t their personal business what others do. Many Catholics use contraceptives despite Church teaching. Combine it with the health-care issue and it’s a two-fer, since it now shows the ‘popularity’ of ObamaCare.

So the contraception issue is the wedge used to loosen the grip of the Church. By forcing the Church to back down it shows the Church to be impotent and unable to defend its moral authority. That pays off when the revolution takes its next step to knock the Church back further (e.g., forcing Catholic hospitals to allow abortions to be done at their facilities. Think that isn’t coming? Think again.)

And if the Church pushes back? How can it? Yes, it can publish and talk, but the compliant news media will dilute that voice and push back with op-eds. The Church can preach from the pulpit, but that’s a limited voice these days of low Sunday attendance. It can work levers of power, but government officials, even at the local level, are not as amenable and accessible as they used to be to Church power.

The Church could take action. But the laws are murky and court actions take forever. And what if a federal court says that yes, the government does indeed have the right to order the Church to provide contraceptive coverage to its employees? Then the Church is really in the public relations and legal soup.

What action is left? Civil disobedience, of course, but that pits one master against another (the progressive, Alinsky left). Imagine the Church saying (for example) fine, we’ll shut down our secular operations. How long would it take Obama, Holder, Sebelius, etc to push back — for example, seize a closed Catholic hospital, or get a court order, etc.

That this is being done in an election year is important to rally the hard Left base to Obama, but it’s also being done as part of a longer-term strategy to harass and eventually neuter the Church. It’s a sign that Obama and the progressives in his administration are increasingly confident that they’re going to have a second term to finish their ‘transformation’ (revolution!) of America, and so they want to make progress where they can.

This is no mistake, no misguided policy, and no one went off the reservation. It’s deliberate, careful, and far-reaching.

It’s about power.

    perceptive analysis

    Great summary of a universal truth and intention of the Left.

    This brief clip of Thaddeus McCotter on the subject is essential viewing.

    turfmann in reply to stevewhitemd. | February 13, 2012 at 7:31 pm

    Steve, that was such a good comment that I’m not so sure you weren’t looking sitting in on the same meeting as Stephanopoulos.

    And revolution is exactly the right word, too.

    People need to get used to the fact that we are under attack from within.

    Obama is the leader, but he has many, many soldiers.

    I might also point out that abortion holds the same kind of wedge against the church. Rush was commenting on an article today to exactly that point. I am sorry that I don’t recall the name of the person he was citing, but he read extensively from it and it made perfect sense.

    If Obama gets reelected… Well, insert crazy conspiracy rhetoric here, but I think we will look back and be amazed as to how far we have fallen.

      stevewhitemd in reply to turfmann. | February 14, 2012 at 4:41 pm

      Turfmann, thanks for your comments. Unfortunately I didn’t sit in, I’m just psychic 🙂

      About abortion: it’s not as good an issue as contraception for this purpose. As it turns out from various public opinion polls, the country has been turning, slowly and only somewhat, against abortion. What used to be an 8 to 10 point spread in favor of ‘pro-choice’ is now 8 to 10 points in favor of ‘pro-life’.

      So if Obama had used that, he would have had more people lined up against him. Whereas there are relatively few people who are unwilling to allow contraception (at least when used by others).

      Further, using abortion guarantees a response by the Church that most everyone, including non-Catholics, gets. “Well of course the Church said no,” would be the thought of most every person tuned into the debate. What else would the Church say, right? Whereas with contraception, for most people not only is it “no harm, no foul”, but they don’t know of and don’t understand the Church’s position — and it take the Church too long to explain (certainly compared to abortion). So it’s easier for Obama to use it as a tool in the revolution.

      No, this was cleverly done as Prof. Jacobson, Dick Morris, Rush Limbaugh, etc have all figured out. It was deliberate, set up well in advance, and has been used explicitly as a club to beat the Church down.

      It’s not about contraception. It’s about power.

It’s about time. It’s about space. It’s about life in the human race.

Great catch on this one, professor.

Credit to Newt on this one for picking out the other half of the question.
I’m not entirely sure of Steffi’s intent here though. The question seems more designed to get a group claiming to be “Small Government Conservatives” to commit a big goverment mistake by say states can ban contraception (which when twisted by the MSM becomes “States should ban contraception”) Of course the downstream effect of this is some more twisting and turning and then the Obama administration gets to say “Well clearly republicans think we can regulate contraception! This is just a form of regulating it” (Alternatively, there’s the “Republicans want to it away from you, and cost is their way of banning it, we want to make it easier for you to get!” Approach they’d also march out.)

In any case, Steffi’s question is still idiotic since it focuses on the power of the state (which is still what’s in disagreement here). Newt gets points for being able to connect the dots and carry forward the problem.

You are right about this. They are in bed together like JFK and his intern Mimi.

[…] tomorrow, so here is what has developed over the weekend on that front:Law Prof William Jacobson remembers the “odd” debate question: Remember when George Stephanopoulos, at the New Hampshire Republican debate on January 7, brought […]

conservativewarriorprincess | February 13, 2012 at 10:26 am

Great minds think alike, Professor. We played one of these soundbites from that Steffi-Mitt exchange on yesterday’s edition of the Teri O’Brien Show, and also noted the amazing coincidence.
These people are so predictable!

Prophetic, Professor? Only to those who were not paying attention when the White House held a meeting with Archbishop (Cardinal elect) Timothy Dolan on impending health care rules that would affect the American Christian churches. Did you not wonder why Bill Daley, who was to replace Rahm Emanual with greater gravitas, decided to leave the administration for sunnier days back in Chicago? Did you not read what Archbishop Dolan had to say about the White House meeting, expressing unconvincing optimism?

The Clinton midget was surely aware of that meeting, as were the candidates. Steffie knew that it would have an impact on the American Christian churches, as did anyone else who was paying attention.

Your story here should not be one used to promote your chosen candidate, your story should be (as a law professor) the clear violation of the First Amendment. This issue is NOT one of the separation of church and state (no where mentioned in the U.S. Constitution) but about our Constitutionally guaranteed freedom.

    LukeHandCool in reply to retire05. | February 13, 2012 at 1:01 pm

    I don’t remember hearing you put 2 + 2 together.

      retire05 in reply to LukeHandCool. | February 13, 2012 at 1:39 pm

      Perhaps that is because your computer lacks the ability to relay my voice to you. Or do you have a computer than no one else on this blog seems to possess, one that can speak to you in my “voice”?

      Ignore what I said, and be sure to give me a “dislike” mark. Yet, this blog is owned, and managed, by a American law professor and for him, at least it seems, it is not Obama’s clear violation of the First Amendment, but Gingrich’s “prophetic” abilities.

      Have you become so adjusted to the Obama administration, and his cabal of unelected czars and bureaucratic agency heads, violating our Constitutional rights that discussion of it has become passe?

      The story is NOT the violation of church and state, the story, that you want to discount, is the violation of our First Amendment rights. So let’s see the list of Amendments that Obama had deemed no longer relevant:

      10th and now

      Which one do you think will be next?

        LukeHandCool in reply to retire05. | February 13, 2012 at 2:01 pm

        “… this blog is owned, and managed, by a American law professor …”

        Yeah, and you’re not his editor. He can choose from numerous angles to talk about something.

        Why not start your own blog and address what you see to be the Professor’s glaring omissions?

          retire05 in reply to LukeHandCool. | February 13, 2012 at 2:31 pm

          Why don’t YOU start your own blog so that you can criticize others with impunity? Or do you feel that you must run to the defense of a man who is trained in defense?

          What I have said, that the issue is NOT Gingrich, or his Nostradamus-like abilities, the issue IS the usurping of the First Amendment.

          William A. Jacobson is a law professor. Is it out of question to expect him to proffer on the administration’s over reach on matters Constitutional, or do you just come here to be part of the echo chamber?

          LukeHandCool in reply to LukeHandCool. | February 13, 2012 at 3:04 pm

          It’s like this. Let me spell it out in a way you can relate to.

          When those fires were going on in Texas, you kept poking the Professor in the eye for not blogging about it. You implied, and at times said explicitly, that he obviously didn’t care about Southerners and Texans and people who in other ways (not Ivy League educated, etc.) were not like him.

          It was equal parts irritating and offensive.

          I love Japan and the Japanese people for personal reasons, and they were hit by a much, much larger natural disaster last year.

          The Professor didn’t blog about that, either. I didn’t whine that he didn’t care about the victims of that horrible tragedy.

          Why? It was already big news. What was he going to possibly add to it? Is this a blog about natural disasters?

          There was somebody else who stormed off in a huff last week, angry that the Professor hadn’t replied to his/her emails of material to use for the blog.

          Do the math! When you have thousands of readers, a percentage of whom are going to be sending you suggestions everyday … think of all the time it takes to go through all of them …. the time it takes to write posts … the time it takes to read all the comments to make sure people aren’t using profanity or linking to pornographic stuff …. the time it takes doing your job as a professor …

          I mean, my God. There must be precious free time for the Professor. He’s supposed to respond to every email? And start doing that, and people will expect a reply every time.

          I’ve sent him stuff I was absolutely sure he would love … and heard nothing back. And vice versa. I’ll send him something I think will just elicit a smile … and he uses it. I haven’t kept a record, but I probably get a reply from him one out of every five or ten times. So what? I don’t take it personally. I just figure he didn’t think it would work. Life goes on!

          He is the one who knows what works or fits with his blog. What you might see as a glaring omission that speaks badly about him, he might see as an angle that’s already been covered many times.

          I guess what I’m trying to say is … put yourself in his shoes … and … there is only so much time in a day.

        Henry Hawkins in reply to retire05. | February 13, 2012 at 3:11 pm

        > retire05:

        You, sir, are a dick.

          LukeHandCool in reply to Henry Hawkins. | February 13, 2012 at 3:25 pm

          I’d call him a whiney weenie. But you’re basically right.

          Now stop being so childish!

          And you, SIR, show only that your use of slang when describing a male body part represents only your intellect.

          If slinging perjoratives at those you disagree with is the only weapon in your arsenal, you are totally disarmed.

          Henry Hawkins in reply to Henry Hawkins. | February 13, 2012 at 4:29 pm

          By the way. I don’t like your LI handle “LukeHandCool”. Change it. And change that avatar pic to a smiley face. And please forward me a copy of all your posts for prior approval.



          Henry, what I really don’t like is low intellect people who think resorting to vugarities is a debate tactic.

          Henry Hawkins in reply to Henry Hawkins. | February 13, 2012 at 5:51 pm

          Huh? Who debates you? 95% ignore you and 5% make fun of you.

          You think you’re ‘debating’?


[…] Bill Jacobson points out that, in the light of recent events, one of the most peculiar questions asked during the GOP debates suddenly begins to make sense. […]

Another whorish hack busted

The Founding Fathers are turning in their graves at 10,000 rpm when you hear not just propaganda, but the press actively scheming with the Obammunist regime to undermine opponents and screw with voter’s minds

Is this even legal? Shame on the idiot GOP for agreeing to debates orchestrated and controlled by our political enemies, too

“the Obama administration proposes administrative rules”

It was not a ‘proposal.’ It was ‘as the Secretary shall determine.’ The rules are the rules as set down, there’s no proposal period. If we make them take back the rule the rule will have been rescinded.

stevewhitemd: Good remarks. I’ll add only this: It doesn’t matter one whit what the issue at stake is. And that’s the Chicago way. You identify the rubes, the toadies, the cowards — by any means at all. The substance of the thing isn’t the issue. It’s watching to see who rolls over and pees.

Illinois politics is the most cynical I’ve seen (having moved here after living in several infinitely better states). And now we have it writ large on the Potomac.

The fact that Obama heeds Jarrett over the Biden faction says a lot. I have little doubt that if the TOTUS malfunctioned again and she were present, she could jump in and deliver a stellar extemporaneous finish to avoid another embarrassing “uh, uh, uh” fiasco by the Wunderkind. Policies he has to think about are self-evident in her brain.

Dangerous woman who belongs back in Illinois.

    stevewhitemd in reply to rasqual. | February 13, 2012 at 3:09 pm

    I live in Will County, Illinois, and you’re right about our state. Simply dreadful.

    In this case I don’t think it was a ploy to expose the rubes and toadies. Obama has Media Matters for that.

    In this case I think it was a carefully planned (as Prof. Jacobson outlines, planned well in advance) assault against one of the more careful, thoughtful, organized and respected opposition organizations in the country. Like or dislike the Church, it has moral power that few other organizations in this country have today.

    That’s why the Left is going after it. They have to; they can’t let it stand. Contraception is the one route of approach that was deemed most likely to work, so that’s how they did it (abortion? too many other groups oppose abortion; too much has been said already so the message would have been ignored; not as popular as contraception). But it’s not about birth control at all.

    It’s about power.

Would someone who knows more address the rumors (?) in several places — here’s one link — that Muslims can exempt out of Obamacare based on religious exemptions?

    Uncle Samuel in reply to janitor. | February 13, 2012 at 12:23 pm

    Here is another link re: muslim exemption from Obamacare:

    Since Muslims try to claim exemption from everything from dissent, criticism and facts about their religion, to equal justice for all races, creeds, sexes, religions, to logic, reason, evidence about science, history, to being exempt from the laws and customs of the infidel nations where they reside and receive benefit, to basic human rights and freedoms, they even want to be exempt from exposure to the smell of bacon – why would they not try to be exempt from carrying insurance as well?

janitor: My problem with any law that insists that you’re a “member” of a religion that “requires” yada yada, is that individual rights ought not derive from how one freely chooses to associate. I should not be insulated from government violation of my conscience merely by dint of with whom I associate.

Yes, we DO need to “hang together” against runaway state power, but that should be a practical necessity–not a legal requirement for enjoying a right of conscience.

Raquel Pinkbullet | February 13, 2012 at 11:10 am

This is why the GOP is the Stupid party. How many more times are they going to agree to debates with FAR LEFT journolist approved “moderators?”

I’m getting sick of it.

Here’s an interview on this and other pertinent topics that Newt Gingrich just before his CPAC speech:

[…] Republican debate?” William A. Jacobson writes, adding that Newt’s comeback (posted above) “was prophetic in hindsight:” Well what do you know, about a month later the Obama administration proposes administrative rules […]

Loved how Newt turned this line of questioning into governmental and media bigotry and bias and not about contraception or any one single issue. He didn’t allow the moderator to narrow the target, and called out George S. for an his biased reason for asking the question so narrowly without exploring the other side. Makes more sense to me on why he said he would not allow media people to moderate the presidential debates.

“Free Contraception” appears to be the Obama campaign strategy for the youth vote.

As an aside, the Planned Parenthood “Am I Pregnant” Widget reads like a public service announcement for the morning after pill.

[…] update: Related: when is a coincidence not a coincidence? When a journalist isn’t a journalist. (h/t geoffb) […]

As KT Cat said above, great catch, Professor!

But it seems like you and Teri O’Brien will have to share credit with retire05. What a drag.

At the Tatler, Clarice Feldman adds, “It’s time the RNC asks [Stephanopoulos] if he coordinated this with the White House directly or through its media shills like Media Matters. And if he did or refuses to answer or to offer a credible explanation, ABC should be booted from further debate moderating privileges.

Why should the RNC grow a spine now?
–Ed Driscoll

Speaking of White House/Media coordination, from the Daily Caller, this story is getting a lot of attention:

Headline: “Inside Media Matters: Sources, memos reveal erratic behavior, close coordination with White House and news organizations”

“Jim Rainey at the LA Times took a lot of our stuff,” the staffer continued.

Jim Rainey … where have I heard that name before? Oh, yeah. When I was a writer for my high school newspaper, he was the editor.

In the spirit of Jethro Tull week … I found Rainey to be “Thick as a Brick.”

No wonder this dunce ended up in journalism …. just dim enough and partisan enough to be a featured columnist for a major newspaper.

Come on Professor, really? There was a huge controversy over Santorum’s position on the issue, because he has stated several times that he believes the states have a right to ban all forms of contraception, and he had just come close to winning (but actually won) the Iowa caucuses.

    CWLsun in reply to Awing1. | February 13, 2012 at 1:54 pm

    More like continuing to construct the election year picture….remember December 2011….

    “In an unprecedented step, the Obama administration’s top health official on Wednesday overruled the Food and Drug commissioner to block the Plan B emergency contraceptive pill from becoming available to young teens without a prescription.

    The move inserted the Obama administration into the long-running controversy over how much the federal government should restrict access to Plan B, a so-called morning-after pill that can stop pregnancy up to three days after intercourse. Allowing girls under age 17 to buy the $50 pill over the counter could have saddled the Obama administration with a political target as the 2012 presidential campaign moves into full swing.”

      Awing1 in reply to CWLsun. | February 13, 2012 at 2:10 pm

      None of this negates why the question was relevant to the GOP primary at the time.

        retire05 in reply to Awing1. | February 13, 2012 at 2:47 pm

        It had imporantance because some Americans were already aware of Archbishop Dolan’s White House visit to discuss the forcing of religious organizations to provide health insurance plans that included birth control medications, the “morning after” pill and abortions. Because it was not widely reported in the 99% liberal press, doesn’t mean it was not reported or that the candidates were unaware of the issue coming down the pike.

        After the WH meeting, Archbishop Dolan expressed hope that the problems with the HHS rulings could be worked out. Just what do you think those problems were?

          Awing1 in reply to retire05. | February 13, 2012 at 4:02 pm

          Again, this simply does not bear on the Professor’s questionable assertion that there was no major controversy about any of the candidates’ position on state police powers over contraception choices.

The alphas, or mortal gods, who lead the secular cult must eviscerate or marginalize their competing interests. In America, and really around the world, their primary opponent is Christians, but likely Catholics specifically because of their centralized, authoritarian structure.

The secular cult denigrates individual dignity and devalues human life. It promises to fulfill its members’ dreams of physical, material, and ego instant gratification, principally through redistributive and retributive change (i.e. involuntary exploitation), but also through fraudulent and opportunistic exploitation. This is why they are obsessed with normalizing unproductive behaviors (e.g. homosexuality, promiscuity), and perverse behaviors (e.g. abortion or virginal sacrifice). This is what their members demand and they must realize their dreams without consequence.

[…] II At Work? Posted on February 13, 2012 11:30 am by Bill Quick » Remember when no one understood why ABC asked about contraception at the NH Republican debat… Well what do you know, about a month later the Obama administration proposes administrative rules […]

Governor Romney, would you approve of the president sending out death squads to randomly eliminate Administration critics? Just checking.

[…] reading at Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion. Share this:ShareTwitterFacebookStumbleUponEmail from → News and Conservative Thought […]

In summary:

The JournoList LIVES!!!!!!!

Rich Vail
Pikesville, Maryland

Professor. WOW. I had not even made this connection. I remember that debate and I remember thinking why the hell are is little demonRAT Georgie asking about contraceptions? The decision to go after the Catholic Church was made on Jan.20th.

I for one do not believe this is a coincedence. Little Georgie of ABC doing the bidding for the WH, gee what a freaking surprise!

-signed a disgusted EX-demonrat!

[…] “Everyone,” writes law professor William A. Jacobson at Legal Insurrection, . . . at least on our side of the aisle, shook their heads in disbelief as to why Stephanopoulos was bringing up the issue.  There was no active controversy over contraception, it wasn’t in the news, and there were far more pressing political issues, yet what seemed like an eternity of debate time was devoted to the subject at the insistence of Stephanopoulos. […]

[…] moderator, so this argument seemed out of left field. You can read the meat of the argument at Legal Insurrection as well, but the argument goes back to the debate in early January where Stepanopoulos asked Romney […]

[…] was no coincidence, as Professor Jacobson noted just yesterday, that George Stephanopoulos harped on the subject of contraception at the New Hampshire Republican […]

[…] Remember when no one understood why ABC asked about contraception at the NH Republican debate? ( […]

There is too much discussion about this 1st amendment violation. It is wrong, there is nothing to discuss or negotiate or compromise. The Catholic church has one option and one option only, file a law suit on grounds of constitutionality. Parrell with that they should continue to support publically the repeal of this law.
If the church followers get behind a bold and active opposition by the church leaders, it will be resolved, if not voluntarily by the O administration, involuntarily be removal of Obama from office. If Obama’s support from Catholics drops from 54% to 34% he cannot win in Nov.
Don’t bet that these events will happen because the Catholic church is similar to the Republican party, they can blow an advantage quicker than the other.

[…] America showing a majority against it on several levels. However, if you are not a Dick Morris fan, there are others making this same connection, especially in the wake of the recent news of a liberal think tank's […]

This is how they attempt to frame the debate. Opposition to requiring the coverage will be cast as efforts to “ban” it.

But of course, banning it and not requiring people who believe it is wrong to pay for it are two entirely different animals.

So now we know why that odd question came up. Question is, will there be any consequences for Media Matters & the Democratic Party?

Actually, you’ve left out the best response out of any of them, Ron Paul had the only answer that made a lick of sense to Stephanopolous’s stupid debate questioning:

[…] else, Barack Obama is a master manipulator. Don’t get me wrong, he’s not alone (hello George Stephanopoulos and the rest of the media). Somehow, an election season that was supposed to be, and by all means […]

[…] Remember how baffled you were when George Steponallofus kept hammering the GOP candidates on contraception in that debate a little while back? That was the foundation for all of this. William Jacobson of Legal Insurrection figured that out before anyone else. […]

[…] is actually shrouded by the discussion of birth control, an emotional issue. The controversy was apparently manufactured (or at lease seized on serendipitously) by the Obama campaign.The real issue is not whether […]