Congratulations Phinephancy for having your question chosen, although some of us will have to wait for the transcript to find out the answer!

Do you really think Latino voters, especially women, will be influenced by what an ostentatiously dressed man wearing bling preaches to them?

Latino voters are the best versed in the corrupt history of the Catholic church.

I think the largest population of Latino's will forget any ill feelings towards Barry when they get their piece of the $8 billion his administration extorted from the Bank Forclosure settlement that was ear marked for California.... Sooner or later this loser is going to run out of businesses to shake down...

It is this simple:

The President wants to provided affordable, accessible health care for all women.

The religious exemption is already IN PLACE.

Those institutions are only required to cover contraception: Not dispense it or use it.

But if the Churches are fussing, maybe they should provide health care totally outside of the mainstream - and go it entirely on their Own?

Lest we forget, the FEHB package enjoyed by all members of Congress covers contraceptives....no matter which carrier they select.

We're paying for their coverage!

Let's see, when Obama camoaigned, he promised immegration reform, but he record shows he has sent bake more criminal aliens than any other administration.

So far Barry hasn't sponsored any legislation to the Latino population to keep them in the country.

The Bank bill provides some people who lost their homes between $1500 TO $2000 per person. Great help for those who have lost their homes.

Now Barry will help to expand on aboration, which differs with many Latino beliefs.

Yep, Barry has promised this portion of the voter population much but delivered little.

Congratulations, phinephancy on getting your question selected.

Backhouse, good points. The Catholic Church cannot accept government funds at their public institutions without accepting that they must follow the same employer rules as everyone else. The Catholic Church cannot consider this discrimination against the church's doctrine when they are discriminating against the non-Catholic workers by forcing them to abide by a doctrine they disagree with. There are two parts to the first amendment; one part protects religious freedom and the other protects those who choose not to be part of a particular faith or any faith.

As I said yesterday, I do not see this as big problem even for Latinos; 98% of catholics use or have used some form of contraceptive and no doubt that includes a large percentage of Latinos.

winemaker, did you miss the GOP Senate filibustering and blocking every piece of immigration legislation brought to the floor? DREAM Act, several times along with others. Never mind, you just choose to ignore the facts.

The reality is Teapublicans have attacked the Affordable Health Care Act at every turn, and will continue to do so with their usual lies (death panels, etc.). As voters, including Latinos learn more about this nontroversy, and then weigh that against anti-immigration, "blah" people, and poor children working as janitors bigotry and racism among the Reich Wing, the majority will vote to reelect the president.

This is really a labor law issue in regard to employers and insurance. Non-profit churches are already exempt. This only applies to for-profit institutions with employees of many faiths or no faith, based on well-established precedent. Beliefs of religions, whether polygamy or animal sacrifice or insurance coverage are NOT exempt for the laws of the land. It is not a constitutional matter, and would be upheld by any court (go ahead Catholic Church and try--you will not win).

If the US had a single-payer (Medicare for all) health care system--as it should have--instead of the stupid system of employers providing health insurance, there would be no controversy! Not to mention that Americans would not lose their job AND health care at the same time, as if losing a job isn't bad enough. I believe the US is the only country with this hideous, backward system for health care thanks to ignorant right-wingers.

Stop the craziness now and vote for Dems -- Obama/Biden - 2012!

and once again, backbone, this isn't about contraception. It's about forcing the church to pay for it. This should scare the hell out of people. If they will do this, what's next? Your group might be the next one targeted and you will be forced to pay for something that's against your core principles.

Example What if the government decides that white meat is good and pork is white meat and tells Muslim and Jewish entities that serve food, they have to provide pork. How's that going to fly?

A few weeks ago, the administration interjected itself in a case and tried to say a church had no right to fire their minister.

Last week, Obama told Lauer he couldn't get things done as fast as he wanted because of that pesky ol Constitution. But he added, he keeps "chipping away" at it. And, this is an example of how he wants to destroy our Constitution, our way of life and our country as we know it. You people better pay attention.

To all Republican idiots, 28 states mandate contraception as a part of comprehensive insurance program, what, no outrage. Catholics overwhelmingly use contraception, there are no scriptures that support no contraception and if they don't like it then don't take federal tax money. Also, I'm not going to let a clergy that promotes pedophilia try to tell anyone what to do with their life.

God gave us a brain and good sense to decide when to start a family. There is no shame in using it. Besides, do you really think contraception hasn't been around for centuries, practiced by the mistresses of the Catholic Priests?

Backhouse--REALLY? The topic was specific to the HISPANIC vote. Do you REALLY think the HISPANIC vote, most of which is Catholic and more conservative as a whole that mainstream American Catholics, thinks birth control is paramount? Give Hispanics their due--they tend as a whole to get married and STAY married.

You must face the fact that over 90% of American women choose to use contraceptives. This includes Latino women.

Democrats are in the majority position on this issue - it is now 2012.

And the Church can opt to go it ALONE as I wrote above #1.4.

Dubya won the Latino vote because of religious pandering. Since then Hispanics have voted in larger percentages for President Obama/Dems because religious wedge issues are not enough unless the voter is a one-issue voter. Now immigration reform, job creation and the economy, income inequality, fair taxation for a balanced approach to deficits, etc. is FAR more important.

Catholics in general have long dismissed the Church's position on contraceptives (along with other frustrations), and over-whelming use contraceptives. There will be those (low-information voters) who will be swayed by the "culture war" lies from the right-wing. But most will see through it as they learn the facts, and will realize it's just another fake war like class warfare to give cover to GOP failures, particularly on the economy.

Congrats phine!

I just heard something so funny on Martin Bashir....at the CPAC, the Turtle/McConnell said that Conservatives are more fun because they are right!

Mr. Turtle, we're laughing at you, not with you!

Congrats Phine!! It was a good question and I had hoped they would select it.

And just why would the new voter id bill keep the latino catholic vote at home?

Help me here I just don't get it.

Thanks,

Union baby TN--"it will be a decision that will be made more so by the immigration issue instead of the contraception issue."

Wow--so much to say, so little time--"Latino" women, in Mexico have TWICE as many babies as non Hispanic American women do. Interestingly, tho, ILLEGAL Hispanic women in America have THREE times the number of babies that American women (non Hispanic) do.

So, do you suppose Mexico is providing SOME free contraceptives? Against church teachings?

Or do you SUPPOSE that illegal women are craning out more to extend the length of time they can use them as anchors?

@MoMaid - Still fretting over #ThoseDamnMexicans? Que lastima!

YES!!! Congrats to phine

Her posts are always a great read!

Affinity1--Hispanics, in the broad sense, HAVE been in the 'western Hemisphere', or the 'Americas' as you note. They have NOT, however, been in AMERICA, as a euphemism for the United STATES of America, any longer than any other groups. It would be NICE if they didn't "need to be isolated as a sub-group", especially since that "sub group" is largely delineated to their affinity to another country or culture.

America has adopted parts of MEXICAN culture, in the same way as we have adopted Swedish/Norse/Finnish in things like Smorgasbord, and sauna, and German culture in such things as food, beer, Oktoberfest, etc. and many other fun cultural things. But NO other 'culture' that has come to the US has tried to INSIST that citizens of the US learn to speak THEIR language as opposed to the reverse, and have attempted to thwart legal and criminal laws in favor of those from their OLD country, which evidently was so unattractive when they or their ancestors left that they didn't want to stay there.

I'm in my 60's, have LIVED in Mexico and Nicaragua, with native families, for a summer each. While there, I learned to speak Spanish, because that was THAT country's language. I lived by their rules and customs, instead of trying to make them celebrate the ones I had grown up with. And I certainly didn't and wouldn't insist that they allow anyone who might be able to sneak in or stay illegally to be GIVEN rights and citizenship in their country based on their illegal activity, much less do so in an attempt to 'take over' the legislatures to enable MORE to come here. So ask me if I CARE how this issue affects Latinos in the US, and I will tell you that how it affects LEGAL Hispanics in the US matters. How it affects ILLEGAL hispanics bothers me not one BIT. If they don't like it they can go back where they belong.

Affinity1--sorry, but scratch most DEM politicians, and they will all parrot the old "while I'm PERSONALLY against abortion".... Obama already 'signed away' women's rights to 'covered' abortions under Obama care, and despite promising in the campaign to SECURE those rights in his court appointments, appointed a CATHOLIC WOMAN whom he chose not to even ASK about her views on the subject. NEITHER party can be trusted on that subject.

MEN should have no say in a woman's reproductive/health care decisions. When I found out I was pregnant with a third child (this one, unplanned) despite using birth control, my mom had just died, my husband and I were not getting along that well, and the stories about getting pregnant while using chemical birth control were rife with possible bad results. So I took a week to decide whether or not to continue that pregnancy DESPITE all that, or to terminate.

ONLY after deciding NOT to have an abortion (I was 34, and KNEW that might be my last 'chance' for another baby, and decided I WANTED that) did I tell my husband I was pregnant. Because HIS reasons, on either side, would NOT be MY reasons.

Vatican & GOP want to go back to when women did not have rights. They do not understand how strong women is today.

jt,

Actually, it sometimes appears that the Vatican wishes to return to the days when Popes could produce offsping....

• Saint Peter (Simon Peter), whose mother-in-law is mentioned in the Bible as having been miraculously healed (Matthew 8:14–15, Luke 4:38, Mark 1:29–31). According to Clement of Alexandria (Stromata, III, vi, ed. Dindorf, II, 276), Peter was married and had children and his wife suffered martyrdom. In some legends dating from at least the 6th century, Peter's daughter is called Petronilla.^[2][3] Clement of Alexandria wrote: "For Peter and Philip begat children; [..] When the blessed Peter saw his own wife led out to die, he rejoiced because of her summons and her return home, and called to her very encouragingly and comfortingly, addressing her by name, and saying, 'Remember the Lord.' Such was the marriage of the blessed, and their perfect disposition toward those dearest to them."^[4]
• Pope Siricius (384–399), whom tradition suggests left his wife and children to become Pope. The number of Siricius' children is unknown. He issued a decree in 385 that priests should stop cohabiting with their wives.
• Pope Anastasius I (399–401) was succeeded by his son Pope Innocent I.
• Pope Felix III (483–492) was a widower with two children when he was elected to succeed Pope Simplicius in 483. It is said that he was the great-great-grandfather of Pope Gregory I ("the Great").
• Pope St. Hormisdas (514–523) was married and widowed before he took Holy Orders. He was the father of Pope St. Silverius.^[5]
• Pope Silverius (536–537) may have been married to a woman called Antonia. However this remains debated by historians.
• Pope St. Agatho (678–681) was married for 20 years as a layman and had one daughter. In maturity he followed a call to God. With his wife’s blessing he became a monk at the monastery of Saint Hermes in Palermo. It is thought his wife entered a convent.
• Pope Adrian II (867–872) was married before he took Holy Orders, to a woman called Stephania, and had a daughter.^[6] His wife and daughter were still living when he was elected Pope and resided with him in the Lateran Palace. They were murdered by Eleutherius, brother of Anastasius Bibliothecarius, the Church's chief librarian.
• Pope John XVII (1003) was married before his election as Pope and had three sons, who all became priests.^[7]
• Pope Clement IV (1265–1268) was married, before taking holy orders, and had two daughters.^[8]
• Pope Honorius IV (1285–1287) was married before he took Holy Orders and had at least two sons. He entered the clergy after his wife died, the last Pope to have been married.^[9]
• Pope Pius II (1458–1464) had at least two illegitimate children (one in Strasbourg and another one in Scotland), born before he entered the clergy.^[10]
• Pope Innocent VIII (1484–1492) had at least two illegitimate children, born before he entered the clergy.^[11] According to the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica, he "openly practised nepotism in favour of his children".^[12] Girolamo Savonarola chastised him for his worldly ambitions.^[13] The title Padre della patria (Father of the Fatherland) was suggested for him, precisely with suggestions that he may have fathered as many as 16 illegitimate children.^[14]
• Pope Clement VII (1523–1534) had one illegitimate son before he took holy orders. Academic sources identify him with Alessandro de' Medici, Duke of Florence.^[15][16]
• Pope Gregory XIII (1572–1585) had an illegitimate son before he took holy orders.^[17]
• Pope Julius II (1503–1513) had at least one illegitimate daughter, Felice della Rovere (born in 1483, twenty years before his election). Some sources indicate that he had two additional illegitimate daughters, who died in their childhood.^[18] Furthermore, some (possibly libellous) reports of his time accused him of sodomy. According to the schismatic Council of Pisa in 1511, he was a "sodomite covered with shameful ulcers."^[19]
• Pope Paul III (1534–1549) held off ordination^[20] in order to continue his promiscuous lifestyle, fathering four illegitimate children (three sons and one daughter) by his mistress Silvia Ruffini. He broke his relations with her ca. 1513. There is no evidence of sexual activity during his papacy.^[21] He made his illegitimate son Pier Luigi Farnese the first Duke of Parma.^[22][23]
• Pope Pius IV (1559–1565) had three illegitimate children before his election to the papacy.^[24]
• Pope Sergius III (904–911) was supposedly the father of Pope John XI by Marozia, according to Liutprand of Cremona in his Antapodosis,^[25] as well as the Liber Pontificalis.^[26] However it must be noted that this is disputed by another early source, the annalist Flodoard (c. 894-966), John XI was brother of Alberic II, the latter being the offspring of Marozia and her husband Alberic I. Hence John too may have been the son of Marozia and Alberic I. Bertrand Fauvarque underlines that the contemporary sources backing up this parenthood are dubious, Liutprand being "prone to exaggeration" while other mentions of this fatherhood appear in satires written by supporters of late Pope Formosus.^[27]
• Pope John X (914–928) had romantic affairs with both Theodora and her daughter Marozia, according to Liutprand of Cremona in his Antapodosis:^[28] "The first of the popes to be created by a woman and now destroyed by her daughter". (See also Saeculum obscurum)
• Pope John XII (955–963) (deposed by Conclave) was said to have turned the Basilica di San Giovanni in Laterano into a brothel and was accused of adultery, fornication, and incest (Source: Patrologia Latina).^[29] The monk chronicler Benedict of Soracte noted in his volume XXXVII that he "liked to have a collection of women". According to Liutprand of Cremona in his Antapodosis,^[25] "they testified about his adultery, which they did not see with their own eyes, but nonetheless knew with certainty: he had fornicated with the widow of Rainier, with Stephana his father's concubine, with the widow Anna, and with his own niece, and he made the sacred palace into a whorehouse." According to The Oxford Dictionary of Popes, John XII was "a Christian Caligula whose crimes were rendered particularly horrific by the office he held".^[30] He was killed by a jealous husband while in the act of committing adultery with the man's wife.^{[31][32][33][34]} (See also Saeculum obscurum)
• Pope Benedict IX (1032– became pope in 1044, again in 1045 and finally 1047–1048).^[35] He was accused by Bishop Benno of Piacenza of "many vile adulteries."^[36][37] Pope Victor III referred in his third book of Dialogues to "his rapes... and other unspeakable acts."^[38] His life prompted St. Peter Damian to write an extended treatise against sex in general, and homosexuality in particular. In his Liber Gomorrhianus, Damian accused Benedict IX of routine sodomy and bestiality and sponsoring orgies.^[39] In May 1045, Benedict IX resigned his office to pursue marriage.^[40]
• Pope Alexander VI (1492–1503) had a notably long affair with Vannozza dei Cattanei before his papacy, by whom he had his famous illegitimate children Cesare and Lucrezia. A later mistress, Giulia Farnese, was the sister of Alessandro Farnese, who later became Pope Paul III. Alexander fathered a total of at least seven, and possibly as many as ten illegitimate children.^[41] (See also Banquet of Chestnuts)
• Pope Paul II (1464–1471) is popularly alleged to have died of a heart attack while in a sexual act with a page.^[42][43]
• Pope Sixtus IV (1471–1484) was alleged to have awarded gifts and benefices to court favorites in return for sexual favors. Giovanni Sclafenato was created a cardinal by Sixtus IV for "ingenuousness, loyalty,...and his other gifts of soul and body",^[44] according to the papal epitaph on his tomb.^[45] Such claims were recorded by Stefano Infessura, in his Diarium urbis Romae.
• Pope Leo X (1513–1521) was widely thought to have had many active lovers, and alleged to have had a particular (albeit one-sided) infatuation for Marcantonio Flaminio.^[46]
• Pope Julius III (1550–1555) was alleged to have had a long affair with Innocenzo Ciocchi del Monte. The Venetian ambassador at that time reported that Innocenzo shared the pope's bedroom and bed.^[47] According to The Oxford Dictionary of Popes, "naturally indolent, he devoted himself to pleasurable pursuits with occasional bouts of more serious activity".^[30]

And THIRTY percent were NOT planning on using birth control.

That's pretty scary no matter WHAT group you are asking.

Steeler Fan--Hispanics, somewhat. ILLEGAL Hispanics, not so much.

Maybe it's a budget matter. Millions on top of millions paid to the victims of the priests sexual abuse......No doubt, more to come and they know it!

So the church thinks it can shave and save a few bucks by creating this faux outrage over contraceptives.

Jody, Iowa

winemaker, did you miss the GOP Senate filibustering and blocking every piece of immigration legislation brought to the floor? DREAM Act, several times along with others. Never mind, you just choose to ignore the facts.

And Jody, did they filibuster the legislation for what it said or due to the trailers added-on?

So, why is the Dream Act such a good thing?

I disagree with you on ignoring the facts Jody. You libbies are great in this arena.

But getting back to my post, hasn't Obama not met his campaign promises to the Latinos?

Winemaker--TOTALLY agree on the so called "dream act." When I very first heard of it, (and of course, the article ONLY talked about 'worthy kids' being involved, I tended to be in favor of LETTING them go to college here.

Until I found out that by virtue of their parents ILLEGALLY transporting a minor over state lines, the minor was going to be given IN STATE tuition--which MY three kids never got when each went to an out of state school.

Nor do we give such consideration to the kids of AMERICAN law breakers, who also some of them are 'attractive and worthy.

And then I discovered that the Dream Act legislation had OTHER stink bombs, such as the student could not be deported once accepted to the program, NO MATTER what else they might do. That the dream act (no longer capitalized deliberately) ALSO allowed their ENTIRE FAMILY also to stay here. (How FAST can you say AMNESTY?) That the 'wonder kid' could be up to 29 years old and still qualify, despite no longer being able to claim 'innocence' with regard to being here illegally, and having probably compounded that by working and driving here illegally, probably on illegally obtained paperwork, or without BENEFIT of it.

See--IF I were to possibly consider a dream act, it would be under these conditions--the student would have to declare eligibility as a freshman in HS, and would have to be absolutely FLUENT in English by the time they graduate HS. This would give them FOUR FULL years to perfect their mastery of it.

The student would have to have maintained a B average, and pass the SAME criteria as an American student would for admission to college, on test scores, etc.

And the FAMILY of a dream act 'beneficiary' would have to agree to go home.

I didn't get to go off to school with MY kids when they went off to college. And a good student can earn scholarships to help with room and board, and can work part time--after all, the dream act ONLY requires them to finish HALF as many credits as it does an American student to be a full time student.

And lastly, the dream act recipient would have to agree to PAY BACK at least a portion of the money, and do so by volunteering in the Hispanic community to teach other kids of the value of learning English and getting legal.

Sure. Sooner or later this country is going to run out of lawbreakers too. Sooner, rather than later, we should run out all racists and let them colonize Antarctica.

Affinity1,

What do you have against Antarctica? :)

Telling churches and other religious institutions that they have to pay for abortions and contraceptives, that they are opposed to on religious grounds, certainly is about religious freedom. And if you don't understand that then you know very little about our Constitution. If individuals want to partake of those things, despite their religious beliefs, that is their option to do so by either paying for it on their own or purchasing coverage through an entity that does not care about religious beliefs.

No one should be allowed to force a religious institution to pay for medical services/coverage that is antithetical to their beliefs. Should Churches and other religious institutions also be forced to hire individuals that do not share their beliefs? Say for example, people that espouse abortion or Satan worship? The Obama administration argued that they should, but the US Supreme court, in a 9 to 0 vote, said no. Why is this any different?

He will have no choice but to hand out waivers. He changes his mind every time someone pushes him. He constantly says one thing and does another. I still don't understand how his base keeps supporting him. Oh, yea, they like the government making their decisions from cradle to grave.

doing the wave for you Phine!

Thank you, my friend!