Pleasantly surprised

I tend to be pessimistic about how much attention the average American gives public policy issues and I was particularly doubtful that most could resist the deliberate attempt to divert attention from the religious liberty case against the contraception [sterilization, abortafacient] mandate to "the war on women." I may have been excessively pessimistic. James Taranto points out the answers to two rather well-framed questions in a New York Times poll released yesterday:

The actual poll results show that the question about the birth-control mandate was asked two ways:

73. Do you think health insurance plans for all employees should have to cover the full cost of birth control for their female employees, or should employers be allowed to opt out of covering that based on religious or moral objections?

74. What about for religiously affiliated employers, such as a hospital or university? Do you think their health insurance plans for all employees should have to cover the full cost of birth control for their female employees, or should they be allowed to opt out of covering that based on religious or moral objections?

Results: By 51% to 40%, respondents think employers should be permitted to opt out. By 57% to 36%, they think religiously affiliated employers should be permitted to opt out. ....

It is only one poll but I feel a bit more optimistic.

The nice part about being a pessimist is that you are constantly being
either proven right or pleasantly surprised. George F. Will

Where's the Afterglow? - WSJ.com