Chris seemed to shut down John Heilemann at the end of the interview. Heilemann tried to parrot a White House press office argument, and Matthews told him not to use that line of argument until John does his own research and comes back using facts.

Most of the time it seems that MSNBC hosts bring on liberal guests, and then the hosts pitch them softballs. Matthews, being a liberal Catholic himself, has a real stake in this debate and wasn't throwing any softballs to John Heilemann this evening.

So, Chris, shall the President lose the votes of Catholic men or shall he lose the votes of women?

Any church which does not allow women to be a part of their governing body has no right to impose any opinion regarding issues with which they will never have to deal. Remember, the book on which the Faith is based was written by men only as well and none of them has ever been confronted with a dangerous pregnancy or one in which becoming pregnant is a mortal danger. Who was it that said if men were the ones to be pregnant, birth control/abortion would be sacrements!

The Priests of the Catholic church have long since lost their moral authority. They have, by their own actions shamed the church of Saint Peter and Christ. All sexually active adults who have adults as their partners are morally superior to Pope Benedict and his co-conspiritors. Let us be clear: over many decades on at least three continents pedifile priests where reassigned to hide them from the law and left to molest children boys and girls, again and again. If anyone knew, Cardinal Ratizinger, now the Supreme Pontif, had to know this was going on. He was the Cardinal tasked with controlling the behavior of priests worldwide. He chose the adult perpetrators over the victims literally hundreds of times.

I am a nurse working at a Catholic affiliated Hospital. So for as I am concerned, the church should have no right to say whether I can or cannot use birth control. A priest once assured me that a married woman with health issues threatening a growing fetus could appeal to the hospital for an exception to their rule. REALLY. Well I'm not interested in appealling to the moral authority of the Catholic Church. 1) I am not now nor have I ever been Catholic and 2) THEY HAVE NO MORAL STANDING.

Chris Matthews should definitely interview lawyer David Boies regarding the constitutionality of the Obama administration decision to force religious organizations to cover birth control for their employees. This move may be a bad political decision, but there is no question that the requirement is constitutional.

David Boies will definitely clarify the issue for Chris.

Chris Matthews let his emotions close his ears. This issue was decided many years ago regarding whether this is a First Amendment issue, and clearly, too. Susan just tried to talk, but he was not listening. From Reynolds v. United States in 1878 comes this statement:

"So here, as a law of the organization of society under the exclusive dominion of the United States, it is provided that plural marriages shall not be allowed. Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? [98 U.S. 145, 167] To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances."

I think that this issue demonstrates why there should be a public insurance option. Employees of religious institutions could opt for public insurance that covered birth control or the institution-provided insurance. Or, possibly take the private insurance with additional public coverage for birth control. Why are the conservatives so opposed to public insurance??

How about me ,I'm forced to pay taxes to support wars I religiously oppose. Do you think the Republicans will vote to send me a check for the portion of my taxes that have gone to the military?

I also was raised in a strong Catholic environment, Chris. The difference between you and me is that because of your gender the Catholic Church did not discriminate against you. Therefore, you are much more generous than I am in your attitude toward the church regarding the HHS ruling. I am disappointed in you on this issue.

This is just a GOP anything to get elected ploy. The Sisters of Providence one of the largest Catholic health care providers in the country have been covering birthcontrol for years. The supreme court 9-0 air ball on the Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC was not even a religous dispute it was a budget dispute. Personal freedoms are under attack by leaders of the far right in the gise of the church.

Chris asks why this HHS proposed ruling on contraceptive care has become such a big issue. The answer should be obvious to an idiot. It is because Catholics like Chris and Bill O'Reilly, who subscribe to the perverted, primitive dogma of the Catholic Church keep talking about it. Why don't these morons grow up, decide to live their life in the 21st Century, and quit trying to tell the rest of us how to live our lives?

Doug H.

I have been a long time fan of yours, but you need to stop letting Tony Perkins get on the air to spew his hate and misinformation.

Chris, Chris, Chris.... you are wrong on this one and I don't often disagree with you. I am a Catholic and proud FORMER Republican. The GOP of today is NOT the party that I belonged to and their response is one of their new strategic smoke screens (pack of lies). This is not about Religious Freedom. Religious Freedom is about the right to choose your church, not the right to force it or it's tenets upon others, especially those not part of that church. A church, any church, does not have the right to control my access to any part of healthcare services which includes contraception, blood transfusions, or whatever. Psssst.....don't tell the Pope but this rule isn't something that Catholic women typically follow. The day that religion trumps an American person's rights will be a sad day in the history of this country. And where does it stop once you allow religion to trump people's rights? If anything, this will polarize the women in this country to go out and vote for President Obama. Look what happened to SGK. Women all over this country jumped on their computers and phones and decried that decision. Women ARE smart enough to see through this. Add this to the sudden attack against Eric Holder and it is clear that the GOP is trying to get attention away from the good economic news any way they can. Standing with the Republicans on the contraception issue is, frankly, pretty sad.

Your personal bias is putting you in an absurd position, both logically and constitutionally. Contrary to you comment an Hardball on 2/9, the political ramifications for the President
certainly do NOT overshadow the constitutional issues, or lack there of. The notion
that religious doctrine BY ITS VERY NATURE trumps civil law is untenable. By
that logic, Warren Jeffs should be a free man, as all of his activities were
well within the parameters of his religion’s doctrine. By that logic, we all
owe David Koresh an apology.

Of course, there is a political aspect, but that’s a two-edged sword. Here’s my
challenge for you: Invite a high-ranking Catholic official to your show, and
ask if he supports an exemption to DOMA for Muslims, the tenants of whose faith
allow a man to have up to four wives. That should end all of the self-serving
pretense that this is about the principle of religious freedom.

This is apalling to me that so many speak about their faith yet they speak from the devil den. Not concerned about the poor yet Jesus always cared about the poor. He surely did not care for the rich. Secondly, who told any of them that they are to shut women out of things. We don't need any of them talking for us. The President shows he cares about women and their health and the clowns feel it is wrong. WHY HASN'T THE CHURCH AND THE RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS MADE THIS MUCH NOISE OVER THE PRIESTS WHO HARMED CHILDREN THAT WERE TRANSFERRED FROM PLACE TO PLACE TO HARM OTHER CHILDREN? WHERE WERE ALL THIS MOUTHS AT THEN? WHAT DOES THEIR FAITH SAY ABOUT THAT TYPE OF BEHAVIOR? Seems that this is an acceptable thing for these faithful minded people. Women don't have rights except what they are told by these faithful but the child abusing priests have held in high esteem by them. Nothing was brought out by those in Congress or the Tea Party, or Conservatives. The Catholic Church has always felt itself exempt from everything which is why those priests did the unthinkable to children. They need to re-read the Scriptures and do what Jesus said and take themselves off the throne. Only one throne, and Jesus is on it!

I am getting SICK of Chris Matthew constantly beating the the Catholic drum about contraceptives it’s PURE HORSE SH*T, that these universities have ALREADY abided by state laws demanding they provide these services to WOMEN employees. I think Obama needs to say FCK U to these colleges, and FCK U to Romney and Santorum ,and FCK U to any TV talking head trying to take away women’s reproductive decisions. He had that vomitous racist homobigot Tony Perkins on from CPAC

I was raised Catholic, but managed to read and reason my way out from under the Church quite a while ago. I don't understand the reaction of Catholic women. It seems a bafflingly impassioned battle against their own interests. Chris, you are still Catholic, so maybe you can tell me why women who defy the Church by using birthcontrol would want to uphold the Church on something on which they think it's wrong. When I was a child, Catholic families often had 6 children they brought to Mass. Now, I gather, they are more likely to have only one or two. Catholic clerics collecting donations from those families must have figured out the reason for the change in family size just like I have. They aren't ex-communicating them or refusing their donations, are they? It's as if lay Catholics are willing to defend to the death the Church's religious right to be hypocritical. It's a form of religious 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' that has as little ethical merit as the military policy did.

Chris is delusional on this issue. It is hard to watch him obsess over something he seems to have no grasp of. His worst instincts - cutting people off, probing for the reply he wants, talking to himself - are all at their worst this week. Really. Religious organizations employ people, thus they are subject to labor and employment law. Under the proposed rule, there is no assault on religious belief or practice - but religious organizations are not to deny their employees services and benefits that the organization wishes to deny them, in accord with its beliefs and practices. The observant can continue to observe, as they wish, but they cannot force those whom they employ to observe in the same manner. It is not clear why this should be said to threaten the First Amendment. Take meds, Chris. This isn't the end of religion as we know it.

Well Chris you embarassed the hell out of John Heilemann tonight.If I were him or any other contributor I would not appear on your show any time soon if at all.You cant keep your mouth shut for two seconds,I would like to hear what the guest on your show has to say for a change.As far as the contraceptive controversy,you are on the wrong side of the issue.Should a CEO of a company (any company)deny birth control to an employee simply because the CEO or someone on the board of directors happens to be catholic?All this issue is doing is providing political fodder to the republicans for the purpose of stalling the rebounding economy.

Chris, I watch your show all the time but you're dead wrong on this one. The entire issue is being overthought.

Here's the crux of the matter ... if a hospital/school accepts payments from Medicaid/Medicare they cannot be allowed to disregard fair labor statutes about the types of health coverage they offer their employees.

It's not an issue of religious freedom, it's an issue about employee rights. Simple as that.

Chris Matthews looses all credibility concerning any issue pertaining to the Catholic Church because he has not achieved what is 'the' most important quality in journalism, and that is objectivity.

He is not capable of looking honestly at any issue that involves the Catholic Church because he is blinded by his own attitude of 'religious elitism'.

Any time there is an issue involving an opinion about 'his' religion, he immediately shuts out anyone who has an opposing observation, and refuses any other point of view to be articulated. He did it today on his show with John Heilemann.

This attitude of his calls his very integrity into question on virtually every other issue about which he talks or writes.

This including his recent book, which would be more accurate had he given credit where credit is due, to Hubert Humphrey (the man who influenced Kennedy's greatest policies) and who I must add was a protestant evangelical, unlike his hero John Kennedy a catholic.

It brings to mind the underhanded interview he had with Jack Conway the Attorney General of Kentucky back in 2010.

Matthews, displayed his ugly underbelly and used Jack Conway has his "religious -scapegoat" by misstating the facts and attacking the Attorney General from behind, with a personal narcissistic objective of highlighting his own religiosity.

David Frum is a conservative, but not in the Tea Party mode, and he had very interesting post today.

"The idea is that they are not against contraception. They are only against requiring any employer or plan to provide contraception if that employer or plan conscientiously objects to contraception.

So they say, so they may sincerely believe.

But politics is not only about what you say. It is also about what your intended audience will hear.

If the audience is paying attention, for example, it will notice that Republicans are not proposing to allow employers and plans to refuse to cover blood transfusions if they conscientiously object to them (although there are religious groups that do). Or vaccinations (although there are individuals who conscientiously object to those as well). Or medicines derived from animal experimentation. (Ditto.)

No, Marco Rubio's Religious Freedom Restoration bill provides for one conscientious exemption only: contraception and sterilization.

Which means it will be very hard if not impossible to persuade the target audience that this debate is not in fact about contraception. Everybody quite sure that's a wise debate to have?"

@Chris Matthew if you insist on throwing WOMEN under the Catholic BUS, here's an easy option for you. Address your audience tomorrow and say any viewer that uses or has used birth control to TURN of your SHOW,....put up or shut up.

you don't need 98% of Americans watching Hardball do you?

Chris, a few points, which I hope someone on your show will review with you if you don't read these comments:

1) When will you inform people that the recommendation to cover birth control as a preventive service originated with the non-partisan, independent Institute of Medicine, whose members consist of doctors and medical researchers? They made the recommendation because they concluded that the negative economic, social, psychological and medical consequences of unintended pregnancies make them a public health issue. They also noted that free access to birth control would reduce the incidence of abortion. It's hard to argue with any of these points.

2) In what way does the fact that religious institutions in some of those 28 states mandating contraceptive coverage require a copay imitigate the Church's claim that providing access to contraceptive coverage through health insurance is morally unacceptable to them? The institutions are still providing access to these services, whether or not their employees and/or students have a co-pay. What's the moral difference? In fact, this is a distinction without any difference at all.

3) When will you discuss how, if the Church has its way, the many employees and students who would receive insurance coverage at Catholic-affiliated institutions would be deprived of a benefit that employees at other institutions serving comparable secular purposes will be receiving under the law? Why, when Catholic hospitals and universities employ and teach many who are not members of their faith, should the healthcare options provided to these individual women be restricted by the fact that their employer is a Catholic institution? Catholic hospitals exist for the practice of medicine, not as places of worship, and the same is true of Catholic universities; though they certainly exist in part because of their religious mission, that is not the defining element of their identity and purpose. I have not heard any genuine effort by you to address this point, and you have not allowed your guests the time to discuss it.

Chris Matthews is anything but "hardball" when it comes to issues that are near and dear to him, such as the Catholic Church and JFK. He rudely cuts off Heilemann with his ridiculous banter that the regulation is different than the laws in the other 28 states because the other laws require a "co-pay" by the employee. I can't believe that his Catholic education failed to teach him that "co-pay" means a portion of the contraception is still paid by the employer, i.e., the Catholic Church. Chris - while I admittedly am not Catholic and unfamiliar with Catholic teachings, are you now telling me that the Catholic Church exempts institutions that pay less than 100% for contraceptions from having to adhere to its moral teachings against contraception. If you truly wanted a "hardball" discussion on this issue, then why don't you invite David Boise on your show and allow him to explain to you and your viewers that there is no First Amendment issue here. The Supreme Court already denied cert on this issue (oh, but that case involved a co-pay). Why don't you put the polling data on your screen for your viewers to see that a larger percentage of Catholics support the regulation when compared to the general public. I have no problem with you couching this as a political headache for the President, but playing "hardball" requires you to call a spade a spade and admit that this is NOT a constitutional issue. If you seriously worked through your comment about why the disparate treatment for the janitor working at the convent and the janitor working at the school across the street, you would understand that it is not about the First Amendment - it simply is that the government has agreed to exempt the convent janitor from this law, i.e., the government is NOT implying that the convent janitor is protected under the First Amendment by not exempting the school janitor. If the President loses the Catholic vote, the broader religious vote and/or the election over this issue, then it will not be because he trampled over our First Amendment rights. Not only are you wrong on this issue, but you owe Heilemann an apology.

p.s. I mentioned JFK as another example, and, after seeing the Mimi Alford interview last night on Rock Center, I also think you are wrong to hold JFK in such high esteem given the details of the affair (especially the Dave Powers encounter - I don't know what troubled me most: the request by a sitting President; or the President's voyeurism). I can't wait for you to have Mimi Alford on your show - it was anything but Camelot. Maybe she can weigh in on the need for free contraception given her scare that President Kennedy had impregnated her.