This is insane. Watermelon-flavored Oreos is insane. Ryan Seacrest has 13 million Twitter followers is insane. But absolutely nothing compares to the socially accepted fact that men are making laws about women's bodies. That's crazy town.
The recent decision on contraception was not about the sanctity of human life, non-interference in religious freedom, or scriptural high ground. It was a victory, pure and simple, for those who want to control women's bodies.
I cannot fault the owners of the closely held for-profit corporations and their lawyers for pressing their claims. That is the owners' right and their lawyers' duty. I can fault the five members of the Supreme Court who issued the decision.
To make amends and shore up the "angry bigot" vote, the GOP quickly made the (very bizarre) decision to jump back on the warpath against their once-timid old nemesis, an enemy that has now become, much to their confusion, the most potent foe imaginable: women.
After the landmark ruling denying employees of Hobby Lobby access to contraception, several employees have banded together to pool their skills and ...
Since the Supreme Court issued its decision, many people have suggested boycotting Hobby Lobby and other such businesses. While I support such a decision, it misses the bigger issue.
The Court hedged about whether its Hobby Lobby reasoning applies to all religious claims. I'm not sure which is worse: the idea that that this is a wedge that will dislodge further freedoms from interference by employers or that it should only bar contraception used by women.
On Monday, the Supreme Court issued a landmark decision in the case of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, likely affecting access to contraception for millions of women across the country.
It is crucial for everyone to exercise their constitutional right to cast a ballot... even in midterm elections like the one coming up in November. After all the ballots are counted, someone is going to win whether you take part or not.
The used-car sales lobby must be licking its chops. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the Susan B. Anthony List (an antiabortion group) may sue over an Ohio law that prevented it from making false statements about a political candidate.
If the right to get married -- though not specifically mentioned by the founding fathers -- is deemed fundamental to unfettered human experience, wouldn't the same argument be made in regards to physical intimacy?
In a very general sense, in evaluating the constitutionality of law restricting speech, the Court has drawn an important distinction between laws that restrict speech because of its message ("content-based" laws) and laws that restrict speech without regard to its message ("content-neutral" laws).
Thursday's Supreme Court ruling in McCullen vs. Coakley, despite the unified outcome and facade, makes it clear that abortion is and will continue to be a wedge issue dividing the justices for years to come.
What do New Jersey Governor Chris Christie and writer Anais Nin have in common? Not a whole lot, Christie would probably say. But a case can be made for their similar positions on one major issue: the importance of motherhood.
It is one thing to pass a law, it is another to enforce it. If only a few people disobey it, they can be prosecuted. If many do, the capacity of the courts and, if necessary, the prison system, can be overwhelmed.
The nation's largest religious body is also by far the most likely to have its congregations take to the streets in public demonstrations or lobby the halls of power on moral issues, a new study finds.